meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_04092018_CF 314274 | Speaker 2: The report of the full council agenda. Items three and four. CLERK 4314 274. Full full. Unit Lots of division application in charge like how to subdivide three park development sites into 18 units lots at 2646 South West Holden Street support 119 232 approving and confirming the platinum adjourning glen and portions of the Southeast one half and Southwest one fourth quarter Section 25 Township 24th, North Range three east a m in King County.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Oh, my colleagues can hear me. Okay. This is a final disposition of some properties in the High Point rock sale neighborhoods of West Seattle a couple of years ago. As part of an application to build more housing in this neighborhood, three lots were preliminarily subdivided, and as is our requirements, the Council is required to come back and approve a final grant of plat approval and those are the two actions that are in front of us today. The clerk filed a council bill that the clerk just read into the record. This is a pretty straightforward action, but I'm happy to answer any questions that folks might have. But these things are already built, and this is just our final action to be consistent with the hearings. Examiners report a review of this in 2016.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Are there any comments? And, Madam Clerk, I just want to make sure we did read both the file and the bill into the record. Correct. Okay. So we'll vote on them separately. First, I'll move to file clerk file 314274.
Speaker 7: Second.
Speaker 1: Any further comments? Those in favor of filing the clerk file please vote. I buy those oppose vote no. The motion carries and that file is filed. Second, I will move to pass Council Bill 119230. Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez Hi. Herbold Hi. Johnson.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 3: Macheda. I O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant, President and Herald. Hi. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. | Clerk File (CF) | Full unit lot subdivision application of Gerard Lacaille to subdivide three development sites into eighteen unit lots at 2646 SW Holden St (Project No. 3018840/Type III). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04092018_CB 119229 | Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any other comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and appointments are confirmed. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 2: To be put at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Agenda Item 12 Constable 119229 relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority authorizing execution of the Project Administration Agreement between San Transit and the City of Seattle for the West, Seattle and Ballard Lake Extensions Project and ratifying, confirming search and prior exec committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. This legislation follows up on legislation passed in the last year or maybe it was even the beginning of this year. This is part of the broader work to coordinate between the city's work and sound transit's work as we work to design, develop and ultimately build sound transit. Three. This agreement specifically talks about the relationship between how the city will be doing the permitting work, and specifically it talks about the compensation the city will receive from sound transit for the permitting specialists that will be on hand to make sure that this work is streamlined.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez i. Herbold i. Johnson Mosquera i. O'Brien, I want President Herrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and sure will sign it. Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (“Sound Transit”); authorizing execution of a project administration agreement between Sound Transit and The City of Seattle for the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04092018_CB 119224 | Speaker 1: Bill passed and sure will sign it. Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee and Item 13 counts 4119224 related to the City Department amending Section 21.40 9.1 37 Pacifica to clarify certain contracting details. And that is subsection two, the department's authority to contract for energy efficiency through conservation efforts. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very excited about items 13 and 14 on our agenda. These two pieces of legislation really came from the incredible work that the Blue Green Coalition has done, bringing together labor and industry that is trying to create a green energy economy and good living wage jobs. I want to thank the folks who have worked on this for over two years, really? Folks from the Bullet Foundation, from the Labor Council, from the Sierra Club, from community at large and from Seattle City Life, who have put a number of provisions into place and piloted efforts to make sure that we are truly creating more energy efficient buildings and thinking proactively about what we need to do to hold up our end of the responsibility. I see. Dennis Hayes here, thank you so much for your incredible work at the Bullet Foundation. And we look forward to these pieces of legislation advancing the commitments that we've put into place already. I would love to speak first to Council Bill 119224 and then 119225. Constable 119224 helps to expand our city's very successful pay for report pay for performance program to a large range of commercial buildings. They are expanding the current effort from 24 months contract to up to 84 months, which is seven years. I want to note that the Seattle City Light intends to make sure that we are paying for 3 to 5 year period with an additional two years to cover time between the contract signing and the project completion. Also, I think it's important to note that the energy savings from this program will continue to contribute to the state's regulatory and City Climate Action Plan targets. Look forward to working with our city and community partners to implement 119224.
Speaker 1: Very good. Excellent. Any comments? Councilmember Bryant.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Skinner, to thank you so much for your work on this and getting this done. Following on a pilot program that has worked really well. And unfortunately, it's and often is the case, it's can be unbearably hard to pass the right set of regulations to allow people to do the work that we really need to do to meet that kind of clean energy future and our carbon emission goals. I want to thank the amazing folks in the community, Dennis Hayes as mentioned, and a whole host of other folks that have refused to give up on this work when it's hard to get through the regulatory process. And so, Councilman Mosquito, thank you for getting this done. And I look forward to seeing all these projects move forward and seeing how we can't make all the buildings in our city as clean and green as the board center.
Speaker 1: Very good. We ready to vote? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez Herbold High Johnson Mosquito I O'Brien Salon President Harrell seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed in show assignment. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 2: Agenda item 14. Agenda Item 14. Constable 119225. Link to the satellite department authorizing execution of agreements for up to 30 buildings, including building participating in the city's 2030 challenge high performance existing building project pilot for the purchase and or sale of energy occurring as part of the energy efficiency as a service pilot projects with a contract length | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Section 21.49.130 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify certain contracting details and add a subsection to the Department’s authority to contract for energy efficiency through conservation efforts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04092018_CB 119225 | Speaker 2: Agenda item 14. Agenda Item 14. Constable 119225. Link to the satellite department authorizing execution of agreements for up to 30 buildings, including building participating in the city's 2030 challenge high performance existing building project pilot for the purchase and or sale of energy occurring as part of the energy efficiency as a service pilot projects with a contract length of up to 20 years to test the viability of providing energy efficiency as a service. As part of the utility's pay for performance program, the committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: And councilmember said, I'm aware you have an amendment, so go ahead and speak through the base legislation and the amendment altogether, and then we'll do a formal motion on the amendment.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I want to thank the committee for their work on this and the entire coalition and community that came forward to advocate for this legislation. What we have in front of us is a combination of language that came from the coalition, from Seattle City Life and from the community at large, who wants to make sure that as we create the ability to have a greener energy economy, that when we create green, efficient buildings, that we're also creating opportunities for folks to have access to good living wage jobs in this new green energy economy. The language that you have in front of you enhances some of the legislation that we discussed in committee that last week with an effort to aim to increase the number of individuals who are working on these sites with apprenticeship. Criteria, credentials, the number of individuals who are coming forward to participate in our prevailing wage opportunities, the number of individuals who are coming forward as both workers and contractors who are from women and minority owned businesses. This is a really great opportunity and I think we're leading by example not only with creating a green energy economy, but making sure more people have access to these good living wage jobs. We know that historically the folks who are most affected by climate change are those who've done the least to cause it, especially low wage workers, women and people of color who often live on the margins and are more likely to suffer the consequences of climate change . So what we're doing today, I think, is really forward looking, very inclusive, and I'm excited to work with our council on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito. So, Councilmember Skinner, would you like to make a formal motion to amend Section five?
Speaker 2: I move that we amend Section five with the proposed legislation that is in front of you.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 1: To move moving second to amend section five as stated by councilmember skater. All those in favor of the amendment please vote i. I opposed the have a minute piece of legislation. Councilmember Skate, did you have any further words on this legislation?
Speaker 2: Well, Mr. President, I apologize for not asking you about this beforehand, but I wondered if we might suspend the rules to see if Dennis has any comments that you'd like to add before we vote on this as well.
Speaker 1: If there's no objection, we could hear from Mr. Hayes for a few moments to grace us with a few words of wisdom on this legislation.
Speaker 2: Thank you for letting me put you on the spot, Mr. Hayes.
Speaker 1: No problem. But the 22nd clock on him, please.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Council. I think that all of the most important things have already been said by Councilmember Mosquito. The one addition that I would make as someone who's been in this field now for well in excess of four decades, almost always when you're dealing with something that enhances the greenness or the efficiency of buildings, it's a zero sum game. Somebody pays, somebody receives, somebody wins. Somebody loses. This particular energy efficiency as a service approach, which we used to refer to as Meets and Cantlie, this is a better name for it is one where everybody wins. The tenants get a much better building. The landlord gets a reasonable return on its investment. The utility continues to make a rate of return. And all of the other utility ratepayers who would have to pay something if we were not to get new energy supplies instead of investing in efficiencies, keep their rates low. And of course, there are those very high quality jobs that come out of it as well. It's win, win, win across the board. And I'm delighted that the council seemed favorably disposed toward it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Okay. Well, I think that's a good segue into a vote. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzales, i. Herbold, i. Johnson Mosquera i. O'Brien Sergeant. President. Harrell All right. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. All right, please read agenda item number 15. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing execution of agreements for up to 30 buildings, including buildings participating in the City’s 2030 Challenge High Performance Existing Building Pilot, for the purchase and/or sale of energy occurring as part of the Energy Efficiency as a Service pilot projects with a contract length of up to 20 years to test the viability of providing Energy Efficiency as a Service as part of the utility’s pay for performance program. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04022018_CB 119221 | Speaker 2: The report of the full council agenda item one Council Bill 119221.
Speaker 3: You can read short.
Speaker 1: Title two if you like.
Speaker 2: An ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending section 7.2 for 7.0. I'm sorry. 7.24 to 3.4. 2 to 3.4. 4 to 3.4. 5 to 3.4. 6 to 3.47 a to 3.4. 8 to 3.4. 9 to 3 point. I'm trying to do the short title to 3.50 to 3.51 aim and two 3.54 to 3.2 3.61 to 3.6 6 to 3.7 1 to 3.7 4 to 3.76.
Speaker 1: You can read a short title if you like. I don't know how to love the Seattle.
Speaker 2: This will code repealing section to 3.71.01 of of the CMC and adding new sections to the CMC. Introduced March 26, 2018.
Speaker 1: Before I turn to Florida, Councilmember Johnson, were you. I apologize for interrupting. I should have instructed. Were we clear on the title being read in? Did I messed that up? Are we okay? We're good. We're good to go, Councilmember Johnson. For sure, sir.
Speaker 0: That's how long the short title is. When I want to talk about parking. Just we've talked about this a lot because it's been two plus years of discussion about off street parking requirements. But let me just remind folks about a couple of things that are in the bill. Well, then I think have a discussion about a proposed amendment. And then once we get through with that, I'd love to reserve a little time at the end to just talk about what happens moving forward. So several things to highlight here. The first of which is this bill is aimed at trying to make the city a more affordable place for folks. We're trying to do that in a couple of different ways, the first of which is creating a flexible use parking standard, which allow people who currently own parking lots or parking garages to facilitate shared parking between uses . Right now, that is legally prohibited. It would eliminate that prohibition to allow for currently underutilized parking to be better shared in neighborhoods. Why is this important? Recent studies from King County and other places have shown that even in very dense neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, as much as a third of the parking overnight in those neighborhoods is not being used. So what we've got here is a lot of parking and a lot of people looking for parking. And this allows us to marry those to the supply and the demand. The second thing that it does is it clarifies frequent transit service and how that frequent transit service is measured. Increases, clarifies the watershed to that frequent transit service and allows for developers to build build buildings in that neighborhood with parking if they want to, but it doesn't require them to do so. That's the big distinction here. Current rules require them to do so. We're not requiring them. Many developers still are choosing to build parking, but we're just not saying you have to build parking. A third thing that it does here is it unbundled the parking from the residential and commercial leases, which will allow for a renter who is renting a building with a parking space and they may not have a car to not have to pay for that parking space. Ditto for those in commercial leases. And that will increase a lot of transparency about the transportation costs and and who's paying for it. This would eliminate the parking requirement for all affordable housing projects. All throughout the city, we've talked to affordable housing developers in and around even our light rail stations where they were previously required to build parking. And those requirements have resulted in unused parking spaces in their buildings, which adds to the cost for those developers and really takes away from the housing opportunity for us. And in the final thing that it does is it updates and increases bike parking requirements. We could have spent probably the entirety of today just talking about the differences of the amendment strategy that we talked about on bike parking. But this helps to streamline and clarify some of the bike parking amendments to just for the sake of transparency. I want to push back a little bit on one of the comments that I heard during public comment that this is not a data based approach. We we wouldn't have done this for over two years if we weren't going to take a data based approach. And there's a lot of really good data out there on parking. I won't bore everybody with the nerdiness behind it, but I will say that the still Department of Transportation, this is a department of construction and inspections put together a really good map that shows the impact that this legislation would have in neighborhoods throughout the city. And you can really see there's a correlation, strong correlation between where folks live without cars and where frequent transit service exists. People are choosing to live in neighborhoods that have frequent transit when you don't own a car. And that's because that's the only way that you get around. So when we make it easier for developers to build buildings in and around frequent transit service and don't require them to build parking, it will end up being beneficial for everybody . So I'll stop there. Why don't we talk about the amendments and then let's circle back around for some closing comments.
Speaker 1: Sounds good. Any further comments before we turn over Councilmember Herbold? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, I do. I need to move this, Amelia. Do I need to move it? I'm sorry to put the best legislation in front of us. I move for adoption of countable 119221.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think it has to be moved because it did come out of committee.
Speaker 3: It's a good report.
Speaker 1: Oh, very good. So it's been moved in second. We're good. Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Good catch, Councilman.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm moved to amend Council Bill 11 9221, Section 63 and 65 through 68 of the bill as presented on the amendment. This amendment would allow SDI to mitigate parking impacts in urban villages with frequent transit service only where parking minimums are eliminated, and only in those locations where on street parking occupancy exceeds 85%.
Speaker 1: I'll Second Amendment.
Speaker 2: I think you may speak to the amendment.
Speaker 1: Yes, please, councilman. Honorable.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I just wanted to start by saying I agree wholeheartedly with many of the signs in the audience today, specifically the signs that say that we should prioritize room for people, not cars. This amendment does not obligate SDI to require mitigation through SIPA. It only gives them the flexibility to do so under some very, very narrow conditions. The tools that are in the amendment are given as options. Those tools are transportation management plans, parking management and allocation plans, incentives for use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles, increasing the amount of parking required for development and reducing nonresidential densities. This version of the amendment removes the option of limiting our permits upon the advice of the law department, and it prioritizes these five tools with increasing parking, parking requirements and reducing densities to be the options considered last. And it gives SDC the ability to craft a draft director's rule before this amendment goes into effect. The version heard in the Bylaws Committee did not include these particular elements in this version of of the amendment. Central staff last year or this year analyzed last year's data and looked at 136 projects. Of those 136 projects, only six of them would have triggered this super mitigation. Of those six projects, three of them provided parking for other reasons. So if last year's data is a good comparison, this tool would have only been a consideration of SDI in three of 136 projects or 2%. And again, it does not require them to use the mitigation tools. It is only a trigger for their consideration. The city has entirely removed the authority to use NEPA to mitigate the parking impacts of projects that that do have impacts when those projects are are in areas where the city has removed parking requirements. Areas referred to as frequent transit areas and states. EPA actually requires developers to do parking studies as part of the permitting process. But when those studies show that a development without parking is going to create a problem, Sky can't require mitigation in those instances. What SDI Stsci tells to the public is, and I quote, While impacts to parking could be substantial, we are unable to mitigate the impacts. In what instances will this matter? It matters in areas where car ownership is high and parking availability is low. Many of those still driving are renters. And with nearly 70% of our renter population in Seattle earning less than the median income, this is a little more than $200 a day before taxes. They are the ones who are likely to have the most difficult time getting by without access to parking options. These folks work in jobs that require car ownership. They have child care and elder care obligations. They are struggling already. And if they live in neighborhoods with more than 85% parking capacity, they will struggle more without some sort of parking mitigation. One of Donald Trump's most famous recommendations is to propose a policy that targets an 85% occupancy rate for street parking by modulating parking prices. This is a policy that we've adopted here in Seattle when determining what the proper amount is for pay parking. What this means is that by understanding parking demand is a price responsive quantity when parking is overloaded. Prices can simply be increased to return to a desired occupancy rate by depressing demand. Why the 85% standard? The 85% standard is used because it's a good compromise between optimal use of the parking spots and allowing for drivers to find a parking spot easily avoiding cars driving around for 5 to 10 minutes to find a parking spot. Seattle is in the top five of cities for number of hours, 58 hours a year spent looking for parking. Failure to mitigate parking impacts in instances where it is warranted is a very big environmental issue. CPA requires us to look not only the impact of decisions on plants, animals, air quality and water, but also on housing, public services and historic preservation. In a 15 block study conducted by Donald Shoup. He said a vehicle seeking a parking spot over the course of a year, the search for curb parking in that 15 block district created about 950,915 I'm sorry, 950,000 excess miles of travel, equivalent to 38 trips around the earth or for trips to the moon. This cruising these 950,000 miles waste 47,000 gallons of gas and produces 730 tons of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. And so, again, this mitigation tool is really only designed to be triggered in those extreme cases that without it, we are actually going to contribute more to the problem that we're trying to address.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Any further comments on the amendment? Only we're just taking the amendment. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, you know, I want to say I love when people quote Donald Shoup. I'm wearing my to button today. You know, I appreciate his work and your reference to it. Most of that reference relates to the on street parking requirements, which is a little bit different from today's off street parking requirements. And let me provide you another shoe piece to quote, which is parking requirements. Reduce the supply. When parking requirements, reduce the supply of apartments, they increase the price of housing. And on some days, planners think about housing affordability, but on most days they think about parking and forget about housing affordability. So when we require a developer to build 25 to $35000 per parking space for parking that goes unused, I think that it results in more expensive housing. And so I'm going to be voting no on this amendment and encouraging my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments on the amendment only? Okay. I'm seeing any hands, so I'll just say brief remarks is no surprises based on our discussion this morning that I sort of want to give some context. I think the fight for clean air, clean water and fight against global warming is a noble fight fight by some noble warriors. And so I certainly don't criticize or denigrate or second guess those advocates. I'm supporting this amendment because I don't believe this is inconsistent with that fight. And I believe that it's just, again, a very limited basis. A mitigation tool in addition to CDC are looking at and before this tool is used, looking at transportation management programs that can help us out with the issue, parking management and allocation plans, incentives for the use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. So in other words, consistent with seep in can and consistent with an environmental analysis looking at other options. And then again, this being one tool that can possibly be used because of the parking issue that we have. And this particularly is in I think our public testimony today would be would support that the the argument that many communities of color, many of our poor residents are affected directly by this. And in certain situations, that could be one of many factors that should be considered considered when looking at how we are growing our city. So I support Councilmember Herbold amendment, and I want to thank you for doing a deep dove on this issue. And we're just going to talk about the amendment only now. So I see some hint and I see I guess I ask you right before I speak and then I but.
Speaker 6: You were of inspired.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I saw a councilmember who wants to go first councilmember but scalar, you get the Floridian experiment back show.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say thank you to Councilmember Johnson for working on the underlying amendment and our underlying bill and to Councilmember Herbold for her work on this amendment. I've heard the positions and discussions on both sides of this decision that we have to make today. And ultimately, for me, this is about how we work to create more affordable housing throughout this city. In front of us is an opportunity, I believe, to reduce the cost of housing, especially near frequent transit hubs, and so that we can create more affordable units overall throughout the city. And that said, this is not, as I understand, an effort to try to change parking requirements citywide. I do think that the conversation that you've begun today will help us later on this year as we have a conversation about street parking requirements. So the comments have been well received and I think very much appreciated. And again, I appreciate the work and your commitment to bring this forward. I will be a no on this amendment today, but I want to underscore the importance of of why I think it's important for us to create affordable housing using every tool in our toolbox to encourage affordable housing, and also recognizing that this will be affordable housing near transit hubs, because renters like me are more likely to be individuals who don't have a car. In fact, 27% of us as councilmember horrible mentioned, don't have a car. And for our elders over 65, the majority of folks also don't have a car. So while we want to work together to collaboratively identify ways to increase transit transportation options, make sure that everyone in our community has access to affordable transportation means. I want to make sure that we all underscore our importance here of not just leaving the conversation today about parking, but really trying to underscore that this is about affordable housing, increasing our commitment to transit across this community and having a deeper conversation later this year when it comes to off street parking. So thank you so much for bringing this forward and I look forward to the future conversations around this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Square, that comes from a packed shop.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And this is piling on. Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you for allowing this. Councilmember Herbold, I really want to. Thank you and appreciate the fact that you brought this forward last week and acknowledged the fact that we've got really strong, competing, good goals, that we are trying to make it as easy as possible for neighbors to get around. We are also recognizing the affordable housing. Today I am going to be voting against your amendment, but I want you to know and appreciate the fact that I clearly acknowledged the needs for the supply and demand. We got a lot more people moving into our city. We're trying to keep it as affordable as possible and affordable. Put that in air quotes, because we know that it isn't available. But I do believe that there's work that we can do on the off street parking and on street parking as this goes forward. And Councilmember Johnson and all on the Transportation Land Use Committee have been looking at this and all of you who have been out there advocating for various positions, I am I really acknowledge how hard this is and that we have these, as I said, competing goals where we're trying to get people inside, get them into housing, but also with the mobility to move people around. So I want to acknowledge the good work that people have been doing, and I want to move forward with your underlying legislation affirmatively and as fast as possible.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So without further ado, I'm going to call for the vote on the amendment only councilmember verbal there's we get to go on the vote. Okay. So all those in favor of the amendment, please vote I and raise your hand, i. Account seven and oh, all those opposed say no, no. Okay, the amendment fails. So so we have the it fails 2 to 7 and councilmember 2 to 6. I'm sorry, 2 to 6. Council Member Johnson Would you like to say any more words about the base legislation?
Speaker 0: I'm happy to. I don't know if any other of my other colleagues want to make any additional remarks, but if if there aren't any, I'm happy to close the debate on topic.
Speaker 1: I think we're good to go. Oh, no, we do. Okay. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So this is a tough one. There's a lot to like about this legislation in particular. I really appreciate the unbundling of rent from parking. This will save renters money. I also appreciate allowing the building owners to make unused parking in their buildings available to the general public. And I thank the committee for the inclusion in this legislation of two amendments that we're not discussing today, because they did pass committee, but that were very important to residents of my district. But here's my problem. Work was written in 2005. It was republished in 2011. A 2013 Journal of American Planning Association says ships failure to update the book also means that he only hints at the latest scholarship. Recent research suggests the importance of considering context when implementing planning and design standards. While Shoup provides examples of places like central business districts and universities where parking supply could be reduced because of the availability of other travel options, he does not develop a coherent argument for context sensitive parking policies. The use of academic theory should be informed by real world application and rigorous study of their impacts and their outcomes towards meeting our policy goals. Since Seattle's removal of parking minimums in urban centers and urban villages with frequent transit service, there's been no evaluation supporting the claim that the result has been reduced car ownership in these areas. In fact, car ownership has remained flat since 2012. This is despite six years experience with with with this policy. A particular importance to me is how policies that in some neighborhoods may punish people who need their cars. What is really important to me is that the growth of the gig economy, specifically driving jobs since sheeps work, Amazon, Flex, Instacart, Uber and Lyft were not the lifeblood side jobs providing supplemental income for struggling families back in 2005. We legislator values, but in legislating, we must balance our values in a way that recognizes our cities are not urban planning or public policy models in a laboratory. Our cities are made of people with unique qualities that don't always fit in our models of how we hope the world to be. And so sometimes we have to compromise around the edges. For example, we on the Council oppose discrimination, but in the last two years we've passed two pieces of legislation the source of income discrimination bill and fair chance housing that made an exception for small landlords, allowing them to discriminate against our values. We also believe that workers are helped when they know their schedules in advance via the secure scheduling ordinance. But we exempted many employers from this value. The compromise, I thought today is like that. Council supports the value of supporting people who choose to live car free lives. I do as well. I live in a neighborhood with driveways and plentiful on street parking. When members of the public who don't live in neighborhoods like mine and with lives that are different than mine, asked me to consider a compromise to my values. I feel it's my responsibility and duty to do so. So my vote today is not against a prior council's removal of parking minimums. In 2012, though, I am going to vote against this legislation, it is instead a vote against expanding these parking minimums without first evaluating our existing policies, without considerate consideration of the social justice impacts on low income folks who need their vehicles, and without accepting a very modest amendment that would allow, not require SDI, the flexibility to mitigate parking impacts in very, very narrow circumstances.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I want to thank Councilmember Johnson, first of all, for your work on this. This took a long time and a lot of work to get through here. And I know that hasn't been easy. And I really appreciate your persistence on this. I want to say this bill has been really challenging for me, not challenging to support this. And I'm clear that I will be supporting this and I appreciate the work on this, but challenging and hearing the concerns that have come out of the community on this. To be clear, what this bill does is a modest change to the legislation passed a number of years ago. The councilmember. Herbold referred to. It will expand the elimination of parking minimums to a small handful of neighborhoods beyond where it has been for the last number of years. It also clarifies our definition of frequent transit based on what I think many of us here are about to vote on, to say that the hearing examiners interpretation of our previous one was not what we intended. So we will clarify that. The outcry I've heard from many folks in our community has been loud and very direct. And I want to make sure that everyone knows out there that I have heard that. And I believe I understand the concerns, the concerns about the frustration when you cannot find a free on street parking spot in front of or near your home or a business you're trying to visit. I share that frustration when I'm in that same situation. It's maddening. But I also want to highlight that this is a city that is committed to reducing the impacts of climate change. We embrace the commitment to be carbon neutral by the year 2050. We embrace work to fight Arctic drilling. We embrace work to fight pipelines. The work on climate we're doing and protection of free on street parking are mutually exclusive. We cannot do both of those and make those a top priority. As we move forward and start working on on street parking, I want to be clear where I will be on those issues, too. I will not support policies that discriminate against certain types of people in neighborhoods versus others specifically. I will not support policies that say homeowners should have access to the permits, but renters do not get those same benefits. I do not. I will not support policies as in this legislation. Does that say that if you're in the neighborhood today and you don't have on street parking, that's fine. But new people moving to the neighborhood need to have off street parking. I do not think that's fair. Katherine Herbold talked about punishing people who need to drive. What I think this bill does is actually allows people that are new to neighborhoods they cannot afford to afford on street parking, the ability to have access to on street parking and not require that they pay for that on street parking. That's why I think this legislation is fair. This bill is going to pass today. And the reason it's going to pass or one of the reasons it's going to pass is because you all have elected a council that is committed to doing climate work. Well, we'll continue to weigh in on issues like Arctic drilling and fighting pipelines. We also, as a community, have to take actions to change our impacts on the climate right here locally. We're going to have to take hundreds of actions like this one today. And these are hard actions because they require each of us to slightly change the way that we live in our communities. We have a question before us as a community, and this is the part that's been really hard for me, is which way are we going to go? Are we going to embrace fighting climate change and supporting a planet that can support life for everyone? Or are we going to shift to focusing on protecting our narrow interests locally? I don't want to paint folks that are opposed to this legislation as bad people. I know a lot of you and I have friends that have concerns about this. But we have to figure out how as a community, we make that transition to a carbon free. And sometimes that might be car free future. And it's going to be it's going to involve significantly hard decisions like this. I'm really grateful for folks that have pushed for this. I appreciate hearing from everyone in the community, including folks that strongly disagree with the vote I am about to take. But I want to question us as a community. Where are we going to go when it comes to how we fight for climate change moving forward? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Kerry O'Brien. Any further comments from any of our colleagues? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 0: I'll be brief, Mr. Chair. So I just want to say a couple of quick things as we close up the discussion. Fundamentally, I come to this because I believe it's unfair for us to have a city where parking is abundant and free and housing is scarce and expensive. And I'm working hard to try to change that. And that's what this legislation is about. It's not as far reaching as the actions that are being taken by other cities around the world, where other cities are banning the construction of new parking or considering instituting parking maximums. What we're doing here is we're allowing the market to decide where a developer chooses to build parking or on a frequent transit service. They can choose to build it, or they can choose not to build it if they don't want to. We're also making that a targeted issue insofar as we're not eliminating this requirement in places that don't have frequent transit service. So we are recognizing the reality of the circumstance that the city that we live in. But we also just generally know that there are about 70 people moving to the city of Seattle every day, and we can't also absorb 70 cars per day and expect to live in a world that has clean air, is free from traffic violence and is cheaper. And so for me, this is about a sensible set of solutions that will allow us to take the 5 to 6 million parking spaces that we have in the city and allow for the 700,000 cars that we have in the city to be able to better utilize those millions of parking spaces. So I'm excited to bring this legislation forward to a vote. I just want to say a couple of quick thank you to a couple of folks, Gordon Flowers and Mary Catherine Snyder from D.C.. I have worked hard on this legislation. I'm grateful to you all for your work. Listen, Whitsunday of Council Central Staff put in a lot of time and energy, particularly in his free time, getting through a whole lot of very dense academic tome on this. So thanks. Listen to Amy Gore of my office, who dug in more on parking nerd stuff than I imagine she ever thought she would. This has been a fun one to work with you all on, so I'm grateful for the action and looking forward to us voting yes on this bill today.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Johnson. And with that, it's been moved in properly second. So please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Berkshire Gonzalez I. HERBOLD No. JOHNSON All right. Juarez, I must gather, I. O'BRIEN Right. And Council President Harrell.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Seven and excuse me, six in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and show a.
Speaker 2: Senate that's incorrect. Seven in favor.
Speaker 6: One opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and the share was still. Sign it. Thank you very much. Parts of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning, amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 23.42.040, 23.44.030, 23.45.504, 23.45.506, 23.45.508, 23.45.536, 23.45.570, 23.46.002, 23.46.004, 23.46.022, 23.47A.004, 23.47A.006, 23.47A.013, 23.47A.032, 23.48.020, 23.48.085, 23.48.205, 23.48.280, 23.48.605, 23.48.705, 23.49.019, 23.49.042, 23.49.044, 23.49.045, 23.49.046, 23.49.090, 23.49.094, 23.49.096, 23.49.142, 23.49.146, 23.49.148, 23.49.180, 23.49.322, 23.49.324, 23.49.338, 23.50.012, 23.50.028, 23.51A.004, 23.54.015, 23.54.016, 23.54.020, 23.54.025, 23.54.030, 23.61.008, 23.66.122, 23.66.124, 23.66.320, 23.66.324, 23.66.342, 23.71.014, 23.74.008, 23.76.004, 23.76.006, 23.76.032, 23.84A.030, 23.84A.038, and 25.05.675 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); repealing Section 23.71.016 of the SMC; and adding new Sections 23.42.070, 23.54.026, and 23.54.027 to the SMC; in order to promote transportation options, update the definition of “frequent transit service,” update bicycle parking requirements, update parking space standards, update SEPA environmental review parking policies, and make clar | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04022018_CB 119220 | Speaker 1: Thank you. Congratulations. Please read agenda item number three into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda item number three Council Bill 119220. An ordinance relating to the Office of Labor Standards amending Section 14.19 .025 of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove the authority to pay a sub minimum wage to people with disabilities as set forth in R.S. W 49.40 6.0602. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I am extremely, extremely honored to bring this piece of legislation forward after many years of advocacy from the community that you heard from today. This piece of legislation builds on some of the work that I've done in the past. I've spent many years working on labor standards, making sure that we make sure that every worker gets paid at least the minimum wage that we stand up when wage theft is occurring, and that we make sure that all work has dignity. All workers deserve the right to earn at least the minimum wage. That is why it is called the minimum. And today, with the passage of this bill, we are seeing that all work has dignity and all workers deserve that same respect. As you heard from the public testimony this morning, I'd like to reiterate that this was a piece of legislation, a model that was introduced at the federal level in the 1930s. It was designed at a time when there was extremely low expectations, when there was very few opportunities for education and employment opportunities for those with disabilities. The idea was to create sheltered employment at a sub minimum wage to train people how to get into new jobs. But the reality is, as we heard from public testimony today and last week, far too many people are getting stuck in these sub minimum wage jobs for years, sometimes decades. It is imperative for us to move past this model. The new technologies that are at our fingertips, including those here in the city of Seattle, can make employment a possibility for all individuals, including those with disabilities, and create opportunities for education and employment programs throughout their life. I am extremely honored to be able to put forward this piece of legislation and work with you to make sure that we continue to invest in good living wage jobs, not just the minimum wage jobs. I think that it's important to note that the University of Washington's Center for Women's Welfare and their Self-sufficiency Standard report said that according to their 2017 data, a single parent in Seattle needed to make over $3 an hour to support two young children. That would mean two full time jobs if you were able to even get the minimum wage. So here today, we're making sure that everyone at least has access to the minimum wage and that we correct, I think, efforts that are decades old to make sure that everyone can at least earn the minimum wage. I want to also make sure that we recognize Councilmember Herbold and the Office of Labor Standards Work that was initiated last year to eliminate the ability for Office of Labor Standards to issue those certificates so that late last year there was no further certificates for some minimum wages. Thank you for your work on that director's role. And as of today, we're putting that commitment into law. One of the main changes we've also made in from the director's role is around language, because language and words matter. We are removing phrases like deficiency and impairment from public policy, and we're wanting to make sure that this is removed also from the state level in the RC w. RC W. So I'm working with the Office of Intergovernmental Relationships to make sure that next year we advance a legislative agenda to take this language out of our state statute as well. Thanks again to the Commission for People with Disabilities. Thank you so much to the National Federation for the Blind Washington chapter. Thank you to Disability Rights Washington. Thank you to Patricia Lee from central staff for your work on this and Corina Bull and Marti Garfinkel from OAS. Today's legislation reflects changes that were also suggested from Council President Harold offers. We're greatly appreciative of all your work. But I do want to underscore lastly, this came from community. This came directly from the workers impacted. Thank you so much for your advocacy ongoing. We are now following three other states that have taken the same effort and we will be the first city to enact this policy. So thank you for all your incredible work for so long.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Mosqueda, any other comments from any of my colleagues? I'd like to just say a word, and that is I'm very proud to support this ordinance. And I think it's the right thing to do now. And I think the advocates for coming out and expressing their opinions and their voice. One thing that concerns me as we enforce this ordinance is that we do know that people with disabilities are actively discriminated against both in housing practices and in employment practices. And one of the factors that we considered all things equal and we did not have this as part of the code, is whether this would actually help people with disabilities gain employment and gain opportunities knowing that active discrimination actually occurs. We've actually tested this and invested money into testing practices to see if people with disabilities are discriminated against. And guess what? We found out that they were. So I think what's going to be equally important as we look at our investment opportunities and our budget and our workplan for SE OCR is that we monitor this to make sure that it is. It works as well as it looks on paper. And I know that we have a council and a city that are committed to making sure it works. And so, Councilmember Skate, thank you for advancing this legislation. I look forward to supporting it. Any other comments? OC Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Vachon Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Herbold High Johnson Juarez must gather AI O'Brien and Council President Harold Aden favorite and opposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Office of Labor Standards; amending Section 14.19.025 of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove the authority to pay a subminimum wage to people with disabilities as set forth in RCW 49.46.060(2). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03262018_CF 314364 | Speaker 0: Show assignment. Please read agenda item number 17.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item 17 Count Clerk File 314364. Petition of North BLOCK Spring Street Development, LLC for the vacation of the Alley and BLOCK 52 Eya Dennis extension to Terry's First Extension. First Edition The committee recommends the petition be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Because member Brian.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So this alley vacation is on the block. We talked about this a little bit, but the block where town hall is on first hill, the project would vacate the alley to allow for construction of a single underground parking structure that will serve two new towers that are going in on the I guess that would be the southeastern half of the block. And then the alley will be restored. It will no longer be public right away, but there will be passage through there. The public benefit includes a number of benefits, the most prominent of which is public plaza, which will be on the immediately to the southwest of town hall. And I've been a skeptic in the past of public causes as public benefit for street only vacations. But I really want to applaud the applicants on this for what I consider to be really excellent work with the community, including with Town Hall as an entity to design a public plaza that really enhances the public benefits for accessing the town hall. And even for folks that aren't using town halls, it fronts on two adjacent streets. I think this is a good example of a strong set of public benefits worthy of our support for this alley vacation.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further comments, Councilman Johnson?
Speaker 9: Just briefly want to reserve the same thing that I said in the first discussion on this one councilmember run. I agree with you about the public benefit here, but I, I strongly encourage our friends at town hall to consider limiting access. You know, we've set up this wonderful public plaza that's going to be separated from an access point to the town hall, which which will have some bollards to keep folks from the plaza walking into what is going to be a very lightly used space for kind of pick up and drop off. And I would love for us to think about what some street treatments would look like to allow for that to be more of a public space during the times when people won't be at events, the town hall and more of a drop off from times when there are events. I know that's not something we can really condition, but I'm hopeful that our friends at Town Hall and the friends of Lennar will consider that as an alternative so that we can keep more of the space for people more times of the day. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Very good. Okay, this is a clerk file. So those in favor of granting the petition petition as conditions, please vote. I i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as condition and the chair was signed the conditions of the City Council please read items 18 and 19. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of North Block Spring Street Development LLC, for the vacation of the alley in Block 52, A.A. Denny’s Extension to Terry’s 1st Addition. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_CB 119193 | Speaker 2: Agenda item three accountable 119 193 Related to city employment, commonly referred to as fourth quarter 2017 Employment Ordinance designated positions is exempt from civil service status. Returning position to Civil Service Status Amended Section four point 13.0 Attendants Civil Code Transferring position and ratifying confirming reception barracks all by two thirds vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill pass for back.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. What we do annually is to review the Civil Service status and exempt status of city employees. And this recommended action will make six positions exempt from civil service status and return one position to actual classified status. And so it's there's one one position in our start, two in human resources to in i.t our information technology and one in Seattle City Light. Those are all outlined in the ordinance. And then the exempt position will return to PCD and we recommend the approval of this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Very good. Are there any comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Macheda O'Brien St John Gonzalez Purple Johnson, President Herald.
Speaker 0: Height.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show assignment please read agenda item number four the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2017 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from Civil Service status; returning positions to Civil Service status; amending Section 4.13.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; transferring a position; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_CB 119191 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and show assignment please read agenda item number four the short title.
Speaker 2: Agenda item for accountable 1191 Anyone relating to the Department of Finance Administrator Services Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Customer Impact Show.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We have four parcels of property that are being sold. If this council approves two adjoining neighbors, its in the second northeast and 85th in Latonia neighborhood. The history of this is that there were starting in 1927, soon 20 foot wide. They called them playgrounds on both sides of two alleys. Then it went back and forth between the city for 1951 and 1962, and some of the properties were sold to adjoining property owners. And we ended up with four alley segments that remained in the city's control and our our FHA. So finance department notified other departments about these excess property, but they right along the an internal alley there, only about 1350 square feet. The properties were offered each to the adjoining property owners who offered $5,000 for the adjoining parcel. There's no other reasonable use for these parcels there. They're small, as I said, 1300 square feet. And they have been declared property surplus to the city's needs. And this action would authorize the FASB director to sell the properties to the owners.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any comments that please called a run on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Macheda O'Brien. Swann, Bakeshop. Gonzalez, Purple Johnson, President Harrell eight in favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the.
Speaker 1: Senate. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Please read the report from the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; declaring the 20-foot wide properties in the plat of Little’s 85th St. Addition, and adjacent to 8515 and 8521 Latona Ave NE, and adjacent to 8520 and 8526 2nd Ave NE, as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of said properties to the owners of the adjoining properties; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the properties; and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_Res 31802 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item nine Resolution 31802 regarding civil legal aid project with the King County Department of Public Defense and its scope of Work for Representation Services, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So in the 2016 budget process, this council supported funding for what we're calling the Collateral Consequences attorneys as part of a city funded legal aid pilot program. The pilot program has been created to prevent people from losing their housing and having other collateral consequences when they are in the midst of a legal defense for an unrelated offense. Prior to the pilot, the attorneys at the King County Public Department of Public Defense under contract with the city to provide statutorily required defense services, were actually prohibited from working to address these collateral consequences. The creation of this pilot has allowed specialized staff with the King County Department of Public Defender to advocate for the accused , keep their housing during the legal review and plea bargaining processes. Stage two of this pilot anticipates the inclusion of direct representation of King County Department of Public Defense's criminal justice clients in civil proceedings with a primary focus on eviction. The there are other areas that the pilot focuses on in addition to eviction, as we heard during public comment, some of them ranging from intervening on behalf of a defendant's rights to maintain their their their employment licensing requirements, financial support services such as disability, as well as other types of civil civil issues that that come up during the during the course of a of a defense. Last month, I convened a group of civil legal aid stakeholders, as well as tenant services providers in order to talk about the progress of the pilot program. The between July and December of 2017. There were 293 cases where Collateral Consequences attorneys were used, and the folks meeting with us last month helped to influence and shape the resolution that you have with you in front of you today. One of the amendments that we raised during the committee process to specifically incorporate feedback would be outlining an intention to regularly convene a civil legal aid coordination group in order to bring together the attorneys providing legal aid with the actual service providers that these cases touch in some ways. As you heard today in public comment, the services provided by this pilot have real life implications for decreasing unreasonable consequences for people who have been charged and not convicted with a crime. It is modeled on the Bronx Defender approach towards public defense, which recognizes that these services must be provided in a way that's holistic in order to avoid future negative impacts arising from from the the collateral consequences of some of these cases. So look forward to having councilmembers support on this resolution, which will help set out the steps for the next stages of this pilot, which move from the consultation of the public defenders with the collateral consequences attorneys to the direct representation in some cases.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any further comments? I just like to think I'm sorry, Herbold, for bringing this forward as I'm very, extremely supportive. And I think the public testimony we receive from many of the attorneys involved in this to do a deeper dove on what's happening out there, these kinds of problems. And I think this is a great both policy strategy as well as well should be an investment strategy. Thank you for bringing that forward. Any further comments? But those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read items ten and 11 together. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION regarding a civil legal aid project with the King County Department of Public Defense and its scope of work for representation services. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_CB 119198 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And any comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. And then please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee and you can read the short title since you already read it into the record
Speaker 2: . The report The Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda Item 13, Campbell and one note.
Speaker 1: 198.
Speaker 2: Relating to fair housing the committee recommends will pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate your enthusiasm to get to get to get to this agenda topic. This bill prohibits tenants and prospective and prospective tenants and landlords from using rental housing building platforms for a year. While the city determines whether those platforms are in compliance with the city's regulation and looks at the impact on the housing market and the committee recommends passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Castro and Johnson just want.
Speaker 6: To say thanks to Councilmember Musketeer. This came to our attention from some of the folks from CWA and she really dug in on this topic, spent a lot of time and energy on it, and I'm grateful to her for her leadership on bringing this issue forward. It's going to affect many of my constituents very positively. So thank you for your leadership, Councilmember Oscar.
Speaker 0: I think for those and I share those concerns as well. I share those sentiments. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage.
Speaker 2: If I may just make a few more. Yes.
Speaker 0: Comments. Apologize for moving forward.
Speaker 2: I just want to say thanks again to my colleagues for identifying this issue. Thanks especially to Councilmember Suarez and Time Council President harrell for your work to add language to this bill. Thank you to aisha and to my staff, michael maddox, who worked on this legislation. This is one of the first pieces of legislation I've had the opportunity to bring forward today. So thank you to the council. And as Councilmember Johnson explained, this really comes directly from the community. As you do have students putting this on our radar and asking for us to have strong legislation. I think the inclusion of your amendments makes this piece of policy even better at its heart. This is really about fair housing. This is about our city's commitment to making sure that our fair housing and equitable housing is a reality for all of Seattleites. And I believe it also touches on our commitment to try to be proactive and get ahead of new platforms as they come onto the market to make sure that we're looking at any potential unintended consequences and really thinking proactively here. We have the opportunity to be proactive, to be thoughtful, and to really think about how we fold in these new technologies into our regulatory system.
Speaker 1: I think that it's clear that this.
Speaker 2: Is not yet penetrated our community yet, and I think that in working with our community at large and asking the Office of Housing and Civil Rights and Construction and Inspection to do a deep dove analysis on how these products impact our commitment to equitable housing, we'll have a better opportunity to look at long term solutions. I really think this gives us an opportunity to make those informed discussions with community at large. And thanks again to Puget Sound Stage, who you heard from today to ASU, Deb, and to the Council for your longstanding commitment to equitable housing. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the comments. If not, please call the role on the pastor of the bill.
Speaker 1: Let's get out. I O'BRIEN So want big John Gonzalez purple Johnson President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read items 14 through 16. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to fair housing; establishing a one-year prohibition on use of rental housing bidding platforms; requesting a study of rental housing bidding platforms; amending Section 7.24.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Section 7.24.090 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_CB 119149 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any comments? If not those in favor of confirming the appointment vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and appointments are confirmed. Please read the report of the Human Services, Equitable Development and Renters Rights Renter Rights Committee.
Speaker 2: The Report Human Services, Equitable Development and Renters Rights Committee. Agenda 17 Constable 119 149 relate to Human Services Department authorizing the Mayor to execute four on behalf of the City of Seattle. Interlocal Agreement with King County for the administration of the Seattle King County Area Agency on Aging, as provided for in Title three of the Older Americans Act of 1965, superseding a prior interlocal agreement authorized by Ordinance 102 148 and amended by Ordinance 120 186 and ratify confirmed research projects. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank very much, Councilmember Sawant.
Speaker 3: Thank you, president harrell. This is an ordinance if passed, would authorize and interlocal agreement with King County to have the aging and disability services division of the Human Services Department of the City of Seattle to be the area agency on aging coordinator for the county. And the committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further questions? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Mr. O'Brien. So what I think John Gonzalez, Herbal Johnson. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: My favorite unopposed bill passed and chair of sign senate adoption of other resolutions. Please read agenda item number 18. You read a short title if you can. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Human Services Department; authorizing the Mayor to execute, for and on behalf of The City of Seattle, an interlocal agreement with King County for the administration of the Seattle-King County Area Agency on Aging as provided for in Title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965; superseding a prior interlocal agreement authorized by Ordinance 102148 and amended by Ordinance 120196; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_Res 31804 | Speaker 0: My favorite unopposed bill passed and chair of sign senate adoption of other resolutions. Please read agenda item number 18. You read a short title if you can.
Speaker 2: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda Item 18 Resolution 3180 for setting a public hearing on the petition of Washington State Convention Center.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 4: This is the resolution to set the.
Speaker 5: Date for the.
Speaker 4: Legislation around the convention center. This is related to alley and street vacations, where the convention center expansion is planned to go.
Speaker 5: The date of that public hearing will be on Wednesday, April 18th, at 5 p.m. here in chambers.
Speaker 0: Very good, because this came right to the council. I'm going to have to formally move it, move it before I do that. Is there any comments? Okay. I moved to adopt resolution 31804, so moved in second. I thought that the resolution be adopted. Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote. I, i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted and the chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come for the Council? If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of the Washington State Convention Center for the vacation of the alley in Block 33, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s 2nd Addition; the alley in Block 43, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s 2nd Addition; the alley in Block 44, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s 2nd Addition; a subterranean portion of Terry Avenue between Howell Street and Olive Way; and a subterranean portion of Olive Way between 9th Avenue and Boren Avenue, in the Denny Triangle Neighborhood of the Downtown Urban Center 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 314338. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03122018_Res 31803 | Speaker 0: Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the new agenda item number one, which is actually an item number 13 as of the record.
Speaker 2: From the amended agenda. Agenda item 13 Resolution 31803 Affirming the City of Seattle Support for Marjorie Stone. Stoneman Douglas High School Students Demand for gun reform in the wake of the February 14, 2018 Parkland, Florida, massacre that resulted in the death of 17 children and teachers.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Resolution 31803 does a few things. One, it recognizes some of the work that we have done at the city of Seattle level to to address gun violence issues that we're here to discuss today. And I just want to talk a little bit about those, because we hear we heard a lot in public testimony about the frustration of our elected leaders ability to or willingness to act. And the reality is, is that there are things that we can do as local cities like the city of Seattle to to at least support some of the efforts that we're hearing about here and to address some of these significant public safety and public health concerns. And it's important for cities to fill that space with policies that are going to make a difference. But we know that what we really need are our congressional and state representatives to be bold in this area, to allow us to be able to do more at the city, to support and support folks who are impacted by gun violence and hopefully be able to prevent ongoing police violence. So here in the city, we've passed a law that imposes a tax on the retail sale of guns and ammunition in order to raise money for the city so that we can use that to provide broad based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence, and address, in part, the cost of gun violence in the city. We've also passed previously a resolution related to responsible and progressive protocols for police gun procurement, including the destruction of service firearms that are no longer needed by the Seattle Police Department rather than selling those guns to the market. We've also passed a resolution related to supporting the creation of a statewide Extreme Risk Protection Order program, which allows family members and law enforcement to ask a court to take away the firearms of an individual who is presenting to be a serious danger to themselves or others. In the 2017 and 2018 city budget. The Council and Mayor. Dedicated funding to create and implement a Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Surrender program comprised of the City Attorney's Office, the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, the Seattle Police Department, and the King County Sheriff's Office to enforce the requirement for persons served with domestic violence or extreme risk protection orders to surrender their firearms and track and prosecute persons violating those orders. That's a first of its kind unit in the country, and I'm proud to say that we have been receiving a lot of inquiries by neighboring law enforcement agencies wanting to know how it is. We were able to implement this kind of a program and really looking forward to that, that taking a hold in other parts across our state and across our country as a clear way of removing guns out of a situation that that that is really ripe with and does see a lot of deaths resulted to gun usage. So those are the the different ways that we have already played a role in this particular space. This resolution does a few things. One, it encourages the Seattle Public Schools to support its students rights to assemble and participate in the national school walkout on March 14th, 2018 at 10 a.m.. We see that here at the City Council as just a fundamental constitutional right of our students to be able to. A petition government, the city council and the mayor. This resolution also provides that the city council, the mayor will supports the efforts of our public school educators and administrators to also show their solidarity for the students rights to remain safe from gun violence in schools. And and again, students rights to assemble and to continue allowing those teachers and administrators to help students learn how to organize peaceful walkouts and protests to create positive and lasting change in our community. We also take some positions in this resolution as it relates to as it relates to enacting stricter and common sense gun reform laws, including creating tighter background checks, banning the purchase of bump stocks, reasonably restricting automatic assault rifles and semi-automatic weapon purchases, fully funding mental health, and a call to pass crisis prevention legislation such as what we recently saw proposed in our own house. So these are just a few things that this resolution does, and I will have some closing remarks. But I wanted to just describe the basics of the resolution before I made my closing remarks, and now would be also be an appropriate time for me to recognize the staff in my office who have really helped to draft this piece of legislation and helped get so many of you organized in here in in this room today. And so I want to thank Stephanie Landecker from my office, who is interning in my office this year, and Roxana Gomez, who is one of my legislative aides. So thank you to those two wonderful ladies for all the work that they've done to present this resolution for full council's consideration today.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Councilwoman Gonzales. Any further comments from my colleagues? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: I just want to thank all the young leaders who are here today throughout the community, throughout across this country that are doing the organizing work. I'm really sorry that despite obvious actions that we could have taken for years, the adults in our country have not stepped up and made that happen. And that is falling upon you to fix something that so needs fixing. But I'm grateful when I see young people coming together to lead on this issue that's so critical to them. And I'm optimistic that despite failed attempts in the past, that things will actually change because of your actions today. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cuts from Bryan Councilmember Slot.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Harrell. I will certainly be supporting this resolution, needless to say. And I also wanted to say to all the students here, both as an elected representative, but also as a teacher myself and as a teachers union member. I really applaud the leadership you're showing and also the incredible, just historic leadership shown by young people and students throughout the nation, starting, of course, for the leadership of the courageous students in Florida and the incredible courage in calling out something that has, you know, something that everybody knows about but really wasn't being called out in the way that young people have done, which is the gun lobby and corporate lobbying in general and the influence that they have in politics. It was incredibly empowering to me personally to see the video in which Marco Rubio was challenged by some of the students saying, will you will you stop taking money from the gun lobby? And he is flummoxed because he's not even he's not even at a point where he's willing to say yes after this horrendous tragedy and tragedy after tragedy. I will stand with ordinary people. I will stand with young people and I will stand against gun violence in schools. So I really support everything you're doing. I will be there with you on the 14th and the 24th. And let's make sure that we demand schools free of gun violence and also schools that are fully funded by taxing the same big business so that we have we make sure that affordable, high quality education is accessible to all students. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Swint, Councilman Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My colleague to my left here, Councilmember Johnson, also often speaks from the perspective of somebody who has school age children. I don't have school age children in public schools. I do have school age grandchildren. And, you know, what I've been hearing since these most recent shootings is something very different than the public outrage and outcry after other public shootings in schools. And it's not. Only what I'm hearing is courageous community organizing and coming together and making your voices heard. But what I'm hearing that pains me tremendously as I'm hearing children say that the adults aren't taking care of them. And I think that's what's really going to make the difference this time around and is going to compel us to do to do more to take care of our children. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comes from Herbold. Katherine Johnson.
Speaker 5: And and to that point, I think a request for action. I mean, what we're hearing time and time again is a demand from not just the parents, but more importantly, those children that we want to see action. I am fortunate enough to have a friend who graduated from Parkland and saw her shortly after the shooting, and she was so proud of those students and not only standing up for themselves in those moments of grief, but standing up for other students all around the country.
Speaker 0: Thank you. What I'd like to say is, first of all, I'm very moved and inspired by the voice of the youth. Believe it or not, I was I was young once and and I would question sort of the the idiocy of senior leaders in our country. And I'm reminded by a martin Luther King quote where he said, there can be no deep disappointment, where there's no deep love. Very moved by our this young man serving our country and serving his country and then still questioning, as he should, the lack of wisdom and gun responsibility. How many more lives do we have to lose before our whole country wakes up and realize we have bad policies in place in our state, in our state, long under. I think it's very. CW 9.41.290, which is just bad policy. It's just a bad law. Just preempts cities like ours from actually taking bold measures to enact reasonable, safe laws. The ability to just take a gun away from someone who's intoxicated as an example, just things that would just seem to make sense that we are prohibited by law from doing. And so we have some very bad laws in place. But I am inspired by the voice of the youth that. I think we'll have a culture change here through this kind of inspiration that we see. And so, yes, it starts with a walk out in 17 minutes and we turn 17 minutes into 17 laws that can change this, the city, the state in this country. So thank you for your testimony. I think, Councilmember Gonzalez, for pushing this and in drafting this and your staff for bringing this to the city's attention.
Speaker 3: No one less.
Speaker 0: Hey, you said no one else bring and back. So thank.
Speaker 3: You. Thank you. All this has been something that I greatly appreciate and all of, you know, not just the tragedy that we felt here in Florida, but the numbers that we have seen in this country. From Orlando up to Las Vegas, there were over 500 separate incidents of mass shootings. And what shocked me is that it took Florida. I thought that at Sandy Hook that was it, that when a gunman took after babies, I thought, this is it. It is going to be the last straw. Five years later, it took Florida and it's taken you. And I want to say thank you very much from my heart, because I think finally this country is coming together in ways that we have not. Moms rising, if you're still here, thank you for the work you're doing. The Grandmothers Against Gun Violence locally, it matters because it's not just our young people, but it is our seniors who are saying it is really time. It's really time for us to stop this nonsense and look at what we can actually do. And at the state, I want to say thank you to our attorney general. You know, last year he presented legislation that would have banned assault rifles are king county prosecuting attorney has done a tremendous amount to say we are going to do things differently and just in in our own city attorney's office, recognizing the gun surrender laws that we have done. And as Councilmember Gonzales said, we funded this last year. We got money up to do it. We are doing things with our courts that are going to make a difference. It's not even beginning to be enough. But thanks to the people that are here today, the students thank you for what your visions are. We can do these things locally. We don't have to wait for Congress. God knows will wait forever if we have to wait for them. But fully funding mental health here in the state is going to be something I think that we can accomplish getting our the assault assault weapons banned in Washington state next year, making sure we have our mental health laws such that we can pass prevention legislation and do that next year. But the fact that you're standing up is making a big difference. I want you to know that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Casper and Back Shore cancer czar for years.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I want to thank first and foremost all of the student leaders who are here with us this afternoon. I really hope that you hear from me and that you've already heard from my colleagues how much we acknowledge and respect the work that you all have been doing to to fill a very necessary role in advocating for for your own safety. And and I'm really sorry that we as adults have left you in a position where you have no other choice but to do that. But now it's time for us to support your efforts here at home and across the country, to demand that our state and congressional representatives enact sensible gun safety laws that are going to make a difference every day. So today, the Seattle City Council stands with all of those impacted by gun violence here at home and across our nation. This resolution is a response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, where we know that 17 students and teachers were fatally gunned down and 15 others were injured. But it is also our commitment to these students, to their teachers and to the administrators of the Seattle Public Schools that we continue to that you all can continue to count on us as the city of Seattle to stand with you in your fight for your safety. Students should not have to feel worried about walking into their classrooms and whether or not that will be the last time they have an opportunity to do so. Parents should not feel scared about the possibility of never seeing their child again for the simple act of sending their child to school. Teachers should not be deputized to be both educators and law enforcement. This tragedy should not have happened, and it probably would not have happened had there been common sense gun safety laws in place paired with the mental health services and system that we know we need shooting after shooting, there is public outcry for our state and congressional representatives to take action on this. Issue, but no such action has occurred. It is a failure to turn a blind eye to these public safety and public health crises. And as history shows, we must often look to our future generation to show us the way when we as adults, lack the courage to lead. And in tragedies, sometimes we struggle to find hope. Today. I'm hopeful because our youth are showing us what it looks like to stand as one to say, enough is enough. We should all be inspired by our youth, who, in response to the Marjory Douglas shooting, have organized to loudly call for action and have refused to stand down and be intimidated by adults who claim to know better. We must recognize that our youth at home and across the nation are change agents pushing to create healthier communities and higher quality lives, both in and out of school. Unfettered access to machines that kill threaten us all. Standing with empowering and following the lead of our youth as they organize for their lives is what every adult should be prioritizing and supporting, whether you're an elected leader or not. I want to thank all young people for demanding action and refusing to accept NO as a policy solution to gun violence. So this Wednesday, March 14th, at 10 a.m., young students from Nathan Hale, Roosevelts and Ingram High Schools will be marching together from Roosevelt High School to the University of Washington to protest Congress's inaction for common sense gun safety laws. There'll be similar walkouts across the country, across the city. But this particular walkout, they will be gathering on Red Square at 11:30 a.m. for a rally. And I hope that everybody who is here and all those who are listening at home will make time to show up for our students and to support their efforts as as they continue to fight for what we all know is the right thing to do. Your reluctance to back down in this moment? And your reluctance to conform to the status quo is something we should all admire, celebrate and encourage. And of course, you also heard that there's going to be the march march for our lives here in Seattle on March 24th. That's going to begin at 10 a.m. at Calendar's in Park, and it's going to end with a rally at Key Arena. So I hope that you all hear us that this is a first step for us in supporting you all. We want to continue to hear from you. We want to continue to understand how we as a city with some of the legal limitations that we have on us, how we can really show up for you and and support all of the efforts that you are calling for in terms of legislative action at the congressional level and at the state level. So thank you so much for being with us. And I'm really proud to call to ask for the council president to call this resolution for vote.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Come spring, it's all those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Thank you again, Councilman Gonzalez, and thank you for your testimony, all of whom are out there. Please read the reports of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee. I would go one through for.
Speaker 2: The report of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda items one through four appointments 929 through 932 Appointment to re appointments to Justin Clerk Benjamin William Deputies Laura Haddad and Mark Johnson as member Seattle Design Commission for Term two February 29, 2020. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s support of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students’ demand for gun reform in the wake of the February 14, 2018, Parkland, Florida, massacre that resulted in the death of 17 children and teachers. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03122018_CB 119205 | Speaker 0: Bill past chair senate please read a goodnight and or six to short title.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item six Cancel 119205 relating to grants fund grant funds from non city sources authorizing directors of transportation self-centered to accept specified grants and executed related agreements for on behalf of the city. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: That's why. I'm Brian.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is an ordinance that allows us to accept grants that we've applied for and been successful at. There are five projects listed on this grant acceptance ordinance. The total is about $9.5 million. The grants are coming from a mix of sources. Puget Sound Regional Council has a couple in Federal Transit Administration as a couple, and the Federal Highway Administration has one. If folks have questions, I'm happy to try and answer any comments.
Speaker 0: Questions. If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Or as I. O'BRIEN So aren't I? BEGALA Hi. Gonzales I herbold. JOHNSON I'm President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill Pass and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number seven the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Directors of Transportation and the Seattle Center to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 125475, which adopted the 2018 Budget, including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2018-2023 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03122018_CB 119206 | Speaker 2: And ten tab in Southern Council Bill 119206 accepting 20 limited purpose easements for public sidewalk, alley utility or street and alley turnaround purposes, placing the real property conveyed by such easements under the jurisdiction set upon transportation and ratifying, confirming search and prayer acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm going to speak to this agenda item in the next two, if that's okay, because they're kind of bundled together, but folks can ask questions independently. As new construction happens throughout the city, the unique circumstances of each parcel. Sometimes it's required that the city either get an easement or a transfer of property through a deed. Sometimes that is to line up the right of way so the sidewalk is the appropriate width. Sometimes it's to allow access to part of the property where there would be utilities running or the likes. With the amount of development that's happening, we're seeing a number of these come through here. So this agenda item and the next two council bills each can contain about 20 projects, a total of close to 60, either easements or deeds. This particular council bills a series of easements. The next two relate to deeds where we're accepting ownership of the property.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill or else.
Speaker 1: O'BRIEN All right. So on bakeshop. Gonzalez Herbold All right. Johnson President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and chair of Senate please read agenda item number eight to short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE accepting twenty limited purpose easements for public sidewalk, alley, utility, or street and alley turn-around purposes; placing the real property conveyed by such easements under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. (This ordinance concerns the following rights-of-way: the sidewalk adjoining Tilt49, a condominium recorded under Recording Number 20150526000478; the sidewalk adjoining Block 6, A. B. Graham’s University Addition to the City of Seattle; the sidewalk adjoining a portion of the Southeast quarter, Section 31, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian; the alley turn-around in Block 4, Lawton Heights; the sidewalk adjoining a portion of vacated Northeast 40th Street (Northeast Campus Parkway) and Block C, Brooklyn Supplemental Addition to the City of Seattle; the sidewalk adjoining a portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 16, Township 25 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, vacated 15th Avenue Northeast, and Block 36, Brooklyn Addition to Seattle; the sidewalk adjoin | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02262018_Res 31793 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Civic Development to Public Assets and Native Community Communities Committee. Agenda Item one Resolution 31783. Addressing a proposed financial gas facility in Tacoma and urging the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to improve tribal consultation procedures and collaborate with regional mayors, leaders and tribes to address the growing impact of climate change. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Very good. Just to sort of narrate how this should occur. I'll ask that councilmember were sort of introduce the base resolution and describe it and any details you'd like. And I know we have at least three amendments that I'm aware of, two proposed by councilmember, so wanted, one by Councilmember O'Brien. So we'll take those in that order. And having said that, councilmember words, the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you. First of all, President Harrell and colleagues, I'd like to thank Councilmember Miller, Councilmember Rideout, Councilmember Bain and Councilmember Bryant for attending today. And of course, Ramona Bennett, former chair of The Proud Nation, for being here. I really appreciate your words and your leadership. The resolution before us today is resolution 31793. It was discussed at full council on January 29th. At that meeting, the council decided that for the discussion of the resolution was needed, and yet it was referred to my committee Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities. Last Wednesday was historic. We had the Tribal Council on a government to government relationship and discussion here at the table. We unanimously move this resolution out of committee with recommendation for passage of full council today. Those present who voted yes were Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember Macheda, Councilmember Sawant, Councilmember O'Brien and myself. I'm very proud of the work that we did to bring it to get it passed unanimously. I want to thank again the tribal elected leaders that attended. That would be Councilmember Bryant. Councilmember Bean and Councilmember Rideout, not only who attended committee, but provided valuable comments in government government consultation regarding the concerns of the LNG plant, which they eloquently described, that those emissions going up and a would would affect the city of Seattle as well, that any toxics, any pollutants are not going to stay in Pierce County, but affect not only the people, the native folks of Salish, but all of those communities. We also discussed the makeup of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, in which there are, I believe, six or I'm sorry, three counties with nine tribes present in those counties in which more than a majority are truly tribes. I've worked very closely with the Puyallup Tribal Council and other tribal leaders, including from other tribes, who called me to tell me what they believe over the last several weeks to come to a consensus in agreement about government to government in this resolution and what it means. Ironically, I believe we're all in the same place. I understand that you would like the two amendments, but I also have to stay true to the spirit and the resolution I'm sorry, true to the Spirit and the discussions that I have had with my colleagues and other elected leaders, in order for this to move forward with the votes that we want to make it clear where the city of Seattle stands. I believe this is the best resolution true to the spirit of Pel tribe's resolution in response to the PSC LNG plant. This resolution pays respect to the tribe's sovereignty and urges the Puget Sound Clear Air Agency to improve its government to government tribal consultation procedures. And that is not just a nicety, but it's the federal law and treaties are the supreme law of the land. This resolution also urges the Clean Air Agency to collaborate with regional leaders to address the impacts of climate change and invest in clean energy that will reduce regional lines on fossil fuels. And again, I want to emphasize with climate change, the people that are most affected in disparately is Indian country and Indian people. Before I go any further, I want to make a few things clear from I was happy to hear and always happy to hear people coming to give public comment and offer their allyship and friendship in supporting the Puyallup tribe. This is a known non-binding resolution. It is not a law. We are not making a law today. We are taking a position on climate change. We've taken a position on government to government consultation. And we were taking a position that the tribes need a tribal consultation, and that's how we should all act moving forward. The tribe's resolution speaks the most powerful and is very eloquent and president. I'd like to read some of that into the record. It is attached to. The original resolution. But I think the chairman steroids words are very powerful. And what the tribal council passed on January 18th should be read into the record, if I may.
Speaker 0: Please proceed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd also, before I state any more, as I share with all tribal leadership, it is safe to say this is not the end of this City Council's involvement with the Tribal Council and the LNG plant. This is just one step. We've had many discussions about how this city council is going to move forward in regards to our concerns regarding this plant. One of the most powerful things about the tribe is their way of becoming forward and speaking on behalf of their people. But the other people that non-citizens that live within their traditional land, the pale of tribe, said, be it resolved, a PRB tribe is strictly opposed to the Puget Sound Energies proposed LNG plant on the Tacoma Tide Flats, and the Puyallup Tribe has approved the attached statement as its official statement regarding the LNG plant being constructed by Puget Sound Energy. Make no mistake, the tribe's words are the most powerful and the most compelling not only for the city of Seattle, but all the cities that belong to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. The Tribe of Indians opposes the location of the liquefied natural gas storage facility because of its direct threat to their homeland culture, way of life and tribal members. The tribe makes five, very five major points that are both powerful, and it certainly reflects their sovereign status as leaders as they always have been in the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, if it weren't for the Puyallup Nation Squabbling Nation, we would not even have had the bold decision. The book that was held up earlier from the seventies, I actually read that when I was in college, part of the official record. What I like to include in here are the words of Councilor I'm sorry, President, the chair of the nation, the tribes of Indians is exercising its authority. As a sovereign nation. We are taking legal action against PSC, the city of Tacoma because they conducted the EIC process without consultation with the tribe. We are working with other tribes in our region to insist that federal, state and local officials ensure compliance with all permitting requirements. We are demanding that PSC cease construction activities until all tribal consultation and public participation requirements are met with all permit requirements are satisfied. We are demanding that the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the PSC facility be adequately analyzed and that this information is released to the public. And finally, we call on the city of Tacoma and the Port of Tacoma to order a supplemental environmental health and safety review under the State Environmental Protection Act. I read these words into the record because, again, this is the most powerful document that we have. It is attached in part of the record for Seattle City Council's resolution today. And I just want to end on a more personal note that you will not find anyone who is like me, who was born and raised on the the tribe, grew up in the city of Tacoma, more committed to making sure that this plant doesn't go forward. But I have to respect the process of the Sale City Council and my colleagues. And I think it's fair to say that we have teed this issue up on a national level where you have a voice and we will continue to do that. And I want to thank those council members that have reached out to me more than once to talk to me and walk me through what issues were most important to them. I don't ever believe and I still don't sit here today thinking that this is about one council member versus another or one group is more important or any other or any movement did anything. I think what it comes down to for me as a native person is who has that treaty, right? The lamination stopped cherry the cherry point issue. It was a swing miss nation that stopped the oil trains. It would be the tribe that stops this plant. And that's why I believe in government to government consultation and respecting the sovereignty of a nation. And it doesn't mean that I don't believe and don't respect the activists, the environmentalists and the people that live in Tacoma. But I have to be cognizant of the construct in which I work, and that's an elected member of the Seattle City Council. So with that, I'll leave it and then I'll make a motion to move.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can spin worse for your explanation of your very hard work on this. I'm aware and have been sort of properly served with amendments potential here. And so council members want to believe that the First Amendment you'd like to address.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Harrell. I have two amendments that I will move and also have some general points that I will make when I talk about the First Amendment. But first I'll move and then I'll need a second. So I move amendment number one, which removes from a whereas clause Pierce's greenwashing language that falsely reads quote and data shows that LNG is one choice to fuel some ships and provide natural gas to residential and commercial customers to reduce sulfur emissions, harmful diesel particulate matter by 90%, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions by 90%, and carbon dioxide emissions by 35% over that of diesel or bunker fuel. And court. So again, this amendment would remove that language from the whereas clause. I'll need a second.
Speaker 0: It's been looked. Amendment one striking out the language. The state about Councilman Swann has been properly moved. And second Councilmember Swann.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President. How is that? I wanted to start with a few general comments. First of all, want you pay my respect to the Duwamish, people whose land we are standing on, and my respects to all the tribal leaders and tribal representatives who have spoken not just today, but as they said last week, they've been speaking out on these issues not only for years and their own lives, but for generations. This has been an intergenerational fight against climate change and for the basic rights of our native communities and for all people. I wanted to thank particularly the Puyallup Tribal Council members, many of whom are here Councilmember David Bean, Annette, Brian, Sylvia miller and James Rideout, thank you so much for coming here. It has been our honor as the Seattle City Council has my personal honor as a council member and as a representative of working people of Seattle who recognizes that there really is no division and there should not be any division between ordinary people in Tacoma and ordinary people in Seattle . We stand together, and if that solidarity does not exist on an issue like climate change, then what issue cannot exist on because our fates are bound together. So I am so grateful. I'm also grateful to the many, many activists who have made made us come this far. I'm obviously not going to mention all the names, but Matt Rumley and Dakota Case, who actually met with my staff member, Ted Worden on November 30th of last year, who are the office? The involvement of my office started at that moment. And as I mentioned, you know, activists like urban activists like Madam Liz are a writer and also environmental and labor activists like Valerie Piven, Pam Kiely, Nanette Reeds, many of whom are from Tacoma. Really appreciated Amy Madden here, who reminded us that we are not alone. District after district of the Democratic Party has taken an unequivocal position on the LNG plant. That is a really important input. Thank you so much. I also want to thank brother Vince O'Halloran from the Maritime Trades, who representing Maritime Trades Workers. As a member of the labor movement. I stand with you and I appreciate you and your the workers you represent standing with the tribes. That is a really, really important voice as well. And I want to thank all the ordinary people, not just in Seattle or Tacoma, but around the world, who are clear about the science. As as Patricia Ireland said, you know, we are clear about the science. The only people who have an incentive in not being clear about the science are the executives and billionaire shareholders of fossil fuel companies who are the only ones who are going to benefit from this. So it's really, really important that we have been here together opposing this LNG plant. As other speakers have said, much better than I can. This is a violation of treaty rights. It's a violation of Puyallup sovereignty. And it is an attack on all Native communities. And as you all know, I strongly support all the language that was added to the first version to strengthen the position of the tribes of treaty rights and of improving tribal consultation. I think that was really important changes that were brought in and I strongly support them. I also think, though, that some key improvements need to be made that were taken out of our original resolution and then introduced in the new resolution some things that we don't agree with. And those things have already been mentioned by councilmembers Bryan and Rideout and also every other speaker who spoke today who has supported these amendments. And I'm speaking now on Amendment One, but in general, I would say about both amendments. Last week at committee, the whole issue was presented as if our movement is divided. But today, council members, you see that the movement of native leaders, native tribes and tribal members and environmental activists and social justice activists are all speaking with one voice. Everybody has spoken with one voice saying that we are we are not divided. We are not divided. We are unambiguously clear. We do not want Pearce's LNG facility in Tacoma, period. That is absolutely the bottom line. And with respect, I would disagree with the point that the process of the Seattle City Council is the most of the most sacred or the most important. What is the most sacred? And the most important is the rights of our people and of the people of tribe. And while the resolution yes, it's true that it's legally non-binding, but it is an important step in our struggle. Why do this resolution in the first place if it was not going to give a voice to our movement and to the native communities who are fighting longer? And if we're doing it, then let's do it right. The Amendment one, if passed, would remove the greenwashing language and Alec CONAN and others activists have shown very clearly. I mean, I had my own prop, but this can't compete with your prop. Oh, but as you have said, clearly, the language comes almost verbatim from Pierce's PR greenwashing language. Let us not make the mistake of putting this, you know, etching this in stone in a city council resolution of an important city like Seattle. Let's make sure that we don't get our talking point from PSC, which has no incentive to worry about climate change and every incentive to think about their own profits. And by the way, they are also not thinking of. About the ratepayers. So I will urge the Council to vote yes on this amendment. I am happy to explain the science again. I read these points out many times. I have them, but I don't want to take too much time. I'm happy to read them if council members want me to. However, what I would request. As you have heard from the community, they have spoken with one voice. They are not divided on this. They want you to pass this amendment. And that is the most important thing here. That is the most binding, in my view. That is the most binding aspect of this whole process. And if we are if we are to uphold Puyallup sovereignty, then the Seattle City Council should not be taking talking points from a corporation that is attacking the sovereignty.
Speaker 9: And I will urge the Council.
Speaker 3: To pass this amendment. And if council members are going to vote against it, I would like to hear a real reason why it's being opposed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I am going to support this amendment partially in anticipation of an amendment that Councilmember O'Brien is going to be bringing forward subsequent to to these amendments. And I just want to speak directly to this question of of of the language being greenwashing language and and whose interest it is intended to represent. There's a lot that has been said about the language coming from this website. I want to say the reason why I supported inclusion of this language is because of correspondence I received not from PSC but from the Puget Sound Ports Council, Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO on behalf of thousands of men and women from the region that work aboard these ships. And I want to just read from that email. As you may know, most cargo ships today run on diesel or bunker fuel, heavy fuel oils. The proposed facility would provide a critical opportunity to improve air quality for so many of our workers by using a fuel source that reduces over 90% of pollutants and reduces greenhouse gases by 15 to 25% as opposed to vessels using PFOS. We believe that the Port of Tacoma, as proposed LNG facility provides a cleaner, safer alternative for our workers that are out and around these ships every day. Currently, a tote ship servicing Alaska and calling in Tacoma uses 156 workers. A voyage, a voyage, including 80 longshoreman, 37 mechanics, 12 tug crew members, 25 officers and crews and two pilots. These vessels make 50 voyages a year, and that's 156 fewer employees per vessel per call. And this does not include the several hundred truckers driving on and off the docks while the vessels are loading, loading and unloading. So I just want folks to understand that there are there are interests that relate specifically to health concerns for our workers that were were supported by this. By this legislation. I am supporting removal of it because I do believe it's been become a distraction. And I think the strength of the process thus far is really that we have focused on the things that all voices in the social justice community, including labor, can get behind. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, Councilwoman Bryant.
Speaker 2: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank you, Councilmember Wise, for your leadership on this work. I want to say that the community meeting you held last week and having tribal elected tribal leadership at the county at the council table was a really powerful experience for me. And I know that that would not have happened without your leadership. I wish I could say that we've been doing that for years, but we haven't. But we should be doing that going forward. And I want to thank the tribal leaders who honored us with their presence yesterday. And I want to just recommit to an ongoing relationship and dialog on all issues, not just with the trial, not just with the Puyallup, but with all tribes in the region. So thank you so much for being part of that. I will I will also be supporting this amendment. When I look at the language that we're proposing to strike, I see two different things that are roughly touched upon. One is that the language talks about harmful diesel particulate matter and specifically players about what the impact that has on actual workers. And I'm going to propose an amendment after Councilmember Swan has done to make sure that we have language in this resolution that talks about our serious concerns for workers, but also talks about a path forward for making sure workers are protected and the climate is protected and the communities are protected. The other thing that this the language does is it talks about and certainly makes implications about the climate impacts of of LNG that I think are very misleading, intentionally misleading. The what we know is that, well, certainly carbon dioxide emissions may be reduced. Climate impact comes from more than just carbon dioxide. It also comes from methane. And the methane impacts of natural gas are significantly more impactful than carbon dioxide. We've talked about that at other meetings, so I won't go into more depth about that. But I think it's really important for the city council not to have as part of a resolution language that sends a misleading measure that somehow converting to natural gas is going to be good for the climate because it's not. I will speak further to my amendment when the time is right in a few moments. Very good.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have a an amendment that's been properly moved in second. So we will and I'll ask her one to vote by hand and voice at the same time. So all those council members in favor of.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Yes. Quickly to the.
Speaker 0: They've already spoken to the amendment.
Speaker 3: Just want just 30 seconds. Okay. To the amendment, I. Yeah, I really think that and Brian makes an important point. I don't I appreciate Councilmember Herbals voting yes on this. That's really, really important. And that is much appreciated. I don't think, though, that this this amendment is a distraction. It is really important that we don't buy into the greenwashing language because it is extremely misleading. If you look at the entire lifecycle of LNG from the time that the water is fracked to the time that it comes to the plant, it if you look at all of that whole lifecycle, it is extremely damaging. It is extremely damaging to the planet. There's all kinds of studies that link increased rates of miscarriages for women with fracked water. I mean, there's there's any amount of science that shows that this is extremely harmful and misleading language.
Speaker 7: I didn't say that the amendment was a distraction. I said the existing language was a distraction.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And consumer expert, I want to hear your apology. The reason why I hesitated was I've been recently going over the council rules and I found this rule that I wasn't quite aware about. Any council member can't speak twice on the same issue or twice in the same motion, which I don't think we've been enforcing. But the exception that as a person who makes the motion can can also enter the debate. So you are well within our rights to and that's why I sort of hesitated. So okay, we have a live amendment and so we'll do it by voice in hand. So all those in favor of amended amendment number one, as stated by council members want, please raise your hand and say I, I, I, I mean, you said it. Okay? All those opposed say no and raise your hand. No. So what? So it fails in Casper. Just wanted to give an amendment number two as well. Yeah. Yeah. Councilmember Sawant, you have the floor.
Speaker 3: Sorry, I move amendment two, which adds the words quote and reject Pierce's application for a permit, the proposed LNG facility, unquote. The list of actions of the Seattle City Council urges the Puget Sound Cleaner Agency do. They can get a second than I can speak a second. Thank you.
Speaker 0: We have a lot of amendment and property moved in second.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So this language was part of my original resolution, which was drafted in coordination with native leaders and other environmental activists who brought this issue to my office in the first place. And what they indicated was that it is it would be really powerful for the movement to take a message on words that said that the Seattle City Council had very clearly as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to reject the permit, because that's a that's a very clear action to the Puget Sound cleaner agency can take. And to quote elder Ramona Bennett, B.C. does not care because B.C. has a lot of political clout. They have a lot of wealth on their side. So they have already brazenly started their work there. They will say that they have stopped, but I have been informed by activist that's not true. And I do hope to visit the site as well. Asked me last time and I really want to do that. But the point being that he really has no incentive to listen to our voice unless we have a powerful movement from below that is standing in solidarity with the Puyallup tribe. And for that to happen, I think it is a very important thing that the resolution from the Seattle city, which is, you know, which is a very powerful voice, say very clearly that we are asking that Puget Sound clear and Clean Air Agency to reject the permit. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Comes from Swan. Any further comments on amendment number two? CNN will do by voice vote again. Amendment two is articulated by councilmembers. One has been moved in second and all those in favor of amendment to please say I in raise your hand. All those opposed. Say no and raise your hand. No. So amendment number two fails, I believe. And another Amendment two, however, has resurfaced. And so we'll call in amendment number two, and that is described by Councilmember O'Brien. Councilman Brian, you have the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm going to pull up my prompt on how I'm supposed to introduce this amendment. So. I will go ahead and move to amend Resolution 31793 by adding a new seventh recital entitled. Whereas, workers exposed to harmful particulate matter from vessels burning, diesel or bunker fuel is a serious health concern. And Seattle City Council supports finding energy alternatives that both protect workers and our climate.
Speaker 0: For a second. It's been moved in second.
Speaker 2: So this was originally the intent was to do this as a replacement for the language that we that just failed unfortunately striking that clause about from Puget Sound Energy. But it can stand on its own. So I'll continue to move it forward. As I mentioned before, I think it's important that to signify that we do care about the health impacts of workers that are directly impacted and that we believe that we can find solutions that meet both the health impacts of the workers, that protect the safety of the communities in the immediate vicinity, and also protect our climate.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comes from Brian. Any further comments about amendment number two, consumer awareness.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. First of all, I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for the letter that she read into the record, because those issues were brought to my attention as well. And I also want to thank Councilmember O'Brien for discussing this amendment with me this morning. I appreciate the time that you took for us to sit down and go through this and why it was important for that reason to be supporting this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Worsening for the comments. So we'll do a voice vote and handle the same time again. All those in favor of amendment number two as articulated by Councilmember O'Brien. Please raise your hand and say I by all those opposed, say no and raise your hand. So the ayes have it. Okay. So we have an amended resolution. And Councilmember Waters or any other councilmembers, would you like to say anything before we pass a final vote on the amended resolution? Really good. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the amended resolution is adopted in the chair will sign it. Thank you very much. Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item two Resolution 31801. Calling for a review of current methods for collecting data on Native communities and potential strategies for improving such data collection and exploration of the need for capacity building for organizations seeking to assist. Native Communities Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION addressing a proposed liquefied natural gas facility in Tacoma, and urging the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to improve tribal consultation procedures and collaborate with regional mayors, leaders, and tribes to address the growing impact of climate change. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02262018_Res 31801 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item two Resolution 31801. Calling for a review of current methods for collecting data on Native communities and potential strategies for improving such data collection and exploration of the need for capacity building for organizations seeking to assist. Native Communities Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Wallis.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Harrell. First off, I'd like to recognize that when we had our committee meeting hearing last Wednesday, it was a historic day and that we had elected tribal leadership at the table. But it was also historic because it was the first time that we've actually had Native American service providers who actually provide services in the city of Seattle for our Native American brothers and sisters at the table. Saladin Health Board. Mother Nation. Chief Seattle. I'm forgetting someone. United Indians. For the first time in municipal government, best of our knowledge has formalized a legislative voice for native leaders, native social service providers and the tribes. This resolution requests that all city departments begin collecting meaningful demographic data on our city's native populations. It came to my attention that many of our city departments do not have a practice of collecting demographic data of our people. Current practices do not accurately reflect the lived experience of native of the native population or allow service providers to satisfy all of our residents unmet needs. It's critical we have this information captured to best understand how our native communities are affected by homelessness and housing affordability, health care, access to justice and education. We also have the concurrence of my major I'm sorry, Mayor Durkan, on this resolution. For that, I ask and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Whereas any further questions on this resolution? I just want to say. COUNCILMEMBER whereas thank you for. But in the midst of this controversial issue we just passed really thinking through and sort of peeling the onion back a little more to seeing what we can do to support native native communities in terms of capacity building and the investments which I'm sure you will argue for during the budget.
Speaker 1: During budget, I am going to be all up in it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much for that. Having said that, all those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions dropped in chair will sign it. Very good.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Um.
Speaker 0: So. I'm sorry. Adoption of other resolutions. I don't think we have any other resolutions. So other business. So we do have a matter for other business that would have to describe. So pursuant to our S.W. 41.5 6.160. And in order for the City of Seattle to achieve compliance with the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission's order Indecision 12809, the clerk will now read the following notice into the record, and I turn the mic over to the Madam Clerk.
Speaker 5: Notice to your employee stated What gives you the right to form joiner assistant employee organization bargain collectively with your employer through a union chosen by a majority of employees. Refrain from any and all of these activities except you may be required to make payments to a union or charity under a lawful union security provision. The Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission conducted a legal proceeding and ruled that the city of Seattle committed to unfair legal practice and ordered us to post this notice to employees. We unlawfully refused to bargain by establishing the wage rate for the PSM assigned crew coordinator position without providing the union with notice of an opportunity for bargaining . We unlawfully established the selection procedure to fill the permanent PSM assigned crew coordination position without providing the union notice and an opportunity to bargain to remedy our unfair labor practices. We will give notice and upon request, negotiate in good faith with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 77 over the effects of our decision to create the PSM assigned crew coordinator position.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. A copy of the notice will be appended to the minutes of this meeting, as required by the agency's order. That concludes that matter. Is there any further business coming for the Council? If not we stand in your would have a great rest of the day. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION calling for review of current methods for collecting data on Native Communities, and potential strategies for improving such data collection, and exploration of the need for capacity-building for organizations seeking to assist Native Communities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02202018_Res 31799 | Speaker 4: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item for resolution 31799. A Resolution Ratifying the 2017 update to the Lake Washington Cedar Sammamish Watershed or Water Resource Inventory Area eight Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The committee recommends a full council adopt the resolution. HERBOLD Thank you. This resolution ratifies the 2017 update to the Water Resource Inventory Area eight Conservation Plan, otherwise known as WYRE eight. Two decades ago, the Federal Government listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, prompting local governments in the Lake Washington Cedar Sammamish watershed to initiate a coordinated watershed scale partnership to recover salmon under an Interlocal agreement. Implementation of salmon recovery actions in Wairoa is guided by the Wairoa eight Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, which was originally completed in 2005 and ratified by each of the local government partners. The Weare eight Salmon Recovery Council will receive regular briefings during the update process and approved the new ten year update to the Wairoa eight plan in September 2017.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION ratifying the 2017 update to the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, or Water Resource Inventory Area 8, Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02122018_CB 119176 | Speaker 3: Bill passed and Cheryl sign it. Please read the first agenda item.
Speaker 4: The Report of the Civic Development to Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item one Constable 119 176 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the acceptance of a donation of real property along the Birck Gilman Trail in northeast Seattle from the state of Jack Albertson for Open Space Park and Recreation Purposes, Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you, councilmember suarez.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president. This is a donation of property. As I shared with you all this morning along the Burt Gilman Trail from the estate of Jack Albertson. This donation will add 8500 square feet of space for the Burt Gillman trail near Northeast 75th Street. To create a green buffer, the committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Very good. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Mosquito i. O'Brien. Swan, i. Bagshaw i. Gonzales I. Herbold i. Johnson whereas i. President Harrell, i. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Will pass and chair will sign it. Please read Agenda item number two.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item to cancel book 119 186 Transferring jurisdiction over real property located at Mercy Street and Second Avenue from the Seattle Center Department to the Office of Housing, the committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acceptance of a donation of real property along the Burke-Gilman Trail in northeast Seattle, from the Estate of Jack Allbritton, for open space, park, and recreation purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02122018_CB 119189 | Speaker 3: Very good. Any further questions? All 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 Sustainability and Transportation Committee report.
Speaker 4: The report at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item six Accountable 119189 Granting Swedish Health Services permission to continue operating. Maintaining a pedestrian tunnel under an across Miner Avenue between Columbia Street and Marion Street for a ten year term renewal for two successive ten year terms specify the conditions under which the permit is granted, providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions and ratifying, confirming research and prior acts. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is. This legislation regards a pedestrian tunnel that connects two buildings up on the Swedish campus. This would replace a permit that had previously been granted but has expired. And as the title states, this would be for a ten year term permit, which could be renewed up to for up to two successive ten year permits . Have periods after that for a total of 30 years.
Speaker 3: Very good. Any comments? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Sarah O'Brien. I want. Bakeshop Gonzales I Herbold High Johnson.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Juarez High Harrell High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passed show assignment please read a matter number seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting Swedish Health Services permission to continue operating and maintaining a pedestrian tunnel under and across Minor Avenue, between Columbia Street and Marion Street, for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02122018_Res 31797 | Speaker 4: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda Item nine Resolution 317 87 Setting the public hearing on the petition of North BLOCK Spring Street Developments, LLC for the vacation of the Alley BLOCK 52 plat of an extension of trees for 70 excuse me first edition to the city of Seattle in the block bounded by Seneca Street, Eighth Avenue, Spring Street , and Hubbard Place in the first Hill neighborhood planning area of Seattle. According to Chapter 35.39 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 Code and quick file 314 364.
Speaker 3: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our rules require that this type of public hearing be set by resolution of the full council. This is the property described in the title of the resolution, but for reference, it's the surface parking lots. It's around town hall on first hill that are being redeveloped and they'll be asking for a notification. The date of this hearing will be in committee on March 6th.
Speaker 3: Very good. Any further comments? I will move to adopt resolution 317970. Second has been moved in second to the resolution be adopted. Are there any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries in the resolutions adopted than chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come for the council? Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President I move to be excused.
Speaker 1: On February 20th.
Speaker 3: It's been moved in second and the Councilmember Gonzalez be excused for on February 20th. Any comments? All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Councilmember Johnson had.
Speaker 0: Asked to be excused on Monday, April 9th.
Speaker 3: Or not, it's been moved and second of the council member Johnson be excused April 9th. Any further comments. All those in favor say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Is there any other business giving for counts council members. So what?
Speaker 1: Thank you. But now a move to be excused on Monday, March 5th.
Speaker 3: March 5th, their second moved in say that council members want be excused March 5th. Any comments? All those in favor say i, i. Others opposed. The ayes have it. Any further business going before the council? If not, we stand adjourned. And everyone, have a great day here.
Speaker 6: Still. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of North Block Spring Street Development LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 52, Plat of an Extension to Terry’s 1st Addition to the City of Seattle in the block bounded by Seneca Street, 8th Avenue, Spring Street, and Hubble Place in the First Hill Neighborhood Planning 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 314364. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01292018_Res 31793 | Speaker 2: Please read the report of the full council.
Speaker 7: The report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Resolution 317 93 opposing a proposed liquefied natural gas facility in Tacoma and urging the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to reflect, reject its permit applications.
Speaker 2: COUNCILMEMBER So want.
Speaker 9: To thank you, President.
Speaker 1: Harrell.
Speaker 9: And I apologize in advance. My comments will need to go a little bit in depth into the question of what LNG actually is. So I will make an effort to include most of the points that have come up. This resolution opposes the liquefied natural gas or LNG for short plan that Puget Sound Energy is attempting to build into Goma. I want to first express my gratitude to all the Puyallup tribal leaders and activists and all and members of all native tribes who have not only begun to begin to build a movement against the Tacoma LNG plant, but also have been at the forefront of the struggle against environmental destruction and against climate change. Many of you, I think, were personally at Standing Rock, so this is not the first battle we're fighting. I also want to thank all the activists who have been fighting against B.C. LNG, which includes environmental activists, labor union rank and file members, and also native members from Seattle who live in Seattle. If this facility were actually built and run, it would hold over 8 million gallons of natural gas that has been frozen and condensed to one 600 volume. When expanded back into it's natural they perform. This plant would hold an incredible 4.8 billion gallons of natural gas. Puget Sound Energy is a massive, multi-billion dollar non-for-profit fossil fuel company owned by a multinational company out of Australia. In other words, PSC is owned by billionaires and just like any other multinational corporation under capitalism, BSE is interested in one thing only profits, and they will sacrifice the world and environment that we all depend on to survive. The lives and the livelihoods of regular people if it increases their wealth bases the company responsible for improperly maintaining one of their natural gas lines and Greenwood leading to an explosion that destroyed several small businesses, injured firefighters and probably would have killed people if it wasn't. Not that it was lucky enough that it happened at night. Now they want to station 4.8 billion gallons of this highly volatile fuel in a metropolitan area and on the lands of the people of tribe without the tribes permission. And in the context of a breathtaking lack of tribal consultation. And because he is using the power and influence of their immense wealth to try and convince people to support by making pseudoscientific arguments, to convince people to support this dangerous and polluting venture. Because he has claimed that this LNG plant will bring down the costs for people who heat their house with bases, natural gas or get electricity from these natural gas power plants. That is not true because he is a for profit company and its profits go to its wealthy shareholders, not to its ratepayer customers. When was the last time a billionaire owned company gave out checks to ratepayers? When was the last time you got a check at home? Seattle satellite is a publicly owned utility, and one satellite makes extra money that goes directly to benefit its ratepayers. And there's a public process involved because the city council oversees it. But B.C. is not like that. But he's also claiming that natural gas is somehow clean or a cleaner fuel. We need to correct that. Many in the environmental movement are calling LNG the next big battle, the next big battleground over climate change, because propaganda that claims natural gas, environmental friendly is like the coal industry's advertisements lauding the so-called clean coal because environmental claims center around an argument that LNG is cleaner than the highly dirty diesel coal bunker fuel used by many cargo ships and I think most cargo ships today. How low do you have to sink in order for the, quote unquote, better than bunker fuel argument to be convincing? And absurdly, that might not even be true. But let's look at the facts. It is true that LNG is less polluting polluting that bunker fuel at the point that it is burned. But LNG is also extremely destructive when it is extracted and transported when natural gas is burned. It produces carbon dioxide, which is the greenhouse gas that causes climate change. Beyond that, most natural gas today is extracted from deep in the earth using a technique called fracking or hydraulic fracturing. But the earth is fractured with pressurized water. Fracking pollutes the water with many deadly and carcinogenic chemicals. And research shows it may even cause earthquakes. Natural gas is overwhelmingly made up of methane, which is also a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more warming, that carbon dioxide. And during the fracking and later transportation of that natural gas, methane leaks into the atmosphere, further adding to climate change. And when you include the climate change impacts of methane with the impacts of the CO2 and the pollution from the fracking, many environmentalists believe that natural gas may be as bad or worse than diesel. But even if it were hypothetically, even if it were true that LNG is at least no worse than diesel, that is not the metric by which we should be judging these things in this day and age. Based on everything that we know now about climate change, making new investments in fossil fuel is absolutely the most destructive and the worst way to go. It is like taking a thousand steps backwards. The point is we are talking about what infrastructure is built for the future for the next 5000 years. Cargo ship companies are going to be building ships that use the cheap fuel sources that are readily available. This LNG plant would be an expansion of that whole fossil fuel infrastructure. That would be a barrier to building truly clean fuel sources in the future, which is why so many of you and other regular people and organizations have come out in staunch opposition to LNG in general and this facility in particular. Residents of Tacoma and Puyallup tribe members do not want to see themselves or their families the casualties of an explosion like what happened at Greenwood only on a much larger scale. And regular people all over the world who are not PSC shareholders want an end, not an expansion one an end to not an expansion of LNG. We do not when it's a question of climate change, when it's a question of fighting for disadvantaged communities and communities of color, we do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Already. Already our movement has had a huge impact and I already want a concrete victory. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency just five days ago announced that they will carry out a supplemental impact analysis, and this time that will include quantitative analysis of the emissions throughout the fossil fuel lifecycle, which will be a scientific approach because it showed if they are if they do it the right way, it should take into consideration other things like the dangers of fracking. The Washington State Democratic Party Central Committee has passed a resolution against this facility. The King County Democratic Party Central Committee has passed a resolution against us. Hundreds of you have sent emails, have called our offices. 50,000 people have signed a petition from the tribal members that is demanding that Elon that Governor Inslee stand in opposition against LNG. So I want to thank you all courageous activists who have organized and successfully brought us to this point. But let's also remember, as hard as this fight will be and it will be hard, there are so many victories in the past that we can build on the Tacoma method, not the proposed marine planned at the port was defeated. The Cherry Point Terminal was defeated. And and at first nobody thought we could do it, but we did it. And that's why we need to persevere. Now as an elected representative of working people and as a rank and file member of the labor movement myself, I do also want to answer the question about jobs, which is an important question, and I really appreciate myself the rank and file member, that this is an important question not only to organized labor but to workers in general. We all want decent living wage, unionized jobs. But this is why this is exactly why we should not buy into Baez's propaganda that it's using to justify this dangerous and polluting LNG facility. We heard the statistics, the damning statistics about how few jobs are going to be created. There is no shortage of jobs that could be created in fixing our crumbling infrastructure, our transportation with electric vehicles and public transportation to replace our electricity generating infrastructure with power generated by wind, solar and other fuel sources that do not cause climate change. There is no shortage of jobs that could be had. Yes, the question remains that those jobs are not here today. But how do we get there is the question. The problem is that if we use this line that these are the jobs we have today and this is what he has to offer, then there will never be a solution and we will always be digging more into our graves as far as climate change is concerned. And the problem and this is a political question. This is not it's not a question of ecology or other science is the political question. As long as the power remains, power and wealth remains in the hands of the billionaires, they have no incentive to switch to renewable energy. So we have to do something and we have to start somewhere. And some point has to be a starting point. We cannot forever say that what we have these jobs. And so we have to we have to go forward because somewhere we have to draw the line. That is why I am a socialist, because we cannot afford to give companies like PSC the power to decide how society is structured because we know how that's going. We need to build a movement to demand that politicians tax big business and use those resources to build clean energy sources, generate green jobs, unionized jobs. And it is been my honor to work with environmental, tribal and labor activists to fight for those green jobs. I want to particularly thank Mark Martinez from the Pierce County Building Trades and Matthew Hepner from the statewide IBEW, who spoke today who are very willing to meet us. Last Monday with myself, members of the Puyallup tribe, and I thank Councilmember James Rideout for being there, an environmental activist and as I said, rank and file members from labor themselves who are against this plan. We all had a very good meeting. We obviously did not agree on all issues, but it is essential, sisters and brothers, that we use that model because it is essential we find common ground with one another, because we need to unite our movement in order to overcome the political power of big business. And while we did not come out of Monday's meeting with an agreement. I am really thankful to all of you to have had the opportunity to maintain those lines of communication. I apologize that I was not able to contact every representative of labor, but our intention very much is to, you know, work in solidarity with labor. It reminded me it was a good, good, good memory that we had done a similar meeting during the shuttle, no campaign. And there was a similar difference of opinion that arose between the environmental and tribes movement on one side and the labor movement and maritime trade and other. And I really thank Nicole Grant, who is now the head of the King County Labor Council, for helping me co-chair that meeting. The reality is that when the labor movement and especially the trades they go, stand with the support of social movements, we can build immense power. The labor movement is in a strong position to draw a line in the sand and say there will be no more fossil fuel infrastructure built in this country. You know, with our labor, because labor has the power of going on strike and refusing to work, and that is the most incredible power, because if we as workers refuse to go to work, PSC makes no profits. And so I appeal to everybody that we let's let's work in a united fashion so that we send a strong message to our fellow community members. Our fight is not with each other as working people. Our fight is against the corporate bosses and the financial oligarchy. And just to give you a stat statistic here, $800 million of aggregate commitments have already been made for this plant by the financial industry. And there's all your usual suspects Jp morgan Chase, Bank of America and KeyBank, and also your friendly neighborhood, Wells Fargo. They are all the financial underwriters of this project. So let's not forget who exactly is to blame for this now, largely because we have to think of next steps. As many of you know, PSC LNG plant is currently being constructed even though they have not received all the necessary permits. This is a very common, strong arming tactics used by corporations. They will were started already thinking that they will intimidate the movement enough to go away. But we're not going to be intimidated. Right. So we need to keep building the movement. I urge the City Council of Seattle to have the same courage as our movement and be willing to stand up against a powerful company like Boise. I thank Councilmember Juarez for doing a lot of work with us in terms of making sure that all the language that we need in order to represent the the positions of the tribal leaders are included. I also know that several other council members have been negotiating amendments over one another. I was not part of that and I'm happy to vote on the original version of my resolution, if that if that goes forward. But there is an understanding that council members may want to delay the vote because they feel that it has been rushed. I will accept that as long as it's not a cover to water down the resolution. And if council members want to delay the vote for any reason, I would urge you all I would appeal to you all to state your reasons for why you want to delay. But my message to the activists is, regardless of what happens today, please know that we need to keep building a fighting movement and holding all elected officials accountable. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Swann. And we discussed this morning about sort of the posture of this case. I know we have several amendments that have been discussed and sort of work behind the scenes, so to speak, in it. As of 1030 this morning, they were still being developed, I think even up until noon, our cutoff deadline. I had mentioned earlier that one motion we may want to consider is moving it back to moving it to the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Community Committee for further consideration. Not so far as watering it down or any other purpose, but there has been very little public process. We heard today both opposing views of Councilmember Swann space legislation and supporting views, but we haven't had really the public dialog or the committee structure and it's not a preferred practice to have resolutions on the full council. So I'd like to hear some opinions from some of my colleagues, whether we want to go through all of the amendments that we have one after another now, or we want to refer it to the committee. Given the Puget Sound Clean Air Agencies request or demand for a supplemental environmental review, what your thoughts are. Councilmember Belcher.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I am going to second your motion if and when you do it to refer it to Councilmember Suarez's Committee. And before I do, I want to.
Speaker 9: Thank those of you.
Speaker 1: Who came today and a number of you from the pull up tribe who said you are pleased that at last you've got a voice on this council. And I want to tell you, you have a very excellent, respectful and capable voice in Councilmember Suarez. So I feel lucky to have her here. And I want to thank you all for coming, because her voice and your voice matters a lot to me. I want to also acknowledge my colleagues and friends in the various labor unions who came today. I believe that what we should do is to bring this conversation back to the table. And I think that, Mr. O'Halloran, you mentioned this, that having the health and safety issues up front and then for us to consider the air quality issues and frankly respectfully how we work with Tacoma, the port of Tacoma, the tribes, because they do have tribal consultation rates that haven't been respected to date. So I believe that we have a real opportunity to have this respectful regional cooperation and opportunity led by Councilmember Suarez, where the tribes, our communities are workers, their safety is front and center. But also we hear from scientists, people that can tell us about the natural resources, what we need to do in our region. And again, respectfully ask the city of Tacoma, the port of Tacoma and others to join us so we can really get our hands around this. So I'm going to recommend it go back to her committee and when you move it, I will.
Speaker 3: Seconded Councilmember Waters say cuts no worries and so on.
Speaker 2: Out mama I'm.
Speaker 6: Original her original.
Speaker 2: In all due respect, ma'am, public comment is over and I don't want to have to, but I understand. But. But but we should also know that we had a discussion with council members who want this morning as one of our respected colleagues about this procedural issue. But we hear you, Councilman, where you have the floor. Ma'am, I want to see this. This, ma'am, I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to hold you disruptive in a minute, which I don't want to do, which you're going to be removed. I'm going to let you know I'm going to have to remove you if you keep that up.
Speaker 1: Councilman Morris Council President Thank you. Councilmember. So want for bringing us this resolution that we've been working on for the last week. The overarching goal and the main purpose in the spirit intent of this resolution is to address climate change and its disproportionate effect on tribal communities and lands, in particular the Puyallup Nation. What we plan to do with with the resolution in the drafting was to also attach the resolution from ATCI, which was passed in September 2017, opposing the LNG plant and to also attach the NCAI resolution passed in October 2017 opposing the LNG plant. I've had an opportunity to speak with the Puyallup tribal elected leadership as well as their council. I had an opportunity to read the correspondence between PSC reps CAA that would be the clean air energy in their correspondence and the notice of violation. I had an opportunity to read the Shoreline Hearings, Board Opinion and the appeal by the Puyallup tribe in which the court found that they indeed did have standing. Now, let me just be very clear. The most important issue here for us in this council and what we've seen is the lack of tribal consultation and the concerns regarding the Puget Sound Clean Air Energy, which has elected leadership from four counties, which include nine tribes. We have no elected tribal elected leaders on that very important air agency that has been around since 1967. 51 years as. We know tribal consultation is not just an amenity, it is required by law. And my understanding is it did not happen in this case. I'm an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Nation. I've been a lawyer for 31 years and I've been representing tribes my whole life. I was a tribal attorney and I was a trial lawyer in USV, Washington. I was born and raised on the Puyallup Reservation. I know Blair Waterway. I know high blows. I know Commencement Bay. And I was there when the court ruled that the mob tried indeed owned the Tidelands. So I understand this issue and many, many levels. This is not about the city of Seattle versus the city of Tacoma or PSC versus the Puget Sound clean air energy or tribes versus labor or tribes versus business or tribe versus the port. All jurisdictional and legal arguments aside, the tribes, the tribe, the Puyallup nation is, has always been and will continue to be the original steward of that land as signatories to the Treaty of Medicine Creek. They are the original water protectors and they will be here long after all of us are gone. The tribes are not going anywhere. And I want to make it very clear what I heard today. The Puget Sound, the Salish Sea, the Tidelands. Nobody owns them but the tribes. The Puyallup Tribe has a treaty, right? Government to government, tribal consultation. And again, all jurisdictional and legal arguments aside, the tribes will continue to be here and we will continue to defend their right to tribal consultation and their treaty. Right. This is our Dakota Access Pipeline moment, except we're on the front end of this. These are our water protectors. And again, you know, I bristle when I hear people say, stay in your lane. This is our lane. It's Indian country. So again, I want to go back to what I'm working with my colleagues. I want to thank Councilmember Mosqueda, Councilmember Bagshaw, Councilmember Herbold and President Harrell, who have been working on us and different drafts, because our main goal has been to make sure that climate change and its disparate impact on the nation and other signatories to the treaties, STEPHENS Treaties of the 1960s are upheld. This council, the Seattle City Council, which I'm proud to be a part of, has been consistent in its actions to reduce carbon emissions, to support the Paris climate agreement, to stop the oil trains. And, of course, we passed a resolution, two of them, to protect the water protectors, the Dakota Access pipeline. And we now know that we have had three spills in that project. And the main issue there was lack of tribal consultation. I am a personal friend of all the leadership that you saw sitting in the front row. Except I just met you, sir, but I knew your uncle well. I used to babysit David being so he probably didn't want people telling them his mother was one of my mentors. Gloria, we should all be working with all of our tribal governments and sister cities. When we recognize this, when we recognize an environmental risk or injustice. I should remind people that the last treaty that was made with our people was in 1871. And since the Steven Treaties and the treaty with my own tribe, we have been fighting to uphold that. We are more than warriors, we're soldiers. And that has never stopped. One of the council members addressed various victories Cherry Point oil trains in Elliott Bay. But I want to remind people that tribes are not environmental groups. They are not clubs. They are not a political base. They are a government. And what one of those cases, quite frankly, for Cherry Point, was the Lummi Nation. What won that issue for the oil trains was Suquamish and Swinomish. Both chairman's very dear friend of mine and I used to represent those tribes, the Elliot Bay issues in the lawsuits. That was Michael Shute. That is because when you have a treaty right in your back pocket, it trumps state and federal law. It is the law of the land. I mean, no disrespect to the advocates, activists, environmentalists and all the groups that align themselves with Native people. But again, tribes are not an interest group. We're not a club. We're not a political base. We're not a grassroots organization. We are a government a government accorded the same sovereignty as federal, state and city governments with all the privileges, amenities and responsibilities. So I think those of you who are not members of tribes but are here to be supportive, I appreciate that. But are people died for this land and we will continue. And I want to add on one last note. It has been a privilege to work with the colleagues that I have here because we all work together. And the reason why we want this to go back to in which we now added and to my committee, which has never happened before in any city, we have never had native communities on the legislative branch. And my goal has, which has been wonderful in that I have had an opportunity to reach out and speak directly government to government with Puyallup and other tribal elected leadership, such as council member Mr. Rideout. And that's important. I'm not taking away the work from the activists and environmentalists and unions and the and the interest groups. But what I am saying and the perspective that I come from is I like to rely on facts, on evidence, on research and on history. And with that, I'm glad that this issue is going to come back to my committee and we can sit down and we can talk about what this means to government. To government. I'm not here to debate the science. I am not an engineer. I'm not a scientist. I appreciate the people who came through public comment who do have that. And like I said, I did have an opportunity to look at PSC. I was one of the attorneys that sued the I have sued Pewds so many times is a tribal lawyer and one I represented the lower Elwha tribe in the removal of their dams when they tried to build a grieving dock on their ancestral lands on their graveyard. I know this stuff. So it isn't for me just about having a slogan or a hashtag or a T-shirt or a one liner for us. Those Native people who are in the room, we don't have the luxury of letting things like this go. So we will not stay in our lane. And I can assure you that this council is just as compassionate and is just as diligent as me to wanting to make sure that climate change in its impact on the Puyallup and Native folk that we pay attention to, that that we demand tribal consultation and that we make sure and we have discussed this with our mayor, with her seat on this very important agency. That elected tribal leadership must be part of this conversation, otherwise it cannot go forward. I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Whereas. Cancer Council member O'Brien. The floor is yours, sir.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council member Wise, thank you for those powerful words, and thank you for your ongoing work on this and your work to elevate the conversation between the city and tribal leadership around the region and around the country. Councilmember Swan, I also want to thank you for bringing forward this resolution, which I fully support. I support it today and I will certainly support it continue working through working with it through committee. I want to just highlight a couple of things. Well, what's been said and I'll just repeat briefly, I'm proud that this council has stood with the Lummi tribe defending their sovereignty in fighting the coal export facility up there. I'm proud that this council has stood with the people of Standing Rock in fighting the oil pipeline through their tribe. And I will be standing with the Puyallup tribe as they fight this LNG facility to. I want to say thank you to labor leaders that were here today speaking on behalf of workers. And I want to just reiterate what Councilmember Salmon said, that the people that work for fossil fuel companies that are feeding their families and paying the rent for that, these are good people. They're not our enemies here. As we move to a fossil free society. It's critically important that that transition is a fair, thoughtful and just transition away from the fossil fuel industry. And we need to center those workers at that work to make sure that the impact on them is is minimal. But we also know if we're transitioning to a fossil free society, we cannot add new fossil free infrastructure today. So which is why I fought the Shell Oil rigs in the earlier bay was why we're going to fight this LNG plant. I want to also reiterate that. Half a dozen years ago, there were a lot of people that thought natural gas was a transition fuel that we could be switching to. The science has been telling us since then that that has shifted. Two things have shifted. One, it's becoming more and more apparent that the changes and the threats to our climate are happening much more swiftly than we had previously thought. We have to act faster than we thought. We had time, even just half a dozen years ago. And as council members so on highlighted, we also are learning more and more about the impacts of natural gas. When you calculate the leakage that happens in in the pipelines, in storage and in the mines for these, the impacts are significant and may actually be a worse fossil fuel than even things as awful as bunker fuel. But having the arguments over which fuel is the best fuel when we know they're all bad and they all need to stay on the ground, really misses the point. We certainly shouldn't be building a piece of infrastructure that's going to lock us in for decades of a fossil fuel. Instead, we should be focusing our energy on a clean transition to clean energy. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Comes from O'Brien. So I will move to her for item one, resolution 317932, the Civic Development Public Assets, a native community native community committee for further consideration. All those in favor of the motion and any more discussion about the motion. Okay. Councilmember Swan and then Governor Skinner.
Speaker 1: Ahead. Go. Good.
Speaker 2: This is on the motion, correct? Yes.
Speaker 7: On the motion?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. So I just want to comment on a few of the themes that we've heard today. There's some recurring themes that the panelists have brought up that I've heard throughout the day and throughout the last two weeks from my colleagues as well. Number one, there is a commitment to protecting the environment. Number two, we want to move towards greater clean energy jobs and a cleaner energy economy. And number three, which came out loud and clear today, is that there is a commitment to stand in solidarity for tribal representatives, not only have respect, but to have what is afforded to them under the law, which is government to government relations. As a member of the labor movement, as someone who stands shoulder to shoulder with labor, brothers and sisters every day. I want to reiterate something that we also heard. Every single union that I spoke to throughout the last two weeks has said that they send a solidarity message with the tribes, with the Puyallup nation, that we will want we want government to government relations to be respected. It is not a nicety. It is the law. No one today has said counter to that, and I appreciate what council members want and others have said today, we will not reduce this issue to labor versus tribes. We cannot and we will not. As Vince O'Halloran also mentioned, the Labor movement has a long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with our tribal brothers and sisters, and my office has made it clear under no uncertain, uncertain terms, that doing the bare minimum, which has been discussed this morning and in the last two weeks, as required under the law with respect to outreach to tribal governments, is not good enough. We know that the bare minimum exacerbates environmental racism. It harms rank and file workers. It harms communities of color. These individuals are bearing the brunt of climate change. We must go above and beyond the bare minimum to create sustainable change, to make sure that we're promoting green energy jobs and be transparent in our actions, as well as council members as we engage with other municipalities. That is why I'm supporting Councilmember Suarez's effort to bring this to her committee. That is why I'm supporting the effort to make sure that the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee has the opportunity to have this discussion in conjunction with tribal representatives, with labor union members and workers, with government municipalities. Because we will not be divided. We cannot be pitted against each other. And that is how we build a movement. I know from my colleagues and conversations with them over the last two weeks that when we have this conversation in committee, it will be a full and robust discussion. And for those who haven't had the opportunity to see the proposed language, which has been discussed, as you heard, up until ten 3011 this morning, we will be more informed as we move forward on this very important discussion, and we'll have the opportunity to engage more fully with the public. But I want to be clear that the outcome of this resolution and the outcome of committee is not enough. We here in Seattle have an opportunity to lead by example, to show what it means to create those green energy economies, to actually take the reins on this issue. And that's why I think it's important that we look internal into our own house to address the policies that we need, not to just curb global warming, but to create the green energy economy that our city can create our own our own Office of Environment and Sustainability has reported in the Media Report and recently, as of last week, that we are nowhere near meeting our own emissions reduction goals. The largest contributor locally to climate change. We must act on that. We must hold ourselves accountable. Work in conjunction with labor unions and workers and tribes and environmentalists and our regional municipalities to address this change right here in Seattle. I'm going to throw out three ideas because I think it's important to act on these. Number one, I want free transit for every resident and commuter in this city. This would immediately, immediately reduce carbon emissions. It would immediately help to put more folks to work in King County Metro and Sound Transit with good paying union jobs. It would provide access to transportation for all residents, regardless of income. And it would create a better experience for everyone here commuters, those who live here, and those who want to visit. Number two, I think we should be looking internally to how we retrofit our own buildings throughout Seattle. I've had conversations with folks in the building and construction trades who tell me that they've been to boiler rooms in our own city down in the basement, and the room is 120 degrees. We are admitting energy unnecessarily to heat our own buildings when we should be thinking about how we retrofit our buildings throughout Seattle. Number three, I think we need to call for us to have action immediately on an energy audit so that we move to glean clean, green energy technology. Working with the Port of Seattle, working with the Port of Tacoma, regional tribes, our neighboring municipalities. We must protect industrial lands, clean up our waterways and promote, promote green manufacturing jobs. So working with the longshore, working with the seafarers, we can become leaders in green clean energy technology for. Our own ports while protecting and promoting our economy, our health, our lands and our port. So this is the things that I think that we can do when we work together. The movement that we create must be all inclusive. We must find the intersectionality of our struggle so that we lift up the health, protect good living wage jobs, and protect our environment. I want to thank again the good work of the council, especially the good work that Councilmember Juarez is about to begin in her committee. I think that this is just the beginning of how we create a more inclusive conversation, how we can make sure that it's a productive discussion. And I look forward to making sure that we're creating a unified movement that never pits ourselves against each other. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Skinner. Consumers want.
Speaker 9: All of us as activists, you know, because we worked together on this. No, I would be ready to vote on the resolution today because I think that we know everything that there is to be known at this moment about climate change and about LNG. I don't exactly understand. I have to admit, I don't exactly I don't understand why it is being postponed. But I will vote yes on this on the on the condition that we actually see from the council a resolution that does the job. What this resolution draft does, which is opposes LNG, the LNG plant in Tacoma. And I, I really agree, obviously that the law is for us, for every government to maintain and respect government to government relations. But I think it also needs to be said, this is not about government or government relations. This is about the lives of ordinary people, many of whom are native, but others are not. But we all. Share. We all share in the same fate. If we don't deal with climate change and I don't think that we should in any way accept this kind of divisive sort of language that, well, Native people are the only real speakers, and others don't get to speak. Not all of us have a stake in this. All of us should stand with Native people because they are on the front lines. But I don't agree with having sort of this tiered activist sort of stature. We all stand together because all of our lives are at stake together. If you look at the whole radius where this facility will impact, if there's an explosion, it's not only Native people living there. There's white people and black people. I don't I'm not done the demographic study, but I'm assuming that there's people of different races and ethnicities there. I think we all should be at the forefront of struggle. Absolutely. In solidarity with the. I. I also think that I'm in response to a comment that was made. Science is extremely important. Science is very important to the native communities because they know they understand the science and they know that this is extremely dangerous to them. So I would not I think we have to be careful not do not do. Not to say that this is just about tribal relations, is not about science. The tribal leaders who spoke to me, they are extremely concerned about this issue because they understand the science. So it is not an either or. We are we are fighting in solidarity with the tribal leaders, but we're doing it because we understand the science of what will happen if we let this go forward. So I think that should be clear. And I look forward to working with you all and also with council members on this issue so that we make sure we have a strong resolution going forward. But also, please know from our experience, we cannot let up on our movement. We cannot just put our blind faith in active officials. We have to keep building our grassroots movement. And I look forward to being there with you. And in addition to being on the dais, I look forward to being there with you on the streets. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Do.
Speaker 2: Okay. So we have a live motion on the tables and moved in second. I think everyone understands it, so I don't and we've had ample comments there. So I'll call for a vote. Now, all those in favor of the motion to refer please vote I. I opposed the ayes have it so will be referred to the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Community Committee. For further consideration, let's move to the next agenda item. Agenda item number two, please read that into the record.
Speaker 7: The report they read the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item two Appointment 886 Reappointment of Timothy Lennon as members Seattle Music Commission for Term two August 31st, 2020. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION addressing a proposed liquefied natural gas facility in Tacoma, and urging the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to improve tribal consultation procedures and collaborate with regional mayors, leaders, and tribes to address the growing impact of climate change. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01292018_CB 119062 | Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilor Herbold, any further comments on these appointments? 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 porch of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.
Speaker 7: The report The Finance and Neighborhoods Commendation Number five Constable 1190 62 relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Crescent Town Building in landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12, as occurred at each to the table, historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 ceremonies of occur. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Thank you. As you all know, the landmarks preservation part of Department of Neighborhoods is now in my committee. And we had the first opportunity this last week to talk with two people who are going to be seeing their properties landmarked. And the first one is the Crescent Hamm building. Specifically, what is the controls that will be imposed to the exterior of the building? The building was built in 1926 and West Seattle. It houses currently easy street records. And one thing that I want to commend Council President Harrell for in my committee is to ask the people who were at the table, how did the process go? And I want to acknowledge that for the owners of the building and ham, it didn't go particularly well. They felt that they were attacked by the community. And I will be following up to talk with our Department of Neighborhoods about what we can do to make that an improved process. But the committee in this case recommended passing the ordinance, and we will put that in front of you now.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Any further comments or questions? Yes. Yes. Just cancer.
Speaker 1: And herbal. So I just like to speak to this. This is a preservation project that I was involved in last year, both speaking before the the committee, as well as speaking in favor of it when it was discussed previously in Council Member Burgess. This committee, this is the second recent historic preservation ordinance before the Council for specifically the West Seattle Junction. Back in December, the Council approved similar legislation for the Campbell building, which is the home of Cupcake Royale across the street. The origins of these two nominations were were very unique from the process. I think that normally precedes these nominations, and it was a result of community efforts. The Southwest Seattle Historic Society Group led a collaborative effort, including the Southwest District Council, the West Seattle Junction Association and the Junction Neighborhood Association, as well as Arts West. They produced a report that was presented in my committee in early 2016 called What Makes the West Seattle Junction Special. It included a property by property analysis and recommendations for specific properties for landmark status and just want to give a shout out to the folks who are involved with that. Clay Eales. Chaz Redman. Deb Barker. Susan Melrose. All of their work is really important to preserve the link to Seattle's history, specifically West Seattle's history. Mike Doocy of WG Clark Construction and Jack Corbo of the Building Ownership Group for the Campbell Building also appeared back for the committee vote back in November. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other further comments in that? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Macheda O'Brien. SA1 Peck. John Gonzalez. Herbold. II Johnson Suarez. President Harrell on Twitter. Hi. Nine in favor nine oppose.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Crescent-Hamm Building, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01292018_CB 119182 | Speaker 2: The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 7: Agenda Item six Council Bill 119 182 Relating to Historic Preservation Imposing Controls upon the Pacific Architect and Builder Building landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Kalamazoo Code. And adding to the table, historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seven Perspectives. Can we recommend Civil Pass?
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The historical landmark preservation ordinance 119182 here imposes controls on the Pacific Architect and builder building, which is Near East Lake Newton and Yale. The ordinance places controls on the site. WG Clark is going to take it over as their office building. The exterior of the building and the interior roof and ceiling will be preserved. The building was built in 1960 and the committee recommends passing this ordinance.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Andy, for the comments. Cosmo Johnson.
Speaker 8: Always great to see stuff in the Eastlake neighborhood. Shout out to D for. I just wanted to see you laugh. Councilmember Juarez. This is a great building that used to be the home to the United Indians of all tribes before they moved in. I was fortunate enough to get to know a young lady who was working out of this building, and a couple of years later, we got married. So I know this building really well. I'm really excited to see it preserved in perpetuity. It's a beautiful gift.
Speaker 2: Okay, now for the comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Macheda O'Brien. Sergeant Big John Gonzalez. High Verbal High Johnson. Whereas President Harrell High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passed in Cheryl Senate. Please read agenda item number seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Pacific Architect & Builder Building, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01222018_CB 119150 | Speaker 0: The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Community. Agenda Item one Council Bill 119150 An ordinance relating to Volunteer Park authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a development agreement and lease with the Seattle Art Museum for the renovation and continued occupancy for recreation purposes of the building that has historically housed the Seattle Asian Art Museum. And ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, councilmember suarez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The agreement for the new seattle asian art museum. Before I get into the details of this bill, I believe Councilmember Gonzalez has an amendment to the ordinance to ensure proper advertising of the community benefits guaranteed in this agreement. So I will hand it over to Councilmember Gonzalez for the amendment and then we'll move on to the bass led the bass legislation.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Gonzales, you have the floor.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. This is an amendment to Council Bill 119150. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119150 by adding a last sentence to Section three, which will read as follows. With regard to any public benefits required under the lease system, it shall take adequate measures to clearly inform the public of these benefits, including identifying such benefits and marketing and outreach materials covering public activities at the same.
Speaker 1: Her second. Would you any further comments on Councilmember Gonzalez's amendment? Any questions? More need for elaboration. We prepare to vote. Okay. We're going to vote on the amendment first. All those in favor of Councilmember Gonzalez's amendment, please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we have an amended piece of legislation. Councilmember Juarez, thank you.
Speaker 2: First of all, I want to thank the SAM folks for working with us and being here. I also want to thank Council President Harrell. For the last two years we've been working on this as well as Councilmember Bagshaw. And now more recently, Councilmember Gonzalez. And I also want to thank the individuals that have showed up at every meeting to give their public comment whether they agree with this or not. I do appreciate and I did listen to your comments and your concerns, and I want you to know that I did hear you. But with that, I'm going to move forward. In 2008, voters approved the Parks and Greenspace levy, which included funding to renovate the Seattle Asian Art Museum and Volunteer Park. Due to the effects of the recession of the project, the project was not able to move forward. That would have been during the recession in oh eight. The city and the museum made an agreement to hold off on the project until economic conditions improved, and then they did. Today we are here to able to finally finalize plans. Nearly ten years in the making to not only renovate the museum but expand it to increase education and exhibit space. The $55 million project includes a $19 million contribution from the city and I believe $6 million from federal tax credits. This agreement includes a long list of public benefits, one in which we required the Seattle Asian Art Museum to go back to the drawing board at least two occasions, to come back and give us a more complete and robust description about what public benefits they would be providing to the city in the citizens of Seattle. For the full list, you can see Exhibit B in the lease agreement. I would like to highlight the following key benefits explicit. There's explicit commitment to partner with Seattle Public with the Sealed Public School District. Was there a criteria for targeting school partners and details in an annual outreach efforts? President Harrell insisted on that seven in-school art education programs and free tours for up to 75 schools annually. Eight workshops, three day camps and 15 free lectures and panel discussions. Again, the people on the committee at the time, myself, Councilmember Bagshaw and President Harrell, insisted this this component was crucial in order to be a public benefit. In addition, there's 15 $50,000 minimum scholarship assistance fund with an annual escalation equal to the escalation of the city's operating subsidy for the Seattle Asian Art Museum. I should add that we went from 25 to 15. We required that you double that, and you did also an annual fee, publicly accessible cultural event. Approximately the annual value value of all benefits listed in Exhibit B is approximately $340,000, 340,000 in about $2,016, give or take some change. The committee recommends the passage of this bill. Is there anything you want to add? Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just I want to thank you for your intrepid leadership on this and say thank you to the patients of Sam, also to the neighbors who have come out. I know that you feel like there haven't been enough public meetings, but I think over the years we've seen many, many opportunities for people to weigh in , express their opinions. We know that there's disagreement. I believe that it's time for us to move forward on this, that the city had a commitment during our park levy early in 2008 that we were going to care for this building that was ours and also put forward the fact that was needed and the structural seismic changes we've got to do. That is our responsibility and I'm very thankful. Again, Councilmember Suarez, Councilmember Gonzales, for your keen eye on some of this language and it's really time to move on this.
Speaker 1: Very good, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I just wanted to speak to some of the issues around the use of park land for for this purpose. Back in 1997, the citizens of Seattle passed the Save Our Parks Initiative, Initiative 42, which stated that no land or facility shall be sold, transferred or change from park use to another usage unless the city shall first hold a public hearing and set out some process requirements, and then also required that the city shall at the same time or before receiving an exchange or land or facility of equivalent or better size, value, location or usefulness. You know, the city has. The city of Seattle has a long history of having Parks and Recreation Department land use for a wide variety of recreational activities, including including the arts. And in considering the the use of arts as part of the city's recreation offerings that ranges from the Green Lake Theater Dance, Madrona Dance Studio, Performing Arts , Langston Hughes and Pratt Fine Arts Center. And so in looking at how this transaction intersects with the requirements of Initiative 42, I think it's very appropriate that the city has determined that this exchange does not does not need to be subject to the provisions of Initiative 42.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Herbold. Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: Just briefly, I believe Councilmember Herbert is referring to the legal opinion that we requested, dated February 2017, which categorically concluded that the proposed museum use constitutes a, quote unquote park and recreational use and initiative. 42 therefore does not apply.
Speaker 1: Very good, Councilmember. So watch.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Harrell. I just wanted to make some general comments on this and the next item on the agenda which relate to the expansion of the Asian Art Museum. My office staff have met with the museum and with the Capitol Hill residents who are concerned about the expansion and its impact on the bargains. Also spoke today. I generally support the expansion because I support museums. The importance of art cannot possibly be overstated, and of course it is. We're talking about the Asian Art Museum, so it is even more of a crucial importance for our region in terms of the cultural opportunities it can potentially continue to bring to the people who live here. There are some points that the opponents of this expansion have made that I believe have merit in themselves, and I just wanted to register them today for future reference. The Art Museum, the Seattle Art Museum, which owns which owns the Asian Art Museum, is not free. We all know and not open to the public in the same way that parks are. So I think that is something for us to think about. Everyone should have. Just like everyone should. You believe everyone should have access to parks. Everyone should have access to art in our society. And I think the amount of money that people have to pay for specific exhibits, I mean, people it makes even otherwise people with otherwise decent living standards balk at the amount of money to pay for any specific exhibit. And I think there should be much more access to that. And it's not on the shoulders of any one person who just wanted to register those points. Unfortunately, right now the museum is open, as I understand, only four days a month. The city did provide will be providing millions in funding for this museum expansion as well as for some extra park space. And I believe that when we had that kind of bargaining position in the future, we should be asking for more opportunities for the public. And I'm sure that there's not going to be any disagreement about that. And I think especially when you look at the fact that admissions make up a small portion of the museum's revenues. Clearly, there's a lot of other lot of other sources that could actually potentially help me to help the museum be open four more days a week, if not all days a week. And I think this is particularly true in the case of the Asian Art Museum, which features art historically from communities of color. So I will be voting yes on this expansion. Thank you, Councilmember Suarez. And but I also appeal to the De Sam to reexamine the opportunities to radically expand free access to the amazing cultural resources that they're able to bring to the city.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. So once I'd like to say that I'm certainly very supportive of this legislation and I suppose reasonable minds can differ. It seems to me that when we are all dust that we will be known for our art, our music and our museums. And when we looked at the finances of this arrangement, it certainly was not rubber stamped. And we looked at the long schedule of payments and knowing that we are leveraging philanthropic dollars, private dollars and public dollars, I think that it certainly was not rubber stamped. I specifically asked during the committee discussions about what it cost to attend the museum, and it's my understanding that the museum asked for donations and that they don't turn down anyone who cannot pay. That was my understanding. I hope I'm not misstating what I heard at the table, that if a person can't pay, they're not required to pay. And these are suggested donations. And I also know that there are free Thursdays throughout the year. And this is because, as Councilmember Swan correctly points out, that this is a public gem and everyone should be able to enjoy the richness of this museum. So again, I want to thank the neighbors. They the the residents in the neighborhoods and the park advocates for always being the advocates that they are. And again, at the end of the day, perhaps reasonable minds can differ. But I support this legislation unapologetically. Councilman Waters, are we good to vote?
Speaker 2: We are good to vote. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. So this is a bill. So all those please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas I macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN So, Sergeant.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: BAGSHAW Hi. GONZALES Hi.
Speaker 0: HERBOLD Hi.
Speaker 2: Johnson President Harrell nine in favor and an oppose.
Speaker 1: The Bill Parsons show assignment. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Volunteer Park; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a development agreement and lease with the Seattle Art Museum for the renovation and continued occupancy for recreation purposes of the building that has historically housed the Seattle Asian Art Museum; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01222018_CB 119146 | Speaker 1: The Bill Parsons show assignment. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 0: Agenda Item two Council Bill 119146. An ordinance relating to land used in zoning amending sections 23.4 2.106 and 23.4 2.118 of the Seattle Municipal Code to modify standards for the expansion of nonconforming uses and structures. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Worse.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The Land Use Code Amendment. This Land Use Code Amendment is a companion legislation to the law, a bill that we just passed 119150 for the Asian Art Museum Project. A museum sits in a community zoned single family area that does not allow for instant institutionalized uses like museums. However, the museum predates this zoning designation and was grandfathered in. I believe the museum was built in 1932. I'm getting a bunch of yeses 1933, 1933 for the museum to complete this expansion. This land use code is amendment is necessary. This code amendment will only apply to the museum building and the project. The committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas I was Darragh O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez. I Herbold. I Johnson. President Harrell. Nine In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed in show Senate. Please read agenda items three and four together. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.42.106 and 23.42.118 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); to modify standards for the expansion of nonconforming uses and structures. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01222018_CB 119168 | Speaker 0: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item five Council Bill 119168 An Ordinance amending ordinance 125429 to modify the effective date of certain sections of that ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mesquita I just if you're paying attention, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 2: Asked Mr..
Speaker 1: Hill as a.
Speaker 2: Small little.
Speaker 1: Bill to change the effective date. As the clerk mentioned, I'm happy to answer questions. If people have any questions of this piece of legislation, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas I macheda i o'brien.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: So aren't I make sure. Gonzales, i herbold. Johnson President. Harrell all right. Nine in favor.
Speaker 1: Nine oppose the bill passed and show sign it. Is there any further business come for the council? If notwithstanding adjourn and everyone have a great rest of the day. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125429 to modify the effective date of certain sections of that ordinance. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01162018_CB 119177 | Speaker 3: Three Person Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item one Constable 119 177 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities transferring partial jurisdiction and real property within block one plat to the Terrace Community as recorded in Volume 267, Page 59 of Plats for maintenance repair replacement operation of the existing combined drainage and Sewer Facility Committee recommended the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Customer Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This legislation would transfer partial jurisdiction of property in Nassau Terrace from the Department of Parks and Recreation to Seattle Public Utilities for the purpose of operating and maintaining a combined drainage and sewer line. The legislation itself replaces the existing FHA easement and allows SPU to maintain, operate and replace the BIND Sewer main. The reason is basically because the current easement with parks is no longer valid.
Speaker 0: Any further questions or comments? Now please call the roll on the part of the Bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson or as Mr. O'Brien want I lecture Gonzales Herbold II President Harrell Hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed Chair of Senate Please read Agenda item number two. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities; transferring partial jurisdiction of real property within Block 1, Plat of Yesler Terrace Community, as recorded in Volume 267, page 59 of plats; for maintenance, repair, replacement, and operation of the existing combined drainage and sewer facility. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01162018_CB 119178 | Speaker 0: Thank very much. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries in the appointment is confirmed. Please read the next gen item.
Speaker 3: The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item six Constable 119 178 relating to the regulation of marijuana businesses amending sections 6.500 point zero, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0. 60.0. 70.0. 80.1. 10.1 69.1 70. Mr. Code adding a new section 6.500 point 143 to set limits for code and ratify and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: The investment bank.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Council Bill 119178 makes amendments to our Seattle Municipal Code Section 6.5. We passed this by ordinance in 2015 and it related to regulating marijuana businesses to align with state laws and provide equitable enforcement and add clarity to what we were doing. Since the passage in 2015, several updates to our state law has occurred, including signage for marijuana, retail establishment, addressing no minors and their access requirements would be restricted and so on. So the technical amendments came before our committee last week were addressed and some of the. The whole goal is to bring it in alignment with the state law. So we clarified definitions including things such as premises that will streamline and regulate the authority and make clear where we've got marijuana businesses and making sure that the enforcement is equitable. And we had a few technical changes regarding the term of licensing, and we're recommending that this amendment to the underlying legislation passed, and it was a unanimous recommendation coming out of our committee.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson whereas macheda I. O'Brien So aren't I.
Speaker 2: Bagshaw i.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez i. Herbold, i. President Harrell I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and chose Sunny.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to move to the adoption of other resolutions and please read the agenda number seven into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the regulation of marijuana businesses; amending Sections 6.500.020, 6.500.030, 6.500.040, 6.500.050, 6.500.060, 6.500.070, 6.500.080, 6.500.110, 6.500.160, and 6.500.170 of the Seattle Municipal Code; adding a new Section 6.500.143 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01162018_Res 31791 | Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to move to the adoption of other resolutions and please read the agenda number seven into the record.
Speaker 3: At Jeanette and seven resolution 31731 supporting the City of Seattle proposal to be host city for the 2026 Federation Transit the Football Association World Cup.
Speaker 0: As swimmer Johnson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. I'd like to thank those of you that stuck around for this. If we're successful in 2026, you'll be able to say, I was there when the city first took a baby. Step forward to making it possible for the city of Seattle to host the World Cup. The United States as part of a three country application called the United Bid, with Canada and Mexico to bring the World Cup to North America in 2026. Seattle is currently being considered as one of 32 potential cities that could host World Cup. That list of 32 will be winnowed down to 12 eventually, as the 12 selected cities would then host each of four teams that would come to the U.S., Canada and Mexico for that 2026 World Cup. The resolution today supports the city's proposal to to be on the list of 32 considered candidate cities. We've got a great long history here in this city with our current two professional sports teams in the Sounders in the rain being very competitive at the national level, with our players being consistently called up to be part of the national team. And with more than 125,000 kids participating in youth soccer, not only in the city but throughout the region. Our support goes back to the, you know, early to mid seventies with the first iteration of the Sounders. And we've got really wonderful examples of both men and women being pioneers in this field with folks like Michelle Akers and Casey Keller being inducted in the National Soccer Hall of Fame. Hosting the World Cup, of course, is would represent a tremendous opportunity for us, but as was brought up a lot during council briefing, also would represent some opportunities for improvement, particularly as it relates to FIFA's reputation around workers rights, human rights and other issues. I think it's a great opportunity for us to show that we can be successful at bringing the World Cup to a place that does prioritize workers rights, does prioritize human rights and the rights of every citizen and resident, regardless of citizenship. So I'm happy to answer individual questions folks might have, but hopeful that we will adopt this resolution today to take a baby step forward in the application process that could potentially one day yield to Seattle hosting a World Cup in 2026.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Before we discuss it much further, I believe Councilmember Mosquito may have a substituted version she'd like to talk about and possibly men. So, Councilmember Skater, you have the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I would move to amend resolution 31791 by substituting version two for version one B. Second.
Speaker 0: We'd like to discuss the changes.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to the sponsor of this resolution. As folks know, I'm very interested in making sure that we both highlight the beauty and benefits of the city and that we continue to promote ourself as a sports champion. I have also had the benefit of being able to participate in the World Cup going to Brazil a few years back. I am very supportive of the effort to bring the World Cup to our city. But I also want to make sure that we continue to advance the rights of workers. You mentioned in earlier testimony, the testimony we heard was that protecting the environment is paramount. Protecting human rights and workers rights is also paramount, as Councilmember Johnson mentioned. And I think with the resolution you see in front of you, it underscores that we have been a leader in labor protections in the past, this council passing sick and safely raising the minimum wage, our community as a whole, passing initiative. 124 And while I'm interested in making sure that we are able to attract the World Cup to this area, I also want to make sure that we lift up protections for workers investments in our community, protect construction workers, hotel workers, restaurant workers. And I think we have the opportunity to do that with the World Cup coming here. So this amendment basically just makes it clear that we're sending a clear policy statement, that it reminds us that we don't lose sight of the broader goal of advancing worker protections while ensuring that businesses can thrive and that our community thrives as a whole. And it directs resources into making sure that we're investing into programs like Housing and Anti Displaced. And strategies. As opposed to what we've seen in other countries. We have the benefit here of having infrastructure already in place, creating a world class arena. That means that we're not displacing folks. But I also want to underscore the importance of as we create infrastructure to bring folks here, as we housed them, as we put them into our union hotels that we're reinvesting in, making sure that the services meet our community needs, not just those of the investors for FIFA. I appreciate Councilmember Gonzalez's comments this morning of wanting to make sure that we do it different here in Seattle, different than what we've seen in the past when it comes to investments in past World Cups. And I think we're on the way to do that. So what you have in front of you is a friendly amendment, I think the sponsor of this amendment for allowing us to put this forward to the mayor, for putting forward this amendment as a whole. I think the labor community for their interest in making sure that we have good living wage jobs, benefits and training programs. And I want to say my commitment is to also making sure that we're not displacing folks that are investing in our community. And I think having this resolution move forward is a good first step to looking holistically at the benefits of having both the World Cup here, but also looking at our community needs first.
Speaker 0: Very good. So the first vote will take us just on the amendment. And so as we have just the amendment on for any further comments about the amendment, which is a substitution. So it's been moved to substitute version two for version one because they're second. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. We have a two minute version. Either one else like to talk about the amended resolution we're about to pass judgment. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So whenever we get legislation that refers to a previous piece of legislation, I like to take a look at what that what that says. And in this instance, the resolution before us refers to requirements set forth in resolution 30340. And that was a resolution passed in 2001 in the wake of a much larger event, the WTO. And that resolution identified a process for the city acting as a potential bidder for to be a host city and other types of events. And there are several things that are contemplated in that process that even though this resolution says we are we're going to use the requirements set forth in Resolution 30340. As I read that resolution, these are things that are supposed to happen before we submit a bid. I've heard that there's a January 19th deadline. I'm not sure I understand what that deadline is, because I've also read that we've already submitted a bid in that in October 4th, there was an announcement that 32 of 41 cities that have submitted a bid have moved through that initial process. And perhaps this is just a further another bid to further winnow. But my concern is that there are a number of things that we.
Speaker 1: Are.
Speaker 5: Required to do as as it relates specifically to cost recovery and protecting the city's liability, that I'm going to support this resolution. But I really hope that we are committed to doing these these these actions that I believe the city is actually supposed to do before we pass a resolution like this. And so some of those things relate to asking CPD to make an evaluation of what the overtime costs are estimated to be. And if it's if there are overtime costs that are estimated to be more than 3% of its overtime budget, it's considered to be a major a major event. And in that triggers some some additional steps for for the city. There is language actually in FIFA document called the overview of government guarantees and government declaration, specifically including a section on government guarantee, safety and security that says in order to achieve the best possible security environment for competition, the government is requested at its own cost to assume full responsibility for safety and security at the competition and competition related events. These include developing a security strategy and concept in close cooperation with further state, regional and municipal government, law enforcement and security authorities in the host country. Host countries implementing the necessary security measures and assuming liability for safety and security incidents. And I understand that there has been some. Some movement towards allowing cities to accomplish some limited or hopefully more than limited cost recovery. But given that this is something that our own city auditor has recently identified as an area where we need significant improvements, the city recovers on average 27% of CPD wage costs for permitted events. This is an area that I am hoping that the city does more work on before taking the next step on submitting its bid.
Speaker 2: Good for you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Comes from her about any other questions or concerns going forward concerning Gonzalez?
Speaker 5: No questions, but I just want to reiterate what I said at this morning's council briefing. I want to first thank Councilmember Herbold for being very diligent and going back and looking up that resolution.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that.
Speaker 5: I think that those are very good points and sort of dovetail nicely with the concerns that I expressed this morning. I am also going to vote in favor of this resolution, but not without saying on the record that I have ongoing concerns about FIFA as an organization. And those are no secret to the general public in terms of what those issues are and are very well documented in a bunch of sports documentaries that sometimes I spend time watching on the weekend with my husband. But I think that there are real concerns about their business practices, not just their labor practices and human rights practices , but their business practices as a whole. And I think that the resolution that Councilmember Herbold has referenced in her comments highlight why it's important to have those accountability principles in place and to make sure that they are.
Speaker 3: Vigorously applied as the.
Speaker 5: City moves forward in expressing even even in just expressing its interest in being a host. I think it's important that folks understand what they get if they sign up to do business with us in the in the city of city of Seattle. So hopefully the organizers here hear us loud and clearly on that point and and that we can proceed in a way that will be successful and that will truly show that things are done differently here in the city of Seattle.
Speaker 0: Very good. And it's okay that you're a Bryant Gumbel fan. We won't hold that against any other further comments or concerns. And I really appreciate the comments made by our colleagues. And again, we're not going to this blindly, both from a human rights standpoint or from a fiscal standpoint. So thanks for bringing it forward. And if there are no further comments. It's a resolution. So I'm going to ask that those in favor of adopting the resolution, the amended resolution, please. But I. I. All those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolution as amended is adopted and the chair will sign it. Can we have one other resolution with the clerk, please, that went into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION supporting The City of Seattle’s proposal to be a host city for the 2026 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01162018_Res 31792 | Speaker 3: Agenda item eight Resolution 31782 Resolution relating to Seattle City Council members participation for 2018 and 2019 on King County Committees, Regional Committees, State Committees, and city sale committees and Superseding Resolution 317 49.
Speaker 0: This is a resolution that all of you have seen a few times and and participate on the assignments, both for City of Seattle committees, for the other ancillary committees and regional committees and state committees. That is consistent with our work plan that we will adopt here in the next several weeks. But certainly consistent with your core committee assignments and the passions that you have to make this region better. So I think all of you have seen it. This shouldn't be much to discuss at this point. So any comments or concerns about resolution 31792, the description of our committees, just one council member, Becky Sharp.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I want to say thanks to Vin and your staff. He's been very patient, has worked diligently on this.
Speaker 0: That's well taken. Well, we tried try never to give VIN credit. So that's but no we with that we appreciate that. Any other comments?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's an inside joke in our office here. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote. I, i, those oppose vote. No, the motion carries and resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come for the council? If not, we stand adjourned. And everyone have a great rest of the day.
Speaker 2: Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle City Councilmember participation, for 2018 and 2019, on King County Committees, Regional Committees, State Committees, and City of Seattle Committees; and superseding Resolution 31749. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01022018_CB 119159 | Speaker 5: Agenda item two Council Bill 119159 An Ordinance Granting Lakefront Investors two LLC permission to construct, install and maintain four sets of private communication conduits under an across Bourn Avenue, north north of Mercer Street, and under and across the alley between Warren Avenue North and Fairview Avenue, north north of Mercer Street. For a ten year term renewable for two successive ten year terms, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Because of O'Brien.
Speaker 4: So this is another term permitted as described in the title of Bill. This is for properties in South Lake Union, sometimes known as the Mercer Blocks, their blocks between Mercer and Valley. Just what would that be? South of the South Lake Union Park. These projects are being developed with the intent that Google would be the tenant in a few these buildings. And specifically, Google has requested the ability to network the two buildings together through a dedicated network under the street in these conduits. So this legislation would allow that procedure to move forward. This is not a vacation, but rather a term permit. This means that if at any point the city needs access to that right away and the conduits are in the way, we can revoke that at any point. But we've done the thorough analysis. And at this point we believe that these will be placed in a way that we will not need access to them. The intent is that Google is who wants to have security communications among their employees and allowing the private conduit to connect the two buildings allows them to proceed with that.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Gonzalez I. Herbold, i. Johnson I was I was scared to I. O'Brien by Sergeant Bagshaw. President Harrell nine in favor and an.
Speaker 1: Opposed bill passed in show Senate. Please read that you're not in number three. The short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting Lakefront Investors 2 LLC permission 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, 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_01022018_Res 31773 | Speaker 1: Opposed bill passed in show Senate. Please read that you're not in number three. The short title.
Speaker 5: Agenda item three Resolution 31773. A resolution affirming the City of Seattle's commitment to racial equity and just such social justice. And recognizing the Seattle Department of Transportation's Transportation Equity Program, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Cast Member Bryant Thank you.
Speaker 4: The work to address equity within the Department of Transportation is critical. Body of work in this resolution is just one small step along the path. What we know is that Seattle is becoming a higher cost city and more and more people are struggling to afford to live in our city. Housing is obviously a big piece of that puzzle, and for most you households, housing is the largest cost, but transportation is a close second. And especially for households that are cost burden, the cost of getting around the city can often be the difference between having a viable life in the city or really struggling. The transportation equity program within the State Department of Transportation, sometimes in part designed to address the city's affordability crisis by providing access to affordable transportation options and thereby reducing transportation costs, especially for the most vulnerable and the lowest income communities. This resolution also asks that our side create a broader transportation equity agenda, outlining some of the principles and frames of the process for creating that agenda and identify some partners in the work. There's a team of folks at our staff that are working on this. Obviously, this is critical to have leadership from the department director, former director, who was a good leader on that. And as we move forward with the new director and start in the coming months, I look forward to ensuring that that director will also be engaged in this work, that this resolution will will establish the city's policy on working towards equity in transportation.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any comments or questions? If not those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted in the chair will sign it. We have two appointments. Should we read them both in the same time? There's separate there's separate commission. Let's go with a Janette in number four, please.
Speaker 5: Agenda item four. Appointment eight, six, eight. The appointment of Emily Payne as members Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board for a term two August 31st, 2019. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s commitment to racial equity and social justice and recognizing the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Transportation Equity Program, created to provide safe, environmentally sustainable, accessible, and affordable transportation options that support communities of color, low-income communities, immigrant and refugee communities, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity, LGTBQ people, women and girls, youth, and seniors to thrive in place in vibrant and healthy communities, and eliminate or mitigate racial disparities and the effects of displacement. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01022018_CB 119165 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item eight Council. Bill 119165. An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the city's municipal utility needs. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Consumer Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The Slough Water Association is a nonprofit co-op utility in North Bend. Slough Water Association would like to increase the reliability of associated with wall production and increase the size of the well protected area. There is no corresponding increase in water rights associated with this legislation. The city will receive $97,000 in compensation for the easement as well as staff time. I recuse myself from this vote during committee and I intend to do so at full council today. My husband is a member of the Slough Water Association and as I mentioned before, it is a nonprofit co-op utility. So in essence, he is one of many owners in the area.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any comments or questions? Okay. So we will put on this one. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez i Johnson Suarez as well. Sarah O'Brien so on what i do. President Herrell high eight in favor. None oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair of the senate. Please read agenda item number nine. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the City’s municipal utility needs; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to grant a permanent, non-exclusive water utility easement, and restrictive well covenants, to the Sallal Water Association, a non-profit Washington corporation, for the purpose of construction, operation, and maintenance of a water system; and over, upon, across, and under a portion of The City of Seattle’s Cedar River Watershed property in Section 34, Township 23 North, Range 8 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01022018_CB 119166 | Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair of the senate. Please read agenda item number nine.
Speaker 5: Agenda item nine Council Bill 119166. An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing the general manager, chief executive officer of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a memorandum of lease and ground lease agreement with King County for radio tower and appearances in the total watershed. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Herbold, thank you. This agreement allows King County to lease about 8000 square feet of undeveloped land in the total watershed adjacent to the Toll Pipeline Road. The lease is for 25 years and may be extended up to three times in five year increments. The city of Seattle is one of many cities that have entered into it and Interlocal agreement with King County in order to implement a new 800 megahertz emergency radio communication system, sometimes referred to as Peterson, the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network. King County will pay an annual rent of $20,000, which includes electricity and adjusts over time with CPI.
Speaker 1: We get any comments or questions that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. Herbold I. Johnson Whereas Mosquito I. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. President Harrell nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number ten. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a Memorandum of Lease and Ground Lease Agreement with King County for a radio tower and appurtenances in the Tolt Watershed. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119703 | Speaker 1: Agenda item to cancel Bill 119703 relating to city employment. Authorized execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry Local 32 and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Cause my back.
Speaker 4: Show. Thank you very much. This legislation will authorize the execution of a council budget action between the City of Seattle and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry. This Local 32. We'd like to say hello to Leon Guyer. The CPA is for a three year period from January 1st, 2019 through December 31st, 2021. It would affect the wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions for approximately 150 employees in three city departments. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle Department of Transportation and Parks and Recreation. It is standard practice to refer this type of legislation from the Seattle Department of Human Resources through our Finance Committee directly to full council for consideration. And we appreciate the opportunity to move this forward today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Any questions or comments? Okay, I'll move to pass counts bill 119703. Okay. The clerk, please call the rule on the passage of the bill Pacheco.
Speaker 1: I so I beg John Gonzalez verbal. Hi. Suarez, Macheda O'Brien. Hi, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and zero senate. Okay, let me sort of describe what we're going to do with these Select Budget Committee items. I'm going to read them off in groups. We've broken them out into groups, sometimes three or four items, sometimes two or three, and then I'll get a chance to get through it. And then where there might be an amendment or a comment. I'll pause and we'll get through it and hopefully have a package. So we'll do that. So having said that, read the short title for items three and four and just three and four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Local 32; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119667 | Speaker 0: And then where there might be an amendment or a comment. I'll pause and we'll get through it and hopefully have a package. So we'll do that. So having said that, read the short title for items three and four and just three and four.
Speaker 1: The report of the Select Budget Committee Agenda Items three and four Cancel 119 677. Authorizing 2018 accepting of funding funding from non cities versus committee requirements both House Council Bill 119668 and many Ordinance 125 724, which adopted the 2019 budget, including the 2019 through 2020 for Capital Improvement Programs Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Okay, we're going to vote on these individually, starting with number three. Any questions or comments? And again, item number three comes bill 119667. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill Pacheco.
Speaker 1: So what? I beg John Gonzalez. Herbold, I Juarez. Mr. O'Brien. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Any questions on a generic number for please call the role on the passage of council bill 119668.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I so want. I beg your. Gonzalez Herbal Juarez. I must get to i. O'Brien i.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: 9 a.m. favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed chair of the Senate. So please read items five and six.
Speaker 1: Genomes five and six clerk file 314 436 2020 Proposed Budget Committee recommends that the file be placed on file clerk file 314 437 2023 2025 Proposed Capital Improvement Programs Committee recommends that the file be placed on file. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2019, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Education and Early Learning, Seattle Police Department, Seattle Department of Transportation, and the Seattle Fire Department, to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119669 | Speaker 0: Any comments? Those in favor of placing the kirk file on file please vote i. I opposed vote no. The motion carries and that Kirk file is placed on file to please read item seven through 11. And you could read the short title if you'd like.
Speaker 1: Agenda item seven through 11 Council Vote 119669. Related to the fees and charges for permits and activities of the Seattle Department of Department of Construction and Inspections Committee recommends recommend Seattle Pass Council Bill 11967. An ordinance relating to the Traffic Code Committee recommends a bill passes amended Council Bill 119 671 related to the Department of Parks and Recreation establishing in 2019 through 2025. Schedule Committee recommends the Bill Pass Council Bill 119 672 relating to the solid waste system of Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill passed and Council Bill 119 673 Blaine to Contracting and Deafness Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: All right. We're going to start with seven. Any questions or comments? No. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I want to thank John Gonzalez Herbold II Suarez. Macheda O'Brien. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine opposed to a pass and sure sign it on number eight. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Chico. I want.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: John Gonzalez. Herbold Hi. Suarez Macheda. Hi. O'Brien Hi. President Harrell. I am favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Yeah. 671 So on number nine, are there any question number nine, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I want I beg. Gonzalez Herbal Suarez. Mr. O'Brien. All right. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. Nine oppose.
Speaker 0: This person. Sure. Sign it. I would say that. Confused? Look at my face there. Amelia, cut that one. There were ten. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill Pacheco.
Speaker 1: I want John Gonzalez. Purple Juarez Macheda O'Brien, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor none.
Speaker 0: Oppose the bill passed and show sign and number 11. Any questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: PACHECO Hi, Sergeant. I beg your. Gonzalez. Herbold Hi, Juarez. Let's get to O'Brien. Hi, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes. Sure, I'll sign it. The score items 12 through 16. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to fees and charges for permits and activities of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, related fees by other departments, and technical corrections; amending Sections 3.58.090, 15.04.074, 22.900B.010, 22.900B.020, 22.900C.010, 22.900D.010, 22.900D.070, 22.900D.090, 22.900D.100, 22.900D.110, 22.900D.140, 22.900D.145, 22.900D.150, 22.900D.160, 22.900E.020, 22.900E.030, 22.900E.040, 22.900E.050, 22.900E.060, 22.900F.010 and 22.900G.015 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and repealing Section 22.900G.080 of the SMC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_Res 31914 | Speaker 0: Bill passes and chair of Senate. Please read resolution 31914. Item number 25 into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 25 Resolution 31914. Adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company Tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation and a driver conflict resolution center. Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just one moment, colleagues. Here's the last piece of legislation. Oh, this is for the item number 19. Okay. I'll come back to that. Okay. This is the other part of the spending plan, a resolution that Councilmember Swan was going to amend in light of what happened in number 23 customers. What did you want to say? Anything else about the amendment or should I just proceed with the vote? I'll defer to you.
Speaker 7: Go ahead. Because I'm not you know, since the other amendment failed, I'm not planning to bring it forward today. And I do plan to vote yes on the spending plan resolution. But with the understanding that we will continue to be organizing with the drivers to make sure that their needs are met through the revenues raised. You know.
Speaker 0: I'm not I don't want to generate a long discussion, but I showed some I don't think I made my point clear. You didn't understand my point about when I said that the services provided in your amendment was sort of a subset, I think is the word that I used of drivers that would have my thinking as I look at what's happening to both our country is that we'll have a lot of potentially displaced workers, whether they are parking lot attendants or security guards or just certain segments that technology will replace. And I sort of when I read your amendment, sort of the spirit of it looked at a lot of the challenges that particularly immigrant refugees. But but many people have when being displaced are being challenged by large companies. And so the point I was making was that these great services that it might be advisable for the council to look at other subsets or other groups, other workers, other types of workers that may be impacted as life goes on in this country . So that was the point I was making, and I hope that that was clear at least. Okay. So number 25 is here. So resolution so. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote. No. No. You're voting no on the resolution.
Speaker 4: But we weren't even coming forward with this.
Speaker 0: You know, this is there's this is the base resolution. This is not an amendment. Okay. So let's do that one again. So those in favor of adopting a resolution vote i, i. Those opposed vote no. The resolutions adopted that show. Sign it. Okay. Okay. Let's go to 26 through 30 collectively. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119686 | Speaker 0: Sign it. Okay. Okay. Let's go to 26 through 30 collectively.
Speaker 1: Agenda items 26 330 accountable 119 686 Ruling to the Transportation Network Company Drivers Committee recommends the bill passes amended council bill 119 687 relating to the transportation or companies driver labor standards. The committee recommends the bill passes amended cancel bill 119 688 relating to an employee giving program for City Employees Committee recommends the bill passed Council Bill 119 690 relating to Interphone loans. The committee recommends the bill passed and resolution 31916, acknowledging the inherent responsibility of the city to reduce unnecessary justice systems involvement. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Councilmember one, I'm going to come back to item number 19 right before the full budget is approved. I'll do that with a and we'll have a motion to reconsider that item. Okay. So number 26 through 30, first of all, are there any questions on this group of. Of items, because then I'll just sort of go through it. Okay. Please call the roll on item number 26 Council 119686.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I so what I thank John Gonzalez HERBOLD. Hi, Suarez. Mr. O'Brien. Hi, President Harrell. I am in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Okay. Number 27, please call a roll on the passage of the bill Pacheco.
Speaker 1: All right. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez, Herbold, I Suarez, Mesquita, I O'Brien. High President Harrell High nine in favor favorite unopposed bill.
Speaker 0: Passed and chair of the Senate. Please call the roll on item number 28.
Speaker 1: PACHECO So what I think. Shaw Gonzalez Herbold Suarez Moschella I. O'Brien President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Am favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please call the roll on passage of number 29.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I so want to make sure. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. Suarez. Macheda O'Brien. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine oppose the bill passed, I'm sure. Sign it and please on the resolution number 30, those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i, i. Those opposed vote no. The resolution is dropped. And, Cheryl, sign it. Just one moment here.
Speaker 4: That was fun.
Speaker 0: So we're going to take. Number 31 by itself.
Speaker 1: No reconsideration.
Speaker 0: Okay, let's do the reconsideration now. So we're going to go back to number 19. Item number 19, which. Is. Well, let me we'll get to it in a moment, but let me make a motion. I will move to reconsider the passage of Council Bill 119699, which is item number 19. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to transportation network company drivers; establishing deactivation protections for transportation network company drivers; amending Section 3.15.000 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Chapter 14.32 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119689 | Speaker 0: Please read the agenda item number 32.
Speaker 1: Gentium 3032 Council Bill 119 689 Adopting a budget including capital improvement program and position modifications for the City of Seattle for 2020 and creating positions exempt from civil service by two thirds vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Okay. This is the final adoption of the budget. We're going to turn it over to Councilmember Bagshaw, who I want to say before you begin, thank you, thank you for working. This is a lot of work and a lot of commitment from you, and I appreciate it the way you handled it from start to finish. Councilmember Bagshaw, you have the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Well, I've got about five pages of thank you's, if you will all recognize the good work that you have all done. Council, central staff. How come you're hiding in the background and where are your colleagues? But let's let's say I want to start by saying last year in our 2019 budget, it really reflected what our collective commitment was to areas that needed our most attention, and it included what we built on this year around housing and homeless services, the hygiene. And we will get to all these thank you's and lead the criminal justice reform. And I just want to acknowledge Lisa Guard Tara moss, thank you very much for being here. And I'm going to get more to that in a moment. But this year, as we continue to focus on these commitments, I was so impressed by how all of us here not only got along, but focused on those commitments that were most important to us and that that's where we put our highest priorities. We did indeed build on the mayors budget, and that was that was great. But as Councilmember Gonzales, you said from the beginning, we're going to put our own priorities on this, our own mark. And I believe that we've done that. So just as a couple of examples, a few things that we ended up doing, 2.15 million to build up to 100 more tiny homes. We heard from so many people who are living in tiny homes saying that this was an answer for them. And as somebody who's been working on this for at least nine years, I could not tell you how happy I am. Clearly, I think we need more, but that is a good start. I am honored that the 1.8 million that we put in for the Bill Hopson Clinic moved forward. I want to say thanks to Daniel Malone, DC As many of you and I know, many of us were good friends with Bill Hobson, but this makes such a difference to me personally. I also want to say thank you for the 1.6 million and this is Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Suarez for unsheltered individuals to get access to bathrooms and showers and then to provide diapers and women's hygiene products, expand trash collection at these encampments, that's made a big difference.
Speaker 5: And Councilmember Sawant, I just want to.
Speaker 4: Add, Councilmember.
Speaker 5: Saw the record. She was my co-sponsor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And just the 1.5 million we put in today for the youth program, Education and Diversion. It was $1,000,000. Councilmember Herbold, that you did, as we pointed out, $3 million in our original budget and additional $2,200,000. Councilmember Swan, thank you for that. I'm very excited and this is Councilmember Pacheco that you push this with the 1.6 million to keep our enhanced shelter beds for youth open, for youth that are experiencing homelessness, to have that support, to have the legal services that they need. And I want to recognize all of the people, the advocates, the providers, whether it's Melinda Giovinco or others, that just make sure that we have services and places for youth to be at night and more. 24 seven more places, more support for them will help people get off the street. Councilmember wise, big thanks to you for the million dollars that you have really pushed to expand homeless services and improve outcomes for American native Indian Alaska Native homeless individuals makes a big difference that and the murdered and missing indigenous women. That's something that you have been advocating for. I'm deeply thankful for that. So we're also addressing the council's highest priorities around criminal justice reform, as we mentioned, public safety, transportation and environmental protection. So I'm not going to beat that one too much. You know where we're going with it. Thanks to our Seattle Fire Department for getting health one up and operational this year. It was a big deal. And then also the moneys that we put in to redesign Thomas Street to help complete market to fly the work we're doing down in Fortson Square to make yes crescent the improvement a reality. So with that and the 3.5 million to our local genius, thank you so much for all the work that you've done. With the additional money that you were able to get from the Ballmer Foundation. This is going to move us from a position, one of which we're proud of, to one that is going to be great. So I know that was we're being able to measure and monitor, and you've already done so much in that regard. We're going to come back and see, yes, this is an option that is way better than putting people in jail. So thank you so much, Lisa, for all your good work and all of your colleagues there working on that. So with that, I want to say some very specific. Thank you, Ali. Poochie, you're hiding back there. But to you and Dan, Peter, thank you for your leadership on this. It was a spectacular time for me working with you. And I just really appreciate your management, your calm, everything that you did to help this become a success. And Lisa. Okay, thank you. And Tom, thanks for the work that you two did on spreadsheets. A little known secret up here is that I break out in hives when I have to look at numbers by myself. So you really were terrific in making that happen. Thank you for that. Jeff Simms and Tracy there. They're hiding somewhere. I think Jeff is is gone. But Tracey Ratcliffe, he few are listening. Thank you for all the work that you did on Human Services and the regional governance, not only to date, but what's to come. Amelia and Jody, thank you to for the two of you. I am so respectful for your keeping us on track. Everything that you've taught me about substitutions and amendments and and adopting things, keeping us on track. So thank you both for that very much. Greg Doss I don't know where everybody is, but Greg, if you're listening and Carlos Lugo on the work that you've done on criminal justice reform. Special thanks, Greg, for working on lead with me and helping with all of the good work that we have done on the resolution, the drafting, just keeping that on track. So. Greg Doss thank you, Brian. Good night on. It's the special on education and utilities and thank you that we just had Calvin Chao and Eric McConaghy come in. Calvin, thanks for all the work that you've done on transportation. And of course, Eric, I'm just so appreciative of the work that you and Amy Gore have done. I mean, you've got a broad catalog of work you were doing on Seattle City Light and Human Services in the works on TNC. So thank you, gentlemen, both for that Lish Whitten and Ketel Freeman on land use. I cannot tell you how many times poor Ketel in ten years has had to explain land use 101 to me carrying a bull for your office, Office of Labor Standards. Thank you for your tutorials on that. I think I mentioned Brian Goodnight already around education and utilities, but the focus that you individually have had have have really meant a great deal to me. I share your work on civil rights Kelvin I've mentioned and Eric, you walked in the door just at the right time. Yolanda So the great work that Yolanda you have done around helping me support and get forward with our urban trees ordinance, the environment, climate change, you and Michael Brian are a great team there, so thank you all. And so colleagues, let me just turn my attention to you for just three more minutes if you bear with me . And so, Councilmember Mosqueda, thank you for bringing Camilla here. Thank you for all of the work. I've missed you. I'm glad you're back. Truly your dedication to workers over this last year with the hotel workers that you've done, the domestic workers, it's just mattered so much. And I just appreciate your leadership and our work to promote more child care. And we are getting a mama's room here in city hall this year. We put $100,000 into it. So that is in your capable hands now going forward next year. And Councilmember Swan, I do want to recognize and say thank you for your dedication to the people of the city. Many people's lives are really better because of you. Excuse me, Councilmember O'Brien. It's been ten wonderful years working with you, your commitment to climate change, the good work that you've done on all environmental issues. One time I know that the stranger said to me begrudgingly, that that I was sort of a nice person, but I didn't hold a candle to you. And I'm I'm I'm honored and appreciate so much the work that we have done together. So thank you for that. And Council President Hiro, you have been my buddy, my favorite linebacker and defender for the ten years that I've been on this. And you really understand how much we all need each other in this community. And I think, above all, I appreciate the fact that, you know, that excessive individualism doesn't build. The city we want. It's something I've heard you say many times, and you are a colleague that I greatly appreciate. And I just want you to know that. And thank you for caring for all of us and for Seattle. And Councilmember Gonzales, since I'm now turning on this site. I just appreciate so much your knowledge of the law, your willingness to dove deep into all issues, including public safety issues. And you've done a tremendous amount about protecting and promoting and teaching us about immigrant and refugee issues. And that has meant so much to me. And I know that all of our neighbors are going to be better off because of you. And it's just been an honor working with you and your number your number two here. And Councilmember Herbold, I get so much appreciation thinking about your long journey. I mean, 18 years, I think, is the legislative aide and into where you are now, the number one champion of D1. And it's been my pleasure. But I also I want to thank you personally for your advocacy for not just your district, but the whole city and the work that you've done, bringing some special support and attention to South Park, better transportation to West Seattle, fighting for sound transit and ways that we need to, and being very smart about operation costs for roads, for the busses, for streetcar, that's really in your hands going forward. And I just want you to know how much I appreciate that. And Councilmember Pacheco, what a delight it has been working with you. Thank you. You jumped in here, I think, in April of last year with both feet and you have been unflagging. Thank you so much for helping us with this, for building on our colleague, council member Rob Johnson's legacy as well. You've done a lot for us, so I appreciate you. I want to recognize you and then Councilmember Suarez, not least at all. But I just I want you to know how much you make me smile thinking about D5. Everything is around five. But as I as I mentioned earlier, what you have done to promote justice for missing and murdered indigenous women and also to support our good friend Colin Echo Hawk and Chief Seattle Club. It's been my honor working with you, and I just want you to know, Holy Mountain Woman, how much deep respect I have for you. And we have a favorite movie character, wind in his hair. And as he said, you will always be my friend. Thank you. So thank you all, everybody for steering, helping me work this budget. It's been a complete honor to work with all of you and I am so pleased how far we've gotten this year . So you can call me in Boston and I'll be here to work with you anytime.
Speaker 0: Thank you guys for your. Thank you very much. Well, we have item number 32 in front of us, which is the vote on the budget. And I think. Did anyone else want to say any words before he passed? Councilmember Revenue Councilmember Skater.
Speaker 1: I do want to say a few words. I thank you, Mr. President. I know I haven't had the chance to be with you over the last six weeks, so I do want to take a few minutes to express my appreciation first to my staff Sadia Parekh, Aaron House, Aretha Basu, Frida Cuevas, who have been working with all of you and all of your staff to get our priorities incorporated in this budget. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw, for your incredible work, to work with our office and to reach out and to ask for our input and feedback throughout the process. As I'm on parental leave, I thought it was important to come back and I had somebody asked me, a reporter asked me why come back today? I think the importance is to highlight the work that they have been able to accomplish in my absence. I do want to underscore it is really critical, though, that people who have the ability to take that parental leave, take it. You get 12 weeks starting in January thanks to the state and a law that passed. So don't forget to take it. After this budget vote, I will be going back on leave. And we know that it's important to have not just those laws on paper, but to make sure that they actually work. You all as colleagues, your staff, central staff, my team, the communications team have been able to support me and my office and my family in making sure that the leave was there for us and that we were able to take it. That it wasn't just black words on a white piece of paper that truly I was able to take that leave and have the support around me to make sure that these budget priorities were included. So thank you so much to again my incredible team at the team throughout the office and central staff and all of you council colleagues and your team for helping to make these priorities possible. I do want to highlight a few things that we were able to get into the budget. Mr. President, if this is the appropriate time, very appropriate. Again, thanks to the incredible work of our office, Aaron House and Central Creek on the housing, affordable housing, working with central staff. Ali and Tracy, we were able to secure an additional $20 million. It's $19.75 million that we could redirect to affordable housing efforts that are possible now. You heard people speak today about affordable housing efforts, like the folks from Africa Town who have projects that are ready to be built now and they just need additional funding and support from the city of Seattle. We redirected some of those funds so that $20 million can go into affordable housing efforts. Now, by redirecting $2 and making sure that the Mercer Walk sale dollars went into efforts that are ready to be built. Now we're really moving forward on affordable housing efforts that the community has prioritized. And with your help and with the Council share of actions support as well, we were able to get efforts into the housing budget that not only put the funding there for affordable housing, but the community preference. First, we funded community preference. We funded affirmative marketing efforts. These are two public policies that we've worked on with community over the last two years, and now we're putting funding forward so that there will be equitable engagement by those most affected by the legacy of redlining and racist, exclusionary policies that allow for folks to not only build the housing that we need , but build it in the community's eyes and make sure that those who are most risk of displacement, those are the lowest income folks get to come and live in our communities. Still, we put funding forward to continue the efforts that we had last year. If you remember, we did the Racial Equity Toolkit on our current zoning policies because our current zoning policies are much like other cities throughout the nation where we've excluded, intentionally excluded through historically racist policies, communities, specifically communities of color from living in areas that have high access to opportunity. When we do the racial equity analysis and now with the comp comp plan that we incorporated here, we will be following in much of the same footsteps that cities like Minneapolis have done, where we've taken a look at the blueprint of our city and said, why do we continue to have a single family housing zoning in much of the city? 75% of the city still has that zoning. How is that contributing to displacement and gentrification and prohibiting people from being able to live in the city and stay in the city? I'm really excited about that effort to make sure that there's both anti displacement efforts and that we're looking at building more inclusive housing through by undoing these past discriminatory practices. I'm really honored to have worked with many of you, including Councilmember Sawant and others who've supported the tiny house villages with the $815,000 that we got in four tiny house villages. That's another 40 homes. If you think about it, that's about another 75 individuals potentially that can live there. That is a drop in the bucket to I know what we want to work on next year in terms of allowing more tiny house villages. It goes without saying that this council's in a constantly told be smart with the public dollar, invest in proven practices. Well, I haven't. And here for the last six weeks to see it. So I got to say it again. Tiny house villages are proven practice to get folks into permanent housing. 40% success rate of getting people into affordable housing versus a 4% success rate for math on the ground. This is ten times more effective. We ought to be investing in these small, tiny house villages and other enhanced 24 seven shelter models that I know the council . Councilmember Bagshaw, as chair of the budget, has prioritized in past efforts. So thank you for including those tiny house villages. And that's the criminal justice work that has been done. This is another great way for us to be effective with our dollars. This is about an early intervention. It's like a public health model, right? If you want to invest early in keeping the community safe, you invest in public health or when you invest in restorative justice and harm reduction strategies. That is a public health strategy. That is a harm reduction strategy. It saves lives and it saves dollars. So thank you so much to all of our folks who've been working to move funding back into the sex worker harm reduction program, the Restorative Justice for Youth Programs, and working with community organizations like Park Slope, Creative Justice, We , Passageways, Rain, Beach Action Coalition and so many more. I'm really excited about the funding that we got in there for the Green Light Project, which is run by the people of color sex worker outreach project. Very excited about the funding that we got in for retraining speedy officers who work with sex officers so that it's really about coming from those workers themselves and not a patronizing way of thinking about how somebody should engage with that work. This is coming directly from the workers themselves. Continuing the line of work and inventions investments. I'm appreciative of the support for the apprenticeship coordinator and the electrical compliance officer. Again, these are upstream investments to make sure that people get into high paying jobs. I wish we could have done more with investing in the Office of Labor Standards, and next year I'll be working with all of you to make sure that we can have additional enforcement measures and dollars put in place for both education and enforcement . And this is important for the high road employers, small businesses who are doing the right thing and getting undercut by the guy next door who's engaging in wave stuff. And it's also important for the workers themselves. We passed so many pieces of legislation here with this incredible council and previous councils. We just need to make sure that those policies are followed through. And thank you, Councilwoman Bagshaw, for your past efforts on child care. And I know that we will continue fighting for additional child care throughout the city. I'm disappointed to hear that some of the private partners that we've been talking with about wanting to open additional childcare facilities across the city have just been told that some of the places that they're looking at is not possible. We need to look at this like we do with health care, that it is not getting picked up by the private market. This shouldn't be a market good and we shouldn't be thinking about everything we can do from the public policy perspective to invest in public childcare so that 0 to 3 and 0 to 5 child care is affordable, accessible and throughout our city. So that's something that I think is on our to do list next year and we'll continue working on that. Thank you for all your work. And lastly, I know you guys have been working on it for a long time, so I will stop talking. But I do want to thank our council colleagues who've been working with us over the last six weeks in my absence. I'm really proud of the the approach that we've taken in this budget and. Councilmember Bagshaw with the small amount of additional funding that was included that you found. I do think that there is it reflects the budget reflects that you put those priorities towards helping people who have been most marginalized and the highest need. So thank you for that. We had to work within the constraints that we have. And so I think that this, again, calls on us to find additional revenue, equitable revenue, so that we can have an equitable investment in our most vulnerable communities. So we're not thinking about investments for lead verses, investments in tiny homes, investments for child care versus investments in workers and health care. These are things that I know we all want to do. So I'll be looking forward to working with all of you to make sure that we find equitable revenue for a more equitable society. Thank you all for your work and I'm happy to be here and happy to be taken off after this. And thank you for your support as I do that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember skater, this given given the fact that this is the last budget item, maybe we just sort of come down the. The day is here and if there's any comments I'm not saying comes from whereas comes from so on.
Speaker 1: May I say one more thing? Just as you were coming this way, I was also thinking of my mom. She came to watch her daughter. So thank you for watching her. That's my mom, Patty, in the back. I really appreciate.
Speaker 0: It. I didn't see anyone wave. Where's Mom?
Speaker 1: She's back in the office.
Speaker 0: Oh, in the office? She was on TV.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mom.
Speaker 0: Very, very, very appropriate. Councilmember, what would you like to say? Something or catch from Brian? Yes, please. Councilmember 20th floor.
Speaker 7: Thank you to all our central staff members who, as usual, have provided incredible support. Ali Banerjee I shall Anker Drummond. Amy Gore. Kittel Freeman. Lisa Kaye, Calvin Chow Greg does Karina Bull, Geoff Simms, Yolanda Ho, Paddy Reagan and Kirsten Aristide. And done eda for everything that you have done to help myself and me make available all the people's budget amendments and for your commitment for on the issues. There are many people in the staff who have worked on other parts of the budget, but these are you know, this is about the budget amendments. And I apologize if I left any names out accidentally. I definitely also want to thank Amy Gore specifically for doing the final draft of our TNC and Restorative Justice amendments the last few days. I know that was rushed work, but it was done extremely well. I also thank councilmembers who have supported the amendment, and I also think that the support we've had from our activists around the city and especially those of us who have really campaigned around the people's budget amendments. And I wanted to say, you know, because it is also this this is a budget vote that we're taking after an incredibly historic election season where we had, you know, for for several months, I was saying we have had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at us. And then the kitchen sink was also thrown at us and we were able to prevail. And I think the people's budget, the successes that we have won to the people's budget movement and this is the sixth iteration of the People's Budget campaign that we have done this year is a small but important example of what you can win when you build a really active movement. I want to thank everybody who has campaigned not only for the people's budget demands this year, but for all the six years that we have done it. And I think it shows and as I said, in a small way, but in an important way, the people's budget successes show that organizing works, that when you fight, you do , indeed, when you don't win everything every single time. But it really works. Some of the specific examples that we are one that are, you know, prominent this year but also have come on the shoulders of organizing for several years. Today, the Seattle Times has a really prominent article on the law enforcement assistance version. And Dan Diekman, one of the coauthors of the article, is right here, and I want to thank him also personally for his coverage of for several years on many important issues. And, you know, just to make a distinction between the Seattle Times reporters and The Seattle Times editorial board, talk two totally different components. I couldn't resist that. But, you know, the progress that we have seen this year on the law enforcement agencies diversion and undoubtedly I'm thankful to all the council members who have supported this. But narratives matter. And if our narrative is that a very generous council that this or that, I think it misses the point. As a matter of fact, expanding the lead and in fact having lead take form in the first place required community advocates to really, really push forward. Community advocates like Lisa Dugard and others who are sitting here who have played an incredible grassroots role. And I'm sure Lisa and others, you will remember the townhall that we did at the Miller Community Center on Capitol Hill several years ago, I think five years ago now. And there we built the initial pressure to expand lead from its original pilot in Belltown to Capitol Hill. And in fact, that meeting was momentous because I remember we I was actually treasurer of modestly trying to say, okay, can we please do Capitol Hill? And then we had representatives from the NAACP come there and say, why aren't you talking about a central district? And that's how that took shape. And I think that's extremely important to recognize. Doctor Mosquito, you mentioned the tiny house villages. It's very important and I thank you for signing in support of. Then I look forward to the passing the bill next year to make the land use code flexible so that we can also make sure that Daniel's villages can be sited throughout the city. And I thank you in advance for all your support on that one as well. And I'm excited about that. And thank you Councilmember Back show for also for supporting this. But I also wanted to make clear that one of the key things that this council did, you know.
Speaker 4: In in.
Speaker 7: Contrast to what the mayor has done, which is really important, is to take a really strong position against shutting down tiny house villages. And the initial proposal from the mayor has been to shut down Georgetown and not leg. And we are absolutely I think we are united in not shutting down Georgetown. But I also want to reiterate in solidarity with Nicole as well that we don't want to shut down like either. I know that there are issues and we need to resolve those issues. But shutting down a tiny house village is not a solution. It's never going to be a solution. And I find it quite egregious. And in the middle of a very cold winter, the mayor is proposing that December 9th is a date. I don't think that is viable. And I really appreciate community members, including host community members like Carol and others who have been here, who have said that they're going to be standing there, even engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, disobedience, if that is needed. And of course, you can be sure my community organizers and I will be there in solidarity with them. I also want to. They say very clearly, we do. We don't want to pit and hand shoulders against Chinese soldiers because we do need to expand and shelters also. But we have to be clear that the the majority demand from home people who have experienced homelessness is for tiny house villages. It is not for enhanced shelters. Let's be very clear about that. We've also seen incredible community organizing to the people's budget from the Vietnamese Senior Association. And many of these seniors have put young people to shame by their enthusiasm and their energy. And I think they are not going to be stopping there. I think they want to fight for free, free public transit, among other things, and I'm really inspired by them. We were also able to win $15,000 for dedicated funding for Indigenous Peoples Day. I'm glad to say Councilmember Suarez and I were able to push for that together. And controversial. You already mentioned the mobile bathrooms. A real change said everybody poos and there and they have a chocolate cake not a book to celebrate the victory. And very, very importantly, we were able to win funding for one, a city funded only against evictions faced by renters. Last year, we saw just the unbelievable effectiveness in preventing evictions and preventing evictions. One of the major things we need to do to prevent homelessness. And so we were able to win one Adani in the initial draft of the budget. And then because of continued organizing, we were able to win two, organize, funded. And I think that is incredible as well. We also have won two important statements of legislative intent. One supports the demands of workers and their unions and the film and music industry. And I really thank Doug Newman and the whole consortium of labor unions who have spoken up to be included and also for those yet another one to ask the Seattle Department of Transportation to make. Funding proposals to make public transit free for all. And I think this is an incredibly important component of a Green New Deal. We're not going to win a green a real green new deal and a reduction in carbon emissions unless public transit is made free for all. So it doesn't matter what income you have, what age you are, you get to ride on public transit. And and finally but not least, we have just won the $522,600 that community organizers and activists have been demanding for restorative justice programs like Community Passageways, Youth Consortium, Corner Riders and Creative Justice. And that and I as I said this morning, I was so happy that that Councilmember Robert Shaw and I were able to co-sponsor that amendment. I'm glad we found a way to do that. And I wanted to really credit the community activists who have gone the extra mile to able to be able to win this. And they were right when they said in public testimony that this is only the beginning. Just to put this in perspective in numbers, the police get more out of the city's discretionary funding than any other department, 409 million. That is almost a thousand times more than restorative justice programs that, you know, the funding that we won this this year around. So we're talking about the fact that we have a lot know we have a long way to go. The city is spending more money on motivational speaker training for police sergeants than it is on racial justice at this moment. And so I think that's also important to recognize. So we have one incredibly important component. And as I said, I voted yes on the package of amendments that makes the mayor's budget proposal better. And I have been happy to support my colleagues proposals as well. However, and this will come as no surprise to my two other councilmembers I'm going to vote no on the whole budget. So I just want to make it clear I voted yes on all the amendments that make the budget more positive, but this is a vote on the budget as a whole, and I cannot and I've never been able to in good conscience vote for a budget that, despite the gains that were won on the council, still represents changes on the margins. And when you compare the budget, that is supposed to be a moral document to the social needs of our city and the deep inequality and racism in our city, it simply is not a moral document as far as what we have right now. It continues to rely on regressive taxes that burden poor and working class people. While corporations continue to get a free ride. It continues to fail to address the housing and homelessness crisis. Despite the gains that were made to our amendments, it continues to prioritize repressive policing over actual justice to our communities of color. It prioritizes regressive, regressive measures like tolling. And I don't want to be told yet again that somehow there is some progressive way of doing it, because as an economist, I have never seen a conjunction doling that is progressive. If there is, I'm happy to support it. But as of now, that is just funding, though what the mayor has proposed is simply funding propaganda to push this idea rather than guaranteeing renters a right to a lawyer and know. Because it's not enough what we have. One social service workers continue to be paid poverty wages in a city with some of the richest people in the world. So with all this insight, the budget still fails to meet human need. And I really hope that because of the mandate that we have won this year, that movements will come back next year with renewed vigor , with strong statistical evidence that when you fight, you do win. Because we saw that happening this year, despite everything thrown at us, we were able to prevail. And I don't want us to rest on our laurels. And I hope that when January comes around, we will get back to serious organizing to win taxes on big business, to win rent control, and to make this city affordable and livable for everybody. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swamp. Before we proceed, I do want to remind all of my colleagues we do have a parks board meeting after this meeting. Just to remind you. Councilmember O'Brien, would you like to say a few words on the budget?
Speaker 2: Q I, I just want to thank Councilmember Bakeshop for your leadership in the last two years on this. You've done an amazing job of balancing the needs of people in our city and council members. You've done a very successful job of shepherding our interests in a way that gets all of us wins in the areas you want . You've also created space for us to have the public debate over issues and fight on on those things that are really important. And that's not an easy balance. I've never tried to get that job in my ten years here, and I'm grateful that you were willing to serve in that role, because I know it's a lot of work, something. Your customer base, I.
Speaker 0: Think it comes from Brian comes from members on my right comes from Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be fast.
Speaker 5: So I wanted to thank Councilmember Bagshaw as well. So that's a good pick up for me. I just really appreciate the last two years of the process that you've shepherded us through and let us through really appreciate all your leadership and your ability to be able to prioritize so many different desires and needs from your colleagues. Appears a really want to thank you for for the work that you've done over the last couple of years to make sure that this is a successful process. Also, I want to thank council central staff. You guys are amazing and do really awesome work and really appreciate your responsiveness and and just your the countless number of hours that I know that you all have worked to make sure that we have a balanced budget that really does reflect the council's priorities. So thank you all for that. I also want to thank my own staff, Cody, Brianna and V for all the hard work that they've been doing to make sure that our officers funding priorities are included in the budget. I just wanted to take a quick minute to go through some of the things that we're exceptionally proud of in terms of items that were included by the chair in the 2020 budget that we'll be taking action on. Now, we're really excited about being able to champion fully full funding for civilian led police oversight agencies. We're stoked about being able to provide additional resources to the Regional Domestic Violence Firearm Enforcement Unit to get dangerous guns off of our streets. We have advanced several statements of legislative intent to implement reentry workgroup recommendations to support formerly incarcerated individuals who seek to reenter the economy. We have also included statements of legislative intent to examine the impact of our investments in the criminal legal system on communities of color and other vulnerable populations. We've included additional funding for hub in the box, emergency response, emergency management communication stations across the city. We've included some funding for a public life study for the Capitol Hill Echo District to activate public spaces for climate resiliency and stronger community connections. We've allocated about $100,000 to address the diaper gap for families reliant on shelters, tiny villages, food banks and child care facilities. We've also included some additional funding and direction to the Department of Education and Early Learning to expand birth to three child care options, including investing in comprehensive development of a comprehensive set of strategies to be able to expand access and and affordability for Seattle families in the birth to three child care category, we've directed that the expansion of additional child care assistance program dollars be prioritized for infant care. We've modified the ADA in India ADU financing to make sure that it is within reach for low to middle income families with a racial equity lens applied to make sure that the future pilot doesn't unintentionally exclude communities of color. We have proudly championed a $750,000 pilot program. The hope the Home for Good Pilot Program.
Speaker 1: To provide a rental assist to provide rental.
Speaker 5: Assistance to to those individuals who may be on disability benefits and facing housing instability. Really want to thank so many of the advocates, the Spokane County Homeless Coalition, for their.
Speaker 1: Advocacy.
Speaker 5: In bringing the issue to us to really talk about why it was important for us to take this interim step. So this is a huge investment. Really proud of it, really grateful for all of the collaboration both in City Hall and outside of City Hall to stand this up and really looking forward to the impact that we're going to be able to have, the positive impact we're going to be able to have with with that investment. And then.
Speaker 1: Lastly, we were able to establish.
Speaker 5: A $375,000 resiliency fund to support our immigrant refugee neighbors from ongoing and emerging threats from the Trump administration in partnership with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs and so many of the community leaders who have identified that we need to be ready in 2020 for the ongoing attacks on immigrant and refugee folks who live in in our city. So really honored to have been able to champion some of these additions to the 2020 budget and really am grateful to Chair Bagshaw for hearing our priorities in my office and for including them in her budget. Really, really appreciate it and really proud of the work that my team has been able to do through this budget process to make sure that this budget reflects our priority.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales, because of our.
Speaker 5: Vote. Thank you. In addition to appreciating, honoring, valuing and just really not any words to say how helpful and useful the work of several staff has been through this budget process. Thank you. Thank you. I want to thank also my staff, Alex, Noel, Jean and Dmitri. Thanks to the budget chair for being very, very patient with me in particular and not pushing too hard when sitting down and in my office and hearing what my budget priorities are. My resistance to narrowing.
Speaker 4: Them down too much.
Speaker 5: And how patient you have been with me in my resistance to wanting to to give anything up. So I'm really pleased with how this budget has resulted in important budget initiatives for my district as well as for citywide issues that are really important to me. So as far as the District one specific proposals, I'm really excited that the D1 community network led the way to get funding for their West Marginal Way, Safe Streets and accessibility improvements at the Long Duwamish Longhouse, specifically new funding for planning and design of that project. Really excited that we've been able, by working with the residents of South Park and the Public Safety Committee, that we've been able to continue funding for a South Park public safety coordinator. That position is so important to that community in raising their voice to address their public safety needs in that neighborhood. Getting a commitment that we will receive some information from the Department and neighborhoods on a strategy to develop a community led, police based violence prevention initiative in Westwood and South Ridge to help address some of the public safety issues there and hopefully have it be modeled on the very successful Rainier Beach, a beautiful place focused on young people in that in that community as a restorative justice approach, also putting forward the ongoing and continued focus on the work being done for the rapid, rapid Ride H line. The budget actions that we've taken allow us to have continued focus on that work and make sure that the community's voice is heard. Finally, as it relates to District One issues, appreciate that the funding for a natural capital evaluation study is included in this year's budget. This is led by the Seattle Greenspaces Coalition, something that they've been working on for four years now to get the city to actually begin to continue, consider the value of our of our natural assets , in our in our planning process. And then as far as some of the citywide priorities I have, as well as community members related specifically to public safety and public health, we were successfully able to add funds for a third firefighter recruit class to address long term staffing needs, while also giving them the flexibility to expand the sizes of their two existing recruit classes. We've added funding to expand the Encampment trash program of Seattle Public Utilities, allowing them to pick up garbage at more unsheltered encampment locations throughout the city. We have as been as has been stated earlier, we worked with the Real Change Everybody Pooh's campaign to fund five mobile pit stops to increase access to bathrooms and hygiene centers. And then we've also added funding again in SPU for a pilot program of mobile pump out services to Arby's to limit the environmental damage to our waterways as it relates specifically to homelessness and housing. As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate having the opportunity to work with both council members, Gonzalez and Juarez, in getting some funding into two initiatives that they had already proposed to actually deal specifically with the needs for diaper distribute distribution on one one area, diaper distribution in shelters and in the other diaper distribution in hopefully in in child care centers. We're also looking at. In the area of housing, adding funding to the Department of Construction inspections for two new positions to support tenant and property owner outreach and education associated with the about five new pieces of legislation that we've passed in the last couple of months. These new positions will allow the Department of Construction and Inspections to support tenants in having their rights enforced under those laws. Also adding funding for renters rights, outreach and education organizing. Many thanks to Washington can be Seattle, the tenants union and allyship and advocating for that for that work. And then our continued proviso on the navigation team appropriations in the Human Services Department so that this Council can continue to have appropriate oversight over the work that's being done around engagement with people living in encampments and maintaining the public safety of of the locations where those encampments are found. As it relates specifically to civil rights issues. I appreciate the opportunity to direct existing funds to community based organizations to respond to hate violence, as well as separately from that, requesting that the Office of Civil Rights spend a portion of its 2020 proposed budget on community based organizations that will create restorative justice approaches to individuals committing hate crimes and adding two new permanent positions for the Office of Civil Rights for a dispute resolution mediator, and another to help with anti-discrimination and anti-harassment training. Many thanks in the area of transportation and utilities to transit for all in their work. To advocate for a report from the Human Services Department on how we can work to subsidize transit passes for employees of Human Services Department contracted service providers, as well as funding to Seattle Public Utilities to improve, shut off notification to tenants in multifamily buildings who often do not get advance notice of impending shut offs. And then finally, in the area of economic development in arts and culture, I want to thank the workers and members of the labor movements representing the film, film and music industry. Folks specifically looking to redirect admissions tax to body OED specifically for a film and music program lead to help the film industry, requesting that the Office of Economic Development provide recommendations regarding the creation of a film commission. Imposing a proviso on the funding for the Creative Industry Policy Advisor position to require engagement with the film industry in developing the responsibilities for this position. And then lastly, related to arts, really appreciative of the ability to direct funding to support the Seattle Rep's Public Works program for for the opportunity for the Seattle Rep to work with many of our service provider and the recipients of services in our city to give them the experience of producing and participating in a live theater work. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cathy. Horrible. Kathryn. Rebecca, would you like setting words on the budget? And I do have time reserved at the end of the agenda for you especially, but.
Speaker 2: They just took the words from my mouth. But just thank Councilman Rebecca Shaw for being leading a very inclusive process in this budget.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kathryn Pacheco. Okay, so let's vote on item number 32. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco, i. So what?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Major Gonzalez. Purple Eye, Juarez Mascara. Hi, O'Brien. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor.
Speaker 0: One opposed bill passed in show Senate. Thank you. Thanks for staying here to please read items 33 and 34 together short time if you can. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE adopting a budget, including a capital improvement program and position modifications, for The City of Seattle for 2020; and creating positions exempt from civil service; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119691 | Speaker 0: One opposed bill passed in show Senate. Thank you. Thanks for staying here to please read items 33 and 34 together short time if you can.
Speaker 1: Agenda items 33 and 34 Council 119 691 relating to the levy of property taxes. The committee recommends the bill passed Council Bill 1196 and 82 authorizing the levy of regular property taxes by the city of sale for the collection in 2020. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Any questions or comments? We're good. Okay. Please call the rule on the pass of council bill 119691.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I Siwan Bagshaw High. Gonzalez Purple High. Juarez Mesquita. O'Brien High. President Harrell High nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The past and shortsighted and any questions on number 34. If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco. I want. I beg your. Gonzalez Herbold i. Suarez Macheda. I. O'Brien. High President Harrell. I favor, not oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passed in the show senate. Please read the report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the levy of property taxes; fixing the rates and/or amounts of taxes to be levied, and levying the same upon all taxable property, both real and personal, in The City of Seattle, to finance the departments and activities of City government and to provide for the general obligation bond interest and redemption requirements for the year beginning on the first day of January 2020; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119704 | Speaker 0: The bill passed in the show senate. Please read the report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda 35 Council 119704 relating to relating to the sail streetcar. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Cast Member O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Q This, as I mentioned this morning, this is a local agreement between the city and King County for operation of the existing streetcar systems. That's the one on first health Capitol Hill and the one in South Lake Union. This will renew the existing Interlocal agreement which expires at the end of the year. A couple of changes. One is this will be a five year agreement with an option for the city to extend the agreement for two more five year terms. We also be moving towards monthly billing, a reconciliation system as opposed to what had been an annual system for a while, and also shifting some of the maintenance requirements for the for the streetcar. Barnes to the county.
Speaker 0: I think you can see from Brian any questions or comments that please call the roll on the passage of the bill Pacheco.
Speaker 1: So what I beg John Gonzalez I Herbold II Suarez Moschella. O'Brien. High President Harrell. 9 a.m. favor unopposed.
Speaker 0: Still passed Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Streetcar; authorizing execution of a new interlocal agreement with King County for operation and maintenance of the Seattle Streetcar system; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CF 314422 | Speaker 0: Still passed Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 36 Clerk file 314 422 Petitioner Willo Crossing LLP to vacate a portion at 39th Avenue, South and South Willow Street. The committee recommends the application be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 0: House member O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So there's a vacation. There's a vacate. A portion of 39th Avenue South, just south of south Willow Street. This is for a private developer doing a affordable housing project. A little over 200 units at 60%. Ami without the city housing levy or other funds, they did get a loan from the city's acquisition fund to acquire the land. When the project's complete, they'll be paying that back so there'll be no permanent city dollars. But we do get 20 years of permanent 60% and my affordability for the 200 units. There are other public benefits, including public spaces and I believe a $25,000 donation to a project a block away. That's a community driven project to improve the streetscape. This project and that and the investment in that other project are all near the Othello light rail station.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Brian. Any questions or comments? If not those in favor of granting the petition as conditions, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as condition. And Cheryl Simon going to move to item number 37. Please read 37 into the record. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of Willow Crossings, LLLP, to vacate a portion of 39th Avenue South and south of South Willow Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11182019_CB 119697 | Speaker 0: Bill passes and Charles Simon Clerk Please read items three and four into the.
Speaker 1: Record each agenda items three and four Council Bill 119 697 relating to public works and improvements in many sections 20.0 4.0 90 and .27 of the set for code resolution 319415. Fixing the date for hearing the final assessment role for Local Improvement District Number 671 to design and construct the Central Waterfront Improvement Program and directing that notice of the hearing be given in the manner required by law.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. So before we consider as a council the Central Waterfront Local Improvement District legislation, both pieces of the Council bill and the resolution council members who wish to disclose communications or communication dealing with the central water from a local improvement district on the record may do so now. And so if there's any council members who would like to speak on that matter, please do so at this particular time. Council Member Bagshaw.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. In this excellent memo from Eric McConaghy, dated November 15, 2019, there is attached an email exchange between Darby Do come in me and I just wanted to confirm that this is accurate and complete. And there was no conversation between us about final assessments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw Are there any other council members who would like to disclose whether or not they've had any email disclosures at this point that they'd like to disclose? Well, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: I received the same email that Councilmember Bagshaw mentioned, but I did not respond to it.
Speaker 0: Okay, very good.
Speaker 1: I did read Councilmember Bagshaw response to it, though.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Just for the record, I it was screened out before I saw.
Speaker 0: Either.
Speaker 4: The response or the email. So I.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Councilmember whereas.
Speaker 5: It's the same for me as well. President We are. I read the material that was provided to Seattle City Council with the attached email from Councilmember Boettcher.
Speaker 0: Very good. And I knew better. No, I didn't read it. I believe my staff did. So I think and Catherine Pacheco.
Speaker 4: I did read the email and the responses.
Speaker 0: Were very good. Okay. And so I think we've made in the disclosure. So at this point, like I said, my staff, it's screened it. And so I didn't read it in particular. So is there anyone in the audience who wishes to rebut the disclosures or give public testimony on the disclosures that were made relative to the quasi judicial nature of this proceeding? If so, I would provide you 2 minutes to talk about that. If anyone here would like to talk about that. Okay. So if not, we will proceed to consider items, agenda items, three and four. So I'll talk about these a little bit. So we have two pieces of legislation, as we described last week, council accountability, 119697. The code revisions. It basically provides more flexibility to the city clerk and the hearing examiner to fulfill their responsibilities. I'm dealing with the final assessment role for Local Improvement District. It updates the municipal code to better align with the RC W in the process to confirm with the LAPD assessments. We realize this is a lot more work than generally our older system entails, and so we're trying to revise that and have it better aligned. It will provide the hearings with more time to prepare the findings and recommendations from the hearings and modernizes the city clerk's process of notifying the property owners and and hearing the results following the conclusions of the hearing. And it removes a section of the code that specified outdated costs for property descriptions. So that's what the Council bill does. And again, the resolution, the final assessment roll resolution simply sets the date for the public hearing on the proposed final final assessment role and directs the hearing be held before the public hearing. Hearing Examiner The current public hearing date is Tuesday, February 4th, 2020. And at that assessment role, hearing property, the property owners are given the opportunity to object to their individual assessments, and all objections must be filed in writing before that hearing date. This resolution also authorizes the city clerk to notify property owners of their proposed final assessment amounts and of the public hearing on assessments and just a description of the procedure in December of 2019, January 2020. Around that time period, hearing notice and proposed final assessments will be posted mailed in February of next year. The public hearing will occur before the hearing examiner A month later, in March of 2020, the hearing examiner's report will be filed and property owners who filed an objection are notified of the hearing examiner's recommendations. Spring of 2022 Things will should occur. Property owners can file appeals of the hearing examiner's recommendations, and the city council or a council committee could hear the appeals. I'm going to anticipate that there will be some flexibility, if needed, to address the number of appeals. It's hard to determine at this time. That's why some of these dates will be determined to TBD. And then as things go as planned in the summer of 2020, the City Council will consider final assessment role ordinance to confirm the final assessment amounts. So that's what the resolution sets out. Okay. Any questions or comments that any of my colleagues would like to make on these two piece of legislation will vote on them individually. Okay. Okay. So on the first council bill our move to pass council bill 119697. Any further comments has been moved in second with the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Bless you.
Speaker 1: O'BRIEN All right. Pachinko Mencia. Purple guy Juarez. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Six in favor none oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes in the show. Sign it and I'll move to adopt resolution 31915 and moves in second. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries on. The chair will sign it. Before I say, is there any further business coming for the council? We will slide right into the parks district meeting will stay in our seats. Seattle Channel needs a 2 to 3 minutes, but councilmember. Whereas now I will switch seats. Move right into that. So we're trying to do it in a seamless way. So nobody leaves your tie, you're tethered to your seat. And having said that, is there any further business to come for the council? If not, we will stand adjourned and just stay in our seats. We'll move into our districts meeting. We stand adjourned.
Speaker 1: Thank. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to public works and improvements; amending Sections 20.04.090 and 20.04.270 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10212019_Res 31913 | Speaker 0: Pass and sure, I'll sign it. Okay. It's provided on our CW for 42 points 178.555. The City Council now consider the adoption of resolution 31913. And at the conclusion of our comments, Council members comments, the Council will hear comments from the members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution, and an approximate equal opportunity will be given to speak to members of the public and will clerk with that admonition, please read agenda item number one into the record.
Speaker 1: The Report of the City Council. Agenda Item one Resolution 31913 concerning Washington Referendum Measure number 88 Proposing voter approval of initiative Measure number 1000 and urging Seattle voters to vote approved on Referendum 88 on the November 5th, 2019. General election ballot.
Speaker 0: Can put the matter into the record. I will move to adopt Resolution 31913 to move in second to adopt the resolution will now hear from council members on the resolution. I'll begin the discussion. And if any of the customers I'd like to say a few words, feel free to. On the outset, there's been some confusion regarding Washington state referendum measure 88. That's in front of us too. Now, regarding initiative 1000. For that reason, I want to make it very clear that 31913 this resolution proposes voter approval and urging voters to vote approved on Initiative 1000 that will be found on the ballot in a Washington referendum , measure 88. We are hoping that that word gets out and that there's very clear because when Initiative 200 was initially passed in 1988, I personally believe there were many voters that were confused on what the heck they were voting on during that time. In 1998, I'll say a few words about the resolution and about the the I 1000. I hope to not steal the thunder from some of our greater speakers in the audience, but I would like to sort of lay the groundwork. The groundwork. First of all, with with the support of the voters on the November 5th, 2019 General Election Ballot Initiative, I 1000 would affirm a new law from our Washington state legislature was passed this last past spring that would guarantee equal opportunity and access to public institution and businesses without discrimination based on race or sex or color or ethnicity or national origin or age or sexual orientation or disability or military status. The new law reverses a 20 year old ban on affirmative action policies while ensuring fairness by specifically forbidding quotas and preferential treatment based solely on the listed characteristics. And this law adds accountability by establishing Governance, Commission on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to monitor the state agencies compliance with this legislation. Last spring, I attended a hearing on AI 1000 and I was very glad to see many of the people in the audience today. And at that public hearing, former Governor Dan Evans, the Republican who created the State Commission on Civil Rights in 1965, testified before the state legislators, and he said the door of opportunity is still just ajar and not fully open. We can do better than that. And I believe that Initiative 1000 is a responsible measure that will help us throw the doors of opportunity wide open. And that's coming from a Republican. So I understand that embracing change for some voters may be hard, but we are faced with, I think. Insurmountable data that reflects an unfair burden on societal inequality. And we can't just rely on good intentions of government or people. We must be very intentional about the decisions and the choices we make as a legislative body according to state data. When I 2000 was passed in 88, 13.3, 1% of expenditures by state agencies and educational institutions went towards certified minority and women owned businesses. However, in fiscal year 2000, that figure 13.31 declined to 3.6 of expenditures. From 1998 to 2019, the number of certified women and minority owned businesses has fallen 45% from 4917 to 2700. This is according to the Office of Minority and Women's Businesses Enterprises. In 2018, Washington veteran unemployment rate was nearly 25% higher than the national average. Washington is only one of eight states that restricted affirmative action. Like I said, good intentions are not enough. So I'm each asking each council member and each voter to really show, I believe, what their true values are so that we can respond to this new data and see the return to justice that we'd like to see. So that I'm asking our council to adopt Resolution 31913 with any of my colleagues like to say. Any remarks on resolution 31913? This would be the time. I can't remember Brian.
Speaker 5: I think it or it's council president Harrell and thanks for the advocates. It's been in my ten years in office here. The city has had to get creative to figure out how to advance our values, an agenda under the constraints of 1800. And it's great that we're at a point where the legislature has moved to reverse that. Unfortunately, we have to go to the vote for this. But I'm thrilled for the opportunity to be recommending to the voters of Seattle and anyone else listening to us that we should all vote yes on Initiative 1000.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kasper O'Brien. Know comments from many of my colleagues. Yes. Yes. Councilmember Waters. You have the floor, ma'am.
Speaker 1: I'll be brief. Council President. I believe it was passed in 1998.
Speaker 0: Correct? I stayed.
Speaker 4: That?
Speaker 3: Yes, sir.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's okay.
Speaker 0: You're the only one heard.
Speaker 4: And that's why.
Speaker 0: My apologies.
Speaker 4: This is the time where I enjoy now being 60 years old. And I was in Olympia working for a governor when this went down.
Speaker 1: And I remember how volatile and how difficult it was. And some of the most racist and vile things were said about those of us affirmative action not being qualified, being led into the door of college and law school. And we didn't belong there. And I had hoped that we would never return to those kind of conversations again. I say this as a person who grew up on the Puyallup Reservation and put myself through college and law school with help from my tribe, but more importantly for other people of color behind me to be a mentor and keep that door open. And there's a reason why this law is focused on and this is why I am so supportive of it is public education and employment is the equalizer in our society to justice. If we don't have that equalizer, if we don't have this world in this country valuing our minds and our integrity into these institutions, then we will never be there because of this. I sit here today. I got into college in law school, not because I was Native American and Latina. I got in there because I was qualified. And the recent issues that we've seen with some people buying their ways through legacy into institutions and going to prison sickens me. We have watched the legacy. The only difference between affirmative action and a legacy of people with Rich is they have it, institutionalize it, and they made it okay. I've watched it my whole life, so I will have one more note before I will get off my soapbox. As some of you know, I don't always talk a lot, but we are one of 21 states in this country where we have a case pending in the United States Supreme Court where we recognize and protect the transgender community. One of 21 states. This case is now pending the United States Supreme Court, to whether or not, if you're LGBTQ and transgender, that whether or not that's a constitutional right to be protected for health care, for education. So only 21 states in our country recognize that. Right. So we are have gone back into time. I feel like it's 1980 again. 1970 again. I feel like this is a time where young folks, particularly people of color, are being told that that their mind and their value in their future isn't being valued, that they belong in these higher institutions. And so as a mother with two daughters, 28 and 25, they've had the blessing and the legacy of me being able to go to law school and have a provide for them. But not everyone does. And so I'm hoping that those of you here today and thank you, and I'm hoping that those who are out there watching support and vote yes and vote to approve Initiative one 1000. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Wise, for those comments. You know, the comments from the dais, from any of my colleagues I want to pressure, but I'll make sure you have the ample opportunity. Okay. Having said that, we will now have and a lot of time for comments from the public either in support of or in opposition to. And I will start with the in support of since we have an overwhelming amount of signatures there, as is our historical practices, we'd like to recognize current or former elected representatives. And in this case, we have an organizer, Mr. Jesse Weinberg, who's the chair and former state representative with Mr. Nathaniel Jackson. I 1000 sponsor or sign a. Please come forward and address some comments. You've identified yourself as being part of a group, so. Well, I'll 5 minutes and thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I need to apologize for Mr. Nathaniel Jackson, who is the sponsor, by 1000. He had a medical issue that kept him in Olympia. He lives in Lacey. And so he's not able to be here with us. But he's asked that I present these remarks on behalf of the entire committee. So, first of all, good afternoon, Council President Harrell and all council members. I'm an attorney and former State Representative Jesse Weinberger, chair of the One Washington Equality Campaign Committee, the authors of Initiative 1000 and organizers of the Approved I 1000 campaign. Before I go any further, I want to give honor on behalf of the One Washington Equality Campaign and acknowledge that we are on indigenous land, the unceded ancestral lands of the warmest people, Seattle's host tribe of people that has occupied this land since time immemorial. A people who are still living right here today fighting for federal recognition and bringing to light the dormant tribe's rich heritage. On this land, we come today to urge your passage of Seattle City Council Resolution 31913. We enthusiastically support this resolution, which encourages all Seattle voters to approve our 1000 the Washington State Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Act on Referendum 88. It's really quite fitting that the city of Seattle or for the city of Seattle to make its voice heard on this diversity act, because Seattle symbolizes the birthplace of diversity in our state. Over 170 years ago, one of the first acts of diversity was not by a member of the majority white community seeking to include people of color. It was an act of diversity by Chief South. A native man of color in chief of the majority of the white, Irish and Suquamish tribes. When he extended his hand of welcome to minority white settlers on to the land, which would one day become the city of Seattle. Today's I 1000 is the people's initiative to the Washington State Legislature. But it started over one year ago right here in Seattle. It was drafted in Seattle. And the first people to sign on i 1000 were Seattle residents of all races, ages and cultures at Mount Zion Baptist Church, a movement which started in Seattle, ultimately spread throughout the entire state. And when it was all said and done, more than 395,000 Washington voters had signed a 1000 the most signatures for any initiative to the legislature in Washington state history. We bring you now a peoples representative, which has been thoroughly vetted, unlike Initiative 200, which killed affirmative action for women and people of color in 1998 . I 1000 has been passed by the Washington State Legislature, approved by the King County Council, upheld by the Washington State Courts, endorsed by not only Governor Jay Inslee, but every living former Democrat and Republican. Washington state governor. I 1000 bans discrimination today and creates the state's first Governor's Commission on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to monitor all discrimination in the future. That's one of the reasons why I 1000 has been endorsed by The Seattle Times, The Stranger, The News Tribune, the Olympian, and the Vancouver Columbia Newspapers. I 1000 replaces I two hundreds old racially blind policy with a new racially conscious policy which was recently upheld by the Federal District Court Judge Alison Burroughs and Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard University. So the courts, state and federal, have spoken. The legislature has spoken. The state's largest county named for Dr. King himself has spoken. So now we're asking the Seattle City Council to speak loudly and proudly. And I 1000 by urging the state's largest city to approve I 1000 on referendum 88. And once I 1000 is law, we will be back to ask the City Council to pass an ordinance requiring every city agency to implement I 1000 because, as we all know, the only thing worse than a bad law. Is a good law that's never implemented. So thank you for allowing public testimony on resolution 31913. We urge your unanimous yes vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Weinberg. Thank you. Thank you much. We have the Honorable Representative Sharon Tamayo Santos here in our house today. Nice to have you here.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Council President Harrell and members of the Seattle City Council. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today in favor of Resolution 31913. My name is Sharon Tony Santos. I am a state representative proudly representing the 37th Legislative District, the most diverse legislative district in the state of Washington . I am here both on behalf of the residents of the 37th District, but as a private citizen as well. I am here because when I was elected 21 years ago, I 200 was also on the ballot. I can tell you that I 200 purported to level the playing field for all persons. I 200 purported to end discrimination. I'm here to tell you that that was a false promise, as both the council president and former Representative Wayne Barry have spoken. The the numbers tell the tale. In 1998 to 2016, I have a little outdated numbers. The state's investments in women in minority owned businesses plummeted 23.3% from 100 from $227 million to $174.6 million. The investments overall increased $1.7 billion to $6.1 billion. I could go on about subpopulations of our Seattleites who are not represented in higher education and employees who have met the glass ceiling. I am wanting to tell you that since this measure was enacted, I have led efforts in the Legislature to repeal i 200, including an up to on signing di voting on I 1000. Mr. Council President, members of the council, I want you to know that every single member of the Seattle delegation voted for I 1000. And so I ask you to to join with us in voting for this resolution and urging the citizens of Seattle to support Referendum 88 and I 1000. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Representative Michael Santos, thank you very much. I'm going to go on the other list in opposition to and we'll draw from Mr. David Haines, who will speak in opposition to resolution 31913.
Speaker 2: Racist disgraces all over the places. This city is the most reverse racist city in America's 21st century. One of my heroes, Martin Luther King Jr said judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. Yet City Council is financing a racist budget that smudges on data as lives go splatter. In fact, a sponsor of this referendum is in violation of the U.S. Constitution separation of church and state. The church in question had hosted a city council meeting. Who created this ugly racist referendum? Used $1.5 million of church money to finance the petition drive. And now City Council is going to allow them to make that money back by shaking down tax payers, charging social welfare budgets to finance homeless encampments on toxic, unsafe soil at the church. A city council circumvents every first world zoning and soil and environmental law proving they really hate the poor and are okay with subhuman mistreating the homeless and treating the integrity of council for more reelection support at expense of health of homeless and taxpayers fed up with liberals who have imploded our society. Perhaps City Council should create a declaration of solidarity with the oppressed people of Catalonia and come out against the evil empire of Spain. Supporting Referendum 88 is proof Seattle is the most racist city in America and should be boycotted out of principle. Shame on city councils, race baiting and class war hating accommodation of hypocrites. You base their judgments on the past already overthrown, but for the educations of hate who feed off negativity and blame games.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Haynes. Now we'll go back to the support of the resolution and we'll hear from Mr. Heywood Evans to be followed by Mr. Eddie Ray.
Speaker 3: Haywood Evans is not here. I am Eddie Ray Jr, and I'm here in support of the resolution. You know, we talk about what the state has lost in terms of activity and opportunities for people of color and women. And it was like I calculated to be $3 billion that the state representative Santos already has submitted legislation in 2012. Unfortunately, it was never used. Her legislation, substitute Bill 1328 would allow municipalities to restrict bidding to three firms that their firm was doing under $250,000 a year, and the contract was for 30 or 40,000. You would select three and three firms, regardless of color or gender. In those three firms, those small firms would bid for that contract. It could also go another step contracts up to $250,000. Firms is doing under $1,000,000 a year bid terribly for those contracts. Unfortunately, those that law was never used. And after eight, nine years, it could have made a huge difference with a lot of our firms. Now, we also have to look at the fact the economic impact it has right now. The city of Seattle is 4% African-American or a of United States slaves, 4%. And all that has to do with economic inequality. So I'm proud it's here that the city council is intending on supporting this resolution. And I hope that the mayor and everybody else does the same thing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Wright. Our next two speakers will be Royal Allie Barnes, followed by. Barricade Cairo's.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon. Your council president and council members. This is a true story. My name is Royal Ali Barnes. Royal Allie Barnes Consultants. In 2016, Washington State was home to 19 squaws, six coons, five Negroes, three Jim Crows, two Redmen and a Chinaman as names on Washington State maps. Academics have said, and I quote, These names were a product of a white supremacist society that sought to naturalize its racist and sexist ideology by inscribing it the ideology into the symbolic fabric of the cultural landscape. Elected officials have since coordinated efforts to scrub these racist references from our natural landscapes. In 2019. Economic and educational opportunity losses have been designed by a similar white supremacist and their collaborators. They have woven new patterns of economic and education inequity into the core fabric of brown and black communities. This must stop. We urge the City Council to shred these oppressive fabrics of economic and education inequities that are currently suffocating our communities. Support Initiative 1000.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Barnes.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, and this the members of city council, my name is Burkhard Quiroz, and I am the co-chair of a coalition of immigrant and refugee and communities of color. The approval initiative. Affirmative action is necessary, and I argue that discrimination in the past has a profound impact on the future. And the generation of poverty and inequality leave minorities to a disadvantage even when society attitude changes. I argue that diversity is a good for the educational institution and workplace, that decades of discrimination. Discrimination will result in less diversity at school and work, which in turn reinforces poverty and inequality among minorities. The passage of Initiative 1000 Affirmative Action Policy Head Office in which historical and privileged minorities are given preference during hiring or university admission. It's no time to oppose Initiative 1000 affirmative action given the history of slavery and its continued, pervasive racial discrimination. To think otherwise is a selective loss of memory. The continuing failure to significantly reduce the effect of discrimination prevents many from preserving equal opportunity today. Black unemployment, poverty, homelessness are twice that of white workers. That accumulation for blacks is 1/20 of what it is for whites. Similar disparities also for Hispanic racial profiling in the criminal justice system is rampant. To prohibit affirmative action in admission to state college and university has flowed. Affirmative action characterized an unfair preference rather than a justified remedy. It is a travesty of justice. Especially is the age of Donald Trump. When our nation is deeply divided, but there is a better, less divisive way to achieve the goal of opening doors to elite universities to disadvantage students of all races who are no longer shut out of education. And so United is supposed to people associate affirmative action with a preference hiring or admitting African Americans. However, federal affirmative action laws are also in place for women, veterans and people with disability. Furthermore, local government has also also enacted different affirmative action laws. However, while some are, affirmative action is still necessary as it is not, and in fact in fact worsens the racial tension. It is now time for the City of Seattle to concede the passing into the law to create economic and educational opportunity for historically homogenous group of people. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Next, these figures, Tony Orange and Khabib Mooney. Tony Orange and Khabib. And then when Dona Hollingsworth age will age will follow that. One, two, three. Sorry I didn't give you much for warning there. Tony. Tony. Khabib. And we know. No. Have.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon. My name is Tony Orange. As a Seattle stakeholder. And Concerned citizen regarding everyday experiences of African-Americans. In public education.
Speaker 2: Employment and.
Speaker 3: Contracting. I come today? To show my strong support for Resolution 31913. Concerning Initiative.
Speaker 2: 1000.
Speaker 3: And. Referendum 88. The studies are in. The statistics are clear. 20 years and $3 billion is enough.
Speaker 2: Now is the time.
Speaker 3: This is the place. And we are the ones. Last but not least, I want to.
Speaker 2: Publicly thank.
Speaker 3: President Harrell and council members for your support of the Public Defenders Association. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Orange.
Speaker 3: It's KBB.
Speaker 0: Make sure we're here. We're followed by Winona and then Jodi only. Director of the Indian Services Commission.
Speaker 4: Good morning, counsel. Thank you very much for hearing our statement. My name is Gabe Monet and I'm the executive director of New Blackout West Theater. I'm here on behalf of my community. The system needs to be repaired. And these are some words from the last poet, and I hope it will touch your ears. For the millions who were shot, hunt, beat to death. Tarred and feathered, bald and old. Castrated, miseducated, segregated for the millions who have been lied to, denied to vampire. I too misguided to a native by the two. So we decided. We decided to get together and change the weather, not just for now, but forever. We decided to love each other. Stop the madness and be real. Sisters and brothers. Greatness is where we're coming from. For the millions who marched, sang praise said Laden lived in and jailed in boycotted, bigoted, spit at curse debt yelled at like blacks not where it's at like we should be satisfied to ride in the back for the millions who know, and those who have always known that no matter what truth crushed to the earth shall rise again. No matter how many bullets and prisons, diseases and deaths, no matter how much liquor and crack, nothing can kill. The fact that we are a divine creation started civilization built the pyramids and the Sphinx taught the world how to pray and think for the millions who are ready to turn this thing around, who are tired of being tired and crawling on the ground. It's time to turn this mess around. And we say for liberty and justice for all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It could be. Winona will be followed by Jodie and then Sean.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon. My name is Winona Hollins Hague. I am a former commissioner for African-American affairs for the state of Washington, also former council member for the Health Care Disparities Council. I have for the last. I'm a native of Seattle. And for the last 20 years, I actually have seen and felt the impact of discrimination that I 200 and Tim Iman's initiative brought here to the citizens of Washington State. I being 66 years old now I consider myself one of those older people that I used to think were the older people. And I say that I 1000 prohibits age discrimination and I 1000 in prohibiting age discrimination realizes that some of us may have to go back to work with the current economy as it is. So we are advocating that you look at I 1000 and make sure that you know that it also helps to support the aged people with disabilities and also it prevents gender discrimination, it prohibits the LGBTQ discrimination and it strengthens our veterans. And I'm a former US public health service officer, so I'm always concerned about the way we can do things to help to affirm and create a better opportunity for our veterans. Again, take this opportunity today to say no to the moneys that are coming in with the big sign saying reject all over the place. Say that because you know that that money is foreign money. And those Chinese nationals that are against this are being funded by very highly political foreign entities. We need to take control of this situation ourselves and say we affirm I 1000 because it's the right thing to do and it's the only thing to do. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jody. Shaun Bagby and then Pedro Espinoza.
Speaker 1: Janine, is this on? Yes.
Speaker 0: The green light should be on. Is it on? Okay.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. My name is Jodi Olney. I work with the Seattle Indian Services Commission. I want to thank Council President Cairo and City Council for bringing this resolution. And what I want to speak about is more of my lived experience, me impacted by 200, the expectation that communities of color and folks who do get into various institutions in the city and in this state have the time and energy to continue to advocate for increased representation, increased access and and to find it. People don't want to violate it. They don't want to get in trouble. They you know, they're well-intentioned. And so I fully support initiative 1000 and and encouraged that this might actually mean that the teeth that have been missing through so many initiatives in the past, so many task forces they set about righting the wrongs and bringing more equity, might actually have the room to do that. I think that individuals get hit up for these, you know, can you give this to your community? Can you quietly tell people that we want people of color in these in these rooms even just to be heard? And I guess they felt important to come and say that because it might be lost on institutions, that this work is expected to come for free in addition to your day job. In addition to school. And it's you're supposed to be tireless and at the end of the day to hear. Sorry. I 200 blocks from doing that. So I just wanted to thank you all for your support. And I hope that Washington State gets some clarity from this and moves us in a positive direction.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Judy.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, members of the City Council. My name is Sean Bagby. My preferred pronouns are he and him, and I'm proud to serve as the political director of Membership Development Coordinator for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW Local 77. We represent over 8400 electrical workers across a majority of Washington state, northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. I also serve as the National Board Member of the Electrical Workers Minority Caucus, and I'm going to speak on behalf of those two hats. Then I will transition to our third hat in a few moments. The negative impacts of EIT 200 are well-documented on my thank you from Council President for setting the groundwork and my other colleagues for speaking on that regard and also speaking about the battle that it took in order to pass. I went to the Washington State Legislature this year on behalf of all of our members, especially our veterans, our they don't like to be called old, but our more seasoned members, our sisters, our people of color, our LGBTQ, AIAA plus community that I urge you all to move forward and pass this resolution. Seattle is a world class city. I was fortunate to be born and raised here in Seattle right off of 26 and John in the old Central District. And Seattle is not dying and is a world class city. And it's up to us to make sure that it continues that to be that going forward, not just for us , but for our children and our children's children. I just got those two hats down for a moment and speak on behalf of Sean Bagby, the son of a Boeing worker and a Seattle public schoolteacher, Velma Bagby, for 29 years and a black man here in the city of Seattle where I was born and raised. This is larger than all of us, and not everyone in this room will benefit from this. But as I stated earlier, it's for our children's children and for those that go forward that this great city, with all of the economic availability and opportunity to make sure that all people, regardless of what they look like, where they come from that are here, can benefit from it. That is why I went in is extremely important. So I encourage you to please adopt this resolution. Thank you for all your hard work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Sean. Pedro, before you begin, let me read off the next three names following Pedro B, Kevin Washington, Nate Miles in, Rian Johnson, Covington, Kevin, Nate and Rio will follow Pedro yet for sure.
Speaker 6: Thank you Seattle City Council for the invite. Many of favorites. When I was I represent the Carpenters Union and I am here on behalf of the Corpus Union to support the Initiative 1000 and Referendum 88. As a union member, we represent about 29,000 members through six states. A majority of those members here in Washington state. And we are avidly advocating for them to support and pass Referendum 88 and support one over 1000. As an organization, we see it as a huge, huge step for our communities to come up and be part of society and not being left behind. You know, the government always says communities always follow. We can't leave some people behind. Well, our communities of color have been suffering. And it always seems that we're always left behind. With that being said, I want to speak on my behalf and I think coming from. A sector of people that have always been stepped on, especially now in this tremulous government that we have in office, where they tend to criminalize, demonize for who we are. Because I was born with the skin color. And. It hurts me when I hear that because my kids, I have two beautiful daughters that are part of the system. And for them to go through this because they have to fight just a little more. And I'm sorry for emotional, but man. It's time for this country to pull together. A lot of our communities are left behind. We're being oppressed. And I don't want people to think that it is the white people that are supporting this, that it's their fault. It's not. It's a system that's been catered by the rich to keep these communities down. We see this system on an on going where they buy their kids to go to school one day to have no reason to be in there. But because of the privilege and I call it a privilege because of what they are, they're white. And because I did not choose to be born this way. But I am proud of being a mexican and I am proud to be here to support Referendum 88. And hopefully you guys will support it, too. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the. First, give me honor to God, who's the head of my life. Counsel, I want to thank you for this resolution. And I also want to give.
Speaker 0: Real some praise to Representative Santos and to former Representative Wayne.
Speaker 3: Barry, who without them, we would not be here in the hard work that they've done. And I also want to thank some of the other people who are nameless, people like my father, Booker T Miles. I have to call his name, Mr. President. He and other contractors who put everything on the line and risk it all mortgaged houses to start before they could get jobs in the union.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 3: Really start businesses and put them on the line and start the small businesses. And they were the ones who really made this day possible today. And I want to thank them for that. I want to thank people on the education front that went out and took over the president's office at the University of Washington and kicked those doors open and made sure that we had an opportunity to go to that school there. And so which is why it makes me so mad when I hear the opposition say they're not qualified and what have they done? They don't understand the fact that I've watched a mother like Elise Miles, my mom, who was a part time domestic and a part time bus driver, get up on a bus when it was icy and fall off that bus, getting arthritis in her knees every day, though, making sure getting back up there when she didn't have.
Speaker 2: Insurance, making sure that she worked her butt.
Speaker 3: Off to get us to school, making sure that she went without that insurance because she wasn't covered every day, making sure.
Speaker 2: When she would go and.
Speaker 3: Scrub those people's floor with those arthritic knees and that that diabetes in her system.
Speaker 2: But made sure that we would work hard.
Speaker 3: So don't tell us that we don't work hard and we're unqualified. She told us to go to school and we have just as much right to that university as anyone else. And so the fact that you guys are doing this, saying there's going to be some fairness in this system and that this city council believes in fairness , we want to and on behalf the league smile and on behalf of Booker T Miles, I want to thank each and every one of you for taking a brave stand to do so.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Miles. Up there, Kevin.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Washington and I'm a board member, Tabor 100. I'm also the education chair. I'm representing that organization. That's the hat that I'm wearing. Like to ask any of the table. 100 members who are here to please stand. Table 100 was founded right after I 200 passed. It was named after Langston Taber. It's an organization of largely, but not exclusively black and African-American businesspeople. In the 20 years since it was passed, the minority business community has been decimated. The number of contracts awarded low percentage of dollars of spend by the state, county, port and the city are not what they could have been and not what they should have been. If it had not passed. While I 1000 does not repeal I 200, it is a solid step in strengthening positive actions towards seeking an awarding of contracts within the minority business community. It also stands to impact. Admissions to the University of Washington or other public institutions. No more should city, county, port and state employees. People who award contracts, people who hire hide behind I 200 claiming that they cannot find a way. They cannot find the people there aren't qualified, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. No more of that. I'm urging you to support your resolution. I 1000 and referendum 88. This is long overdue. You not have a place to stand and a role to play. Urge you to support I 1000. Referendum 88. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Washington. The last two speakers I have just been following, Miss Johnson Covington will be then Robert Stevens. For the last year. I have.
Speaker 1: Greeting President and Honorable Council. My name is Rhea Johnson Covington. I'm your neighbor from Pierce County. I've come to stand in support of 31 913 Initiative I 1000 and Referendum 88 as a leading member of our on a corporate DNA committee. We recognize the importance of having intentional conversations that surround sensitive and emotionally charged topics to create process and procedures fairly. So I'm asking you here today, the city of the citizens of Washington State, not only to set aside your opposition, but let's reconcile our party differences. Join together to ensure all the concerns are heard. Each of us are accountable and lead in the development and implementation of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee on behalf of Washington State. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm Richard Stevens. Good evening.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon to you. My name is Robert Stevens Jr. I'm one of those 19 year olds that got drafted in 1965 and went away with honors and served my country and came.
Speaker 2: Back to give.
Speaker 3: To my.
Speaker 2: Community. I was able to go to school.
Speaker 3: The University of Washington for.
Speaker 2: B.A..
Speaker 3: And to graduate school because those elements that are in this 1000 was in place at that particular time. I went to fight for my country so all of us can enjoy the bounties of this country. So I encourage you to support 1000 and to pass the resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Stevens. So a few house came out and those are the speakers that I have signed up for. I also want to go back to the. In opposition to. And a lot an opportunity for the in opposition to once again to speak in opposition to resolution 31913. Holding the. Motion open. That opportunity is closed. Judge Shadid, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I assume you're here for the budget matter, not for this matter, because I would have afforded you some opportunities to speak if you'd like to. But I. I'm not sure that is correct. Okay. Yeah, I think there might even be some rules associated with you providing public testimony of something going on a ballot that I didn't want to. Yeah, I didn't want you to be unethical. A few things. And before we cast a vote, and I'll give my colleagues that opportunity to speak if you'd like. This has gotten very personal for many in this room. You've put your heart and your souls and your your time and your money and resources into this effort. And it's a beautiful thing to watch. It's one of the most, I think, well-organized and committed movements I've seen in political history. Overcoming odds, overcoming. Anger and hatred, even politics. And so just kudos to you. And I think you know who you are. I will. I've worked with you in the field and many of you I've known for 40, 50 years. Well, I'll show my age here. But as Councilmember West said, some of us are direct beneficiaries of the work you've done. So thank you for that. And certainly my ability to support this resolution. A housekeeping item and some good news here. And then our next four before we vote on it. I got hot pressing news that the mayor will be holding a. On Wednesday. On Wednesday. A signing ceremony of this resolution, assuming that it successfully passes at 515 and Norman B Rice Room at Wednesday at 515 there'll be a signing ceremony. So put that on the calendars before we vote on this exciting resolution. Does any of my colleagues, would they like to say any words before we close the comment section? Are we okay? Are we good? Everybody's happy. Okay. Those in favor of adopting resolution 31913. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution. Adopt and share will sign it. Thank you. You all deserve the applause. That is our last agenda item. Is there any further business to come before the council today? I have one and that will be.
Speaker 1: Carefully.
Speaker 0: Prepared. I asked to be excused on November 4th from the City Council meeting. It's been moved to saying that I'd be excused from it November 4th and the city council meeting. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. And if any further bids come for the council and not everyone. Have a great day. And we stand adjourned. We're coming back and we are coming back for our budget hearings. Three 2320. We will be back. Yes, Mr..
Speaker 3: Representative Santos, this legislation. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION concerning Washington Referendum Measure No. 88 (“Referendum 88”), proposing voter approval of Initiative Measure No. 1000, and urging Seattle voters to vote “Approved” on Referendum 88 on the November 5, 2019, general election ballot. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10142019_CF 314365 | Speaker 3: The report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning Committee. Agenda Item one CLERK 4314 365. Application of Cathleen Justice Teresa on approximately 18,423 square feet of land addressed at 5256 Rainier Avenue South. The committee recommends that the application be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Very much from Pacheco.
Speaker 4: And colleagues. This is a contract rezoning application from Cathleen Justice to rezone approximately 18,423 square feet site at 5256 Rainier Avenue South from neighborhood commercial to with a 45 foot height limit to neighborhood commercial two with a 6465 foot height limit and a higher corresponding MTA requirement. The applicant plans to develop the site into a six story 73 unit apartment building with commercial space as DCI and the hearing examiner both recommended approval as condition. The plans committee unanimously recommended approval in September, with one amendment to correct the title of other Clark file.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Chicco. Any other questions or comments before we move this? If not, I will move to pass Council Bill 11966. I'm sorry. Strike that those in favor of granting the application as conditions. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair was signed the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Kathleen Justice to rezone approximately 18,423 square feet of land addressed as 5256 Rainier Avenue S from Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a height limit of fifty-five feet and a (M) mandatory housing affordability suffix (NC2-55 (M)) to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a height limit of sixty-five feet and a (M1) mandatory housing affordability suffix (NC2-65 (M1))(Project No. 3025493-LU, Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10142019_Res 31912 | Speaker 3: For Injection and adoption. Agenda Item 25 Resolution 31912 Setting the public hearing on the petition of Willow Crossing LLP for the vacation of a portion at 39th Avenue, south south of South Willow Street and the Othello Residential Urban Village neighborhood area of Seattle, according to Chapter 35.79. Other Revised Code of Washington Chapter 15.62 Code and Clerk Filed 314422.
Speaker 4: Kathryn Pacheco So this resolution, colleagues, is setting the public hearing for the petition of Willow Crossing. It's a vacation of a portion of 39th Avenue, south south of south Wall Street in Othello, residential urban village neighborhood area of Seattle. According to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.6 to the Seattle Ministerial Code and Clerk filed 314422. The public hearing for this affordable housing development will be held on Wednesday, November 20th, at 9:30 a.m. at the special meeting of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. This housing project will provide 300 units close to the Othello light rail station. The timing of this hearing as essential to secure a bond application through the Washington State Finance Commission that allows this project to be financially feasible and affordable to residents at 60%. Ami Gandy Development must be able to close by the end of the year. The lender and investor require confirmation that certain steps related to the permitting process have been completed in order to move forward with the December closing. The street vacation is an integral one of these steps, unfortunately, waiting for the street vacation to be finalized until December 9th, when the council will vote after the 12 1312 three subcommittee meeting does not allow enough time for the remaining closing activities to happen before the end of the year. This is why Council is holding a special public hearing for the street vacation during budget, which will be led by Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Guzman Pacheco any questions or comments on this legislation? If not, I will move to adopt resolution 319120 moved and secondly, the resolution be adopted. Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution adopted chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come for the Council? Okay. If not, we stand adjourned and have a great rest of the day. Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of Willow Crossing, LLLP for the vacation of a portion of 39th Avenue South, south of South Willow Street in the Othello Residential Urban Village neighborhood 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 314422. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10072019_CB 119600 | Speaker 7: The report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item one Constable 119 600 relating to environmental review amending sections 3.02.1 1020 5.05.0. 35.0. 55.0. 70.100 point four. 40.4 48.5. 45.6. 80.800 point 900 and point 914 of the State of Espaco to clarify timelines and the content of an administrative appeals to authorize the development of directors rules to clarify the content of.
Speaker 8: Environmental documents.
Speaker 7: And to make corrections and technical amendments. Committee recommends were passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Pacheco. Are you leading with a request from O'Brien?
Speaker 6: I would really like it. Did you want to talk to about the amendments first or did you not?
Speaker 0: I'd rather talk about the base legislation first. We have four amendments, as I understand them. But let's get through the base legislation and if possible, I'd like the proposers to try to address many of the what seem to be valid concerns from both sides that we heard from public testimony today. So we'll start off just the base legislation.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Sure. So colleagues, thank you for being here today. And this legislation is a culmination of a three month process that began with environmental organizations like Feature Wise Transportation Choices, Coalition Climate Solutions and Sightline. That's in a letter to the Council requesting that we update our city keeper policies in response to changes to state law. The proposed changes are common sense reforms to make our CPA process work better for the environment. The legislation would align our city code to match changes in state law limits. Here in Examiner appeals to 120 days. Clarifies which portions of the environmental impact statements are subject to appeals and aligns. Are CPC thresholds for urban villages with urban centers. In shaping this legislation, I have met with stakeholders including the hearing examiner Mansell environmental groups Megan Cruz, who spoke earlier today in downtown residents CCI Ted Hunter from the Wallingford Community Council. And I've also had the opportunity to go on the Jason Ranch Show to speak on behalf of the importance of this legislation. So my committee has done is due diligence with regards to meeting with a variety of stakeholders who have had an interest in seeing this process through. We've also held three committee meetings and a public hearing process as well. I also want to take a moment to address some of the claims that I've heard and clarify a few things about what this legislation does not do. This proposal does not and SEEBER review it, does not eliminate SIPA challenges based on transportation impacts. It does not allow CCI or design review boards to unilaterally set rules or thresholds for seat review. And it does not change CPA thresholds for downtown or other urban centers. Opponents of this legislation have unfortunately portrayed this effort as training away environmental protections in exchange for affordable housing. But I reject framing this conversation as a tradeoff between one or the other. This council understands that building dense, sustainable housing in our city and addressing the climate crisis are not contradictory. They go hand in hand. That's why so many environmental advocacy advocates are supporting this legislation. As Brittany Busch Belay of the Sierra Club and Alex Lockhart of Thrifty Seattle wrote in today's Seattle Times, One of the most powerful ways Seattle can safeguard the environment is by welcoming more homes into the city, curtailing climate pollution and sprawl. This legislation helps us do just that. It makes modest changes to update our code to better reflect our climate priorities. Finally, I want to thank my colleagues on the Council. Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember Mosqueda, Councilmember Herbold for working with me and my team to offer amendments in this legislation, as well as which what's on central staff for all of this work. It's getting us to this far. I also want to thank all the environmental leaders who advocate for advocated for these changes in Olympia and challenge the city of Seattle to move forward as well. So I will I'm happy to discuss each of the amendments, if you like.
Speaker 0: Council President Let's before we get to amendments, sure. Might be some questions on the Bass legislation. Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Pacheco. I don't know if this is something that you want to address or Councilmember O'Brien on the phone. I know that recently, last year, after multiple years of work at the legislature, that laws were passed there that authorized categorical exemptions for infill here in Seattle. And I wonder if you can talk about what the intention was for the legislature there, what the intention of the conversations have been at your committee and where we are now, because we listened to the audience and they're concerned about losing rights of appeal. And I'd like to. To know whether or not, A, we're in a line, we are aligned with the state's legislation. And secondly, how you address the questions that they have said, we're losing our our appeal rights.
Speaker 6: Sure. So this is in response, direct response to House Bill 1923, which advocates here today had outlined as well to Olympia. And Olympia acted in response to what they had seen in the examples here in Seattle, where the CPA process was misused and weaponized in a way such to see have delays for affordable housing projects and different projects, as we've seen throughout Seattle. The Burke Gilman, for example, as we heard today in testimony where the bullet center as well as for Maté the 82 legislation as as well as for Layton and so Olympia and the state provided until April spring of 2021 for this for cities across the state to update our CPR standards. As such, we led an extensive process that did the outreach with a variety of stakeholders to respond to what the state has allowed us to do. It has not taken away anyone's authority to to to appeal or to use or to allow development projects to not go through, undergo CPR or to circumvent any of the processes, such as some proponents have claimed. Rather, it streamlines that process and allows us to move forward in response to what we've heard from different affordable housing advocates as well as environmental groups.
Speaker 1: So can I just quickly follow up. Talk to me, please, about the streamlining, because we heard today that many, many concerns have been raised, that their appeal rights had either been eliminated or reduced. Can you describe that?
Speaker 6: So appeals will now have a 120 day time limit and a 30 day extension if both parties agree, 120 days is the average of what we've heard from the hearing examiner, which is why that date and that timeframe was selected. We've seen appeals where they've dragged on for months, if not years. And so, again, people will still have the opportunity to appeal. But we've now put the the processes in place and a timeline in place so that these process, this appeal process, does not drag on for much longer than that it is intended to. In addition to that, we've also asked for the hearing examiner to come back in the annual report that's due next year with opportunities for us to make additional process improvements. And so we will go through that process again as a council next year to make any additional improvements and hopefully accept those recommendations from the hearing. Examiner.
Speaker 0: So I had a question to customer, please. Customer Well, thank you.
Speaker 8: I just want to share with y'all some information from the hearing examiner about the language in the in the ordinance that relates specifically to the timeline. I don't think it's a problem, but I think it's important that people understand the examples where the amount of time has exceeded 120 days. Those examples are times when both parties, the city and the appellant agreed.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 8: Take more time. So, for instance, during the delay of the MHRA appeal, hearing examiner Vance Hill explained to me that all parties, including the city, had scheduled conflicts for their representatives and witnesses that delayed the conclusion of the hearing. And so that was a that extension was an agreement of both parties. And that is that's pretty that when that happens, it's standard. It's very unusual for one party to object. The Fort Lawton case, the hearing examiner explains that that case was delayed most significantly because it originally required four days to complete, and the hearing schedule could not accommodate four days because the MHRA hearing schedule and other already had already scheduled meetings. So given that the city and the appellant typically agree to extend the timelines and this bill itself doesn't actually prohibit the extension of timelines, even though.
Speaker 1: We're we're.
Speaker 8: Giving another another timeline. It's unlikely from the hearing examiners perspective that this aspect of the bill will have an actual impact on the timeline, because it doesn't affect what is the practice that is that has led to previous longer timelines. So that's not these aren't comments to oppose this part of the bill. It's just merely to make sure that we have reasonable expectations of what this language in the bill will actually accomplish.
Speaker 0: If I may. Because. Brian. I'll recognize you in a minute. I wanted to make a comment or question. So perhaps in your response, you could. Respond to it as well. Part part of my concern on the the base legislation is it seems as though we are put in a position to pit our need and desire to build affordable housing with a a person's right to use the SIPA appeal process as he or she sees fit. That when I hear terms like CPA being used or weaponized, I think it was the term. Perhaps it has been abused in recent years or even some time ago, but it's also been effectively used, I think, to make sure that people's rights are intact and that there there's a CPA appeal process for a reason. And my question really is, is the process here that as we are in the middle of budget, that we're asked to look upon some pretty important legislation that could no doubt affect the our Seattle for years to come. And that shouldn't be taken lightly. And so I'm trying to get a feel for how long you all have been working on this, how much outreach was, in fact, done, and whether we should delay this until more outreach is done. I don't think we I don't know how time sensitive this is, because we shouldn't have to pit one great need versus another one great need for affordable housing versus someone's right to even question or challenge some of the decisions we made. So, so so I'm trying to get a feel for how long we've been working on this and why we're sort of doing this in the middle of a budget and whether it makes sense to have it done when more process is warranted. So that's just my personal concerns. Councilmember O'Brien, you are recognized, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to reiterate a couple of things that this bill does and doesn't do. The two major substantive, two major substantive things it does do is it provides categorical exemptions to a slightly longer list of projects that would no longer be required under the CPA. And I want to be clear that when we asked federal staff to analyze recent CPI appeals in the 30 plus appeals that came through, only two of those would now be categorically exempt based on this legislation. So maybe five or 6% of the appeals in recent timeframe. So that's a fairly narrow part of the list. But the rest of them, what it does do is require a certain timeline. And as Councilmember Herbold, I think mentioned, we often see that our own attorneys are agreeing to extend that. And I think that part of this requirement is to get both sides to accelerate that process. Multiple times we've heard that attorneys typically on the client side have have been on vacation for a long time, and that required extending eight months, sometimes multiple times. Council President Herald To your question about not pitting folks against each other, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to do that. You know, this process has been going on, I think, for about three months now. The reason we didn't vote on this before budget, even though it cleared through committee before budget was because of some notice requirements. So it was held by, I think three weeks. So apologize that it's coming up during budget. But I do believe there's been significant chance for public input. And I think the reality is here we're going to have to pick where we want to come down. And I also want to add that it's not just about affordable housing. It's about bike facilities. It's about market rate housing, whether there's zero apartments or backyard cottages. I think about transportation impact fees, which we're not going to be able to act on in 2019, despite the state proposing those in 2018 because of multiple delays during the CPA process. And I think folks should do have access to the tools are almost always wealthier individuals that can afford attorneys. Rarely ever do we see low income communities of color using this tool. And so it's certainly disproportionately used, too, which is, you know, beyond the scope of this legislation. But I think there's more work you need to do to address that.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments, councilmember Brian. Any further customers get a councilmember city on the floor.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Mr. President, I want to take that chance to say thank you to the co-sponsors. Councilmember Pacheco and Councilmember O'Brien. As you heard, this is a process that have been that has been out there for three months. It's been an inclusive process, one that we knew was coming. And I completely understand, given the amount of huge pieces of legislation we've taken on this year, how this can feel like a big thing to take on prior to budget. But I think the timing is essential. How many folks have red on fire? How many people went to see Naomi Klein? How many people have been talking about the year 2030? The fact that when our kiddos are now going to be 11 years old, if they're born this year, that is going to be too late for us to turn the tide on some of these environmental protections. All of those issues I think we have in common in this body and in this city we've been talking about how do we address the issue of climate change? And that is precisely why we've been on the forefront of supporting the Green New Deal, making sure that the environmental protections that we have put into place are not being used in unintentional ways and predatory ways and as a delay tactic to create the very thing that can help us reduce emissions in this area is to create affordable housing, to create more bike infrastructure, to create more transit infrastructure. And the very tool that we all advocated for once upon a time through the Environmental Protection Act and at the state and the city level has been used, I think, wrongly, to end the ability or to delay the ability to create affordable housing, transit options, multi-modal transit corridors that get people out of cars. And the result of the use of these super provisions has been that less housing has created a delayed timeline, fewer bike lanes, fewer pedestrian opportunities. It has been weaponized in ways that could never have been intended. And when we don't allow for affordable housing and don't allow for more bike and pedestrian and infrastructure projects that keep people in the city, that allow for people who have multi-modal needs and who have different incomes, to stay in the city and work in the city, retire in the city. The consequence is displacement. We are now the third. Largest mega commuter city in the entire country. That means we are third in terms of the longest commute to get into the city to work an hour and a half in an hour and a half out. And one of the folks in the audience talks about they care about birds. They care about trees. They care about wetlands. They care about decreasing commuter idling. They care about water runoff and the mammals that are living out in our Puget Sound. That is precisely what we should be building within our city and is precisely why we should not have tools that are being used erroneously. When we use the opportunity to make sure that Seba is used as a tool to promote green living, to promote denser options, to make sure that there's more tree canopy. We can see ourselves actually moving forward on our shared goals of reducing carbon emissions are promoting more biking and walking, of getting people out of their cars because they live in this city. I'm really excited about how this piece of legislation dovetails with our broader goal of creating more affordable housing, more transit options, and a more welcoming city. I just want to say that I think this is also part of our response to how we're dealing with the crisis of climate change globally. There's about 200 million people on up to 1 billion people who are being forced to migrate because of climate change. Think about raising rising sea levels. Think about desertification. Think about deforestation. Think about crazy snowstorms that we've not seen before. And heat and fire here in the Pacific Northwest. Yes, we've experienced some of those. We now have a new season that Naomi Klein writes about, which is smoke season, wildfire season. And yet here in the Pacific Northwest, we are going to have some of the most temperate climate compared to other parts of the country and, frankly, other parts of the world. We have to be a welcoming city and we have to build housing and transit and infrastructure. If we are going to be that welcoming city that wants to welcome those who want to come here for a good job, come here for cleaner air, come here for economic stability. We have to build density. And we can't let these tools that have been weaponized in the past prevent the ability for folks to live in the city. This is an environmental justice policy, and I'm proud to support it. I think that it will be a good opportunity for us to show what it means to be a welcoming city and to live our environmental justice values as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. CASTRO Mosquito tents, applause on that. COUNCILMEMBER So what?
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Herrell. I will be voting yes on this legislation to alter Seattle's cyber procedures because these changes will, on balance, be a positive change. But we should be clear that they will not necessarily work in every situation, as public testimony has indicated. As has been mentioned, cyber, which of course the State Environmental Policy Protection Act is nominally a policy intended to protect the environment from particularly destructive development. In practice, however, it has most often been used by a tool by anyone who wishes to embroil a land use policy or development in red tape. As a tool. It is imprecise. It has been used in a progressive direction by community activists who correctly desire to negotiate community benefits or affordable housing or for large corporate developer. The threat of a SIPA appeal is the threat of costly delays, which sometimes is enough for community organizations to successfully extract some community benefits. However, it has far more often been used by some elements to delay affordable housing policies and project. For example, the Fort LUDDEN Affordable Housing Project was delayed for years with SIPA appeals, as was the accessory dwelling unit and the detached accessory dwelling unit legislation. And more recently, the tiny house built on my office has been subjected to a SIPA appeal by Elizabeth Campbell, who incidentally is the same person who appealed the Fort Lawton project. To give you a concrete example of how these SIPA appeals have nothing to do with the environment and are only used to slow down legislation. Here is one question out of the 11 pages of discovery questions that Elizabeth Campbell has put forward in her SIPA bill of my tiny house bill. Quote Interrogatory number four Identify every employee of the Office of Housing or the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections who owns property or resides in Seattle. Not only does that have nothing to do with the environment, it has nothing to do with tiny house villages. The legislation that we are voting on today restricts EPA appeal somewhat. It exempts small buildings from CPO review, but not big buildings. And it puts some time limits on how long something like my dining house bill, which actually is a bill that will that is in the interests of our homeless neighbors. How long such a bill can be delayed by appeals? When we consider these changes should be supported, we should not only consider the fact that was most of the time not being used in the way it was intended, but also consider whether limiting this tool will ultimately do more harm than good based on how it is actually being used, not on the intent of the bill. I strongly support affordable housing advocates extracting a couple more affordable homes out of a corporate developer using the tide of the SIPA appeal. But I do not support SIPA being used to disrupt and delay progressive legislation like affordable housing on Fort Lawton or expanding tiny house villages which which actually have a strong track record of addressing housing needs of our homeless neighbors and should be expanded. I do think we should try and avoid exaggeration of the impact of the bill today, and I think both sides have exaggerated the impact of the today's bill. On balance, however, I'm convinced that these changes will do more harm, more good than harm. The reality is to use, as Councilmember O'Brien and others have said, to use CPA to delay policies and projects require requires money and financial resources to hire lawyers to employ many of the tricks like this. 11 pages of discovery questions employ regular people. Ordinary people do not have those resources. Only corporations and wealthy people do. And because of that, frivolously, power bills have been used to delay far more progressive projects and harmful development. And given that balance, I will be voting yes on those reforms today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cassandra Swann So we've had discussion on the base legislation. Casper Pacheco Would you like to say more on the base legislation? Do you want to go through the amendments? How do you like to proceed?
Speaker 6: Let's go through the amendments and I can have closing remarks. Okay.
Speaker 0: So we're going to take some amendments to the base legislation. Let's hear any of the comments on the substance of the process. So amendment number one is proposed. By whom is it Councilmember Herbold or Pacheco?
Speaker 6: Sure. So, member number one, I just want to thank Councilmember Herbold for working with me to improve upon a previous amendment that we had in committee. This amendment goes further towards ensuring the community is involved in shaping the hearing examiners improvements. And I am happy to support.
Speaker 0: Okay. Can you say a little more about it? Oh, sorry.
Speaker 6: We we went through the committee and talked about having it in the hearing examiners annual report that's due next year. Additional recommendations that would be provided for the counsel to the hearing examiners would outline additional recommendations for the counsel to consider for and streamlining that process on the front end. This amendment just clarifies the stakeholder group by which the hearing examiner is going to convene to come back with those recommendations.
Speaker 0: Customer heard what did you want to add any to that?
Speaker 8: Just want to mention that we worked with the hearing examiner on the amendment and he is supportive.
Speaker 0: Very good. Councilmember actually had a question.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Pacheco, can you describe how a stakeholders group could work with a hearing examiner? So in particular, the concerns we're hearing today that people feel like their appeal rights are taken away. How can they continue to participate and make sure that they do have a right to appeal concerns? And I'm considering particularly downtown Seattle, because I know many of the voices that are out here that they're focused on that. How can they participate with this amendment?
Speaker 6: Sure. So we met with the hearing examiner last week, and what we heard was that the hearing examiner will be convening a group of stakeholders who have had experience going through the hearing, a hearing process, expertize in environmental justice and a representative of the city council. So my recommendation would be to get in contact with the city, with your city council office, a city councilmembers office, with regards to trying to get involved with the hearing examiner. But it would be the hearing examiner will be determining those stakeholders and convening them and going through that process.
Speaker 1: So will the individuals who are interested in participating have an opportunity? And you mentioned next April that there will be some additions to this legislation potentially. Will they have an opportunity to actually influence what comes out from the hearing examiner?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 8: And just a little something to add. I just want to clarify that we made sure to include within the scope of what we ask the hearings, Amina, to consider with the stakeholder group the changes that we're making today.
Speaker 1: Okay. So for folks who.
Speaker 8: Have concerns about what we're doing today, that as well as other issues that have an impact on the timeline and the ability of the hearing examiner to hear hear appeals that will still be permitted even after today's vote. That is within the scope of this work.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm an understanding the amendment number one proposed by consumer check or basically adds a new Section 14 and remembers the remaining sections as presented in Amendment one. As he is, he is articulated. The motions are second, second in all those in favor. Any questions before I call on the vote on amendment number one? All those in favor of amendment number one, say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number one is passed. Amendment number yes. Oh, Cassie. Brian, what did you do? I hear anything okay from Brian? You're. You're on board member number one, and we're going to move to amendment number two, I believe it comes from I'm a skater. You were proposing amendment number two. You have the floor.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I will tee it up. And I want to thank Councilmember Pacheco for co-sponsoring this with us and working on the amendment. This really harmonizes the policy with the comprehensive plan Dockett amendments that we passed earlier in August of this year. With respect to industrial lands. As you'll remember, the comprehensive plan docket resolution signals the Council's Support for work plan and action from the Executive on a review of Seattle's industrial lands as the basis for conversations about future industrial lands. And I'm really interested in how we take these policies and prioritize workers in the industrial sector, as well as thinking about how we marry those areas with mixed housing options. Councilmember Bagshaw earlier this morning talked about, you know, how do we have mixed use housing, preserving industrial lands as we promote affordable housing potentially for those workers or housing just in general? And I think it's a really great strategy that we've used in other areas of the city. So as we look forward to making sure that we're advancing good living wage jobs, also including housing mixed use options, this amendment basically just says let's have a comprehensive strategy across the city and make sure that we're looking at the entire city in our analysis, not just piecemeal sites for land use changes. So this harmonizes our effort with the comprehensive plan docket language from August.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm hearing councilmember skate as amendment and basically I'm in section ten, as I recall. So she has made the motion described it has been in writing.
Speaker 7: I would like to move to amend council bill 119600 as presented in amendment number.
Speaker 1: 2/2.
Speaker 0: Submitted and second, any further comments or questions on amendment number two? All those in favor of amendment number two say I, I opposed councilmember o'brien is an i i. My amendment number two has passed. We have an amendment number three, I believe is proposed by Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 8: Indeed. Thank you. I move to amend Council Bill 1190 600 as proposed in Amendment three 0 seconds.
Speaker 1: Okay. Can you describe it a little more? Absolutely.
Speaker 8: So this amendment would direct SDC to report to council on their draft administrative rules that this legislation requires STC to develop. It requires this DCI not only to report to council the draft administrative rules before they they come into effect, but also to convene a stakeholder committee to help them develop the the creation of those rules. And it also I think there's one other thing it does. It also directs SDC to publish notice of the adoption of the rules in the Land Use Information Bulletin.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments or explanation or questions on amendment number three? Councilmember Pacheco.
Speaker 6: Just want to clarify. If Councilmember Hubbard had a chance to connect with Director Paulson about this amendment and the Second Amendment.
Speaker 8: I'm uncertain about that. I've been working through council central staff. This is it's not unusual to ask a DCI to notify us of the content of a director's rule before it goes into effect. So I don't think it's in conflict with prior practices.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other questions or comments on amendment number three? Okay. Okay. It's been moved in second. And all those in favor of amendment number three say I. I can remember. Right. I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number three passes. Okay, let's move to our last amendment, which is amendment number four. And that's Councilmember Herbold again.
Speaker 1: Councilmember help you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So this council has done a lot of work to limit parking requirements in urban villages and urban centers. But we haven't done much to address the impacts of developers who build too much parking, particularly downtown. This amendment would clarify that a project which includes more than 40 parking spaces as non required parking is subject to CPO review and appeal. The. I passed out two articles. One was from 2015 where editorial writer Danny Westgate reports that there were 34 projects in the works that included a total of nearly 12,000 parking spaces. He followed up that report in June of this year, and in that report it documented that at Mercer at Aurora, which in 28, 2015 was already reported to be at capacity carrying 28,000 cars on an average weekday was now carrying 38,000 cars daily, 36% more. State law and city CPA regulations exempt parking lots with 40 or fewer parking spaces from CPA Review. Parking lots with more than 40 parking spaces are currently subject to review under CPA, as CCI has interpreted the code to exempt required accessory parking and to exempt any parking accessory to development in an urban center where growth estimates have not been exceeded. So that means under Stsci interpretation, residential projects that include more parking spaces than they are required to provide may be exempt from CPA review. This amendment is intended to make sure that impacts from building more parking than the code requires. Our study doesn't doesn't prohibit them, but it requires a CPO review. Our parking policy is intended to encourage non single occupancy vehicle commutes. In recent years, parking for the equivalent of six Mariners Stadium garages has been built in South Lake Union alone. More recently, an employer downtown has put up one of the biggest parking complexes in Seattle with 2300 parking stalls. Twice the parking in the six story parking garage at Pacific Place. So I'm concerned that this loophole in our CPA policy makes it very likely that people will continue to drive when we're trying to implement parking policy that discourages that.
Speaker 0: Very good.
Speaker 8: I move to amend Council Bill 1196. Oh.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I can and then have some questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's it's been moved. And second, there's discussions continues. Councilmember Pacheco, I saw your hand go up where Councilmember Beck says you wanna ask questions, first of all, either way.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 1: Either way. But here, here's my concern. I really like your intention. And my concern at this point is that having seen it starting at about quarter of one today, I appreciate where you're going. I'm going to ask it whether or not there's some way that this could be reviewed a little bit further. And I know that's unusual request, but I'd like to know what the impact is. And I appreciate the Danny West need article that you passed because there really are concerns about I mean, you name the Expedia without saying Expedia, but that's what we're looking at. And until light rail comes through and, you know, 30, 35 people are going to have to figure out alternative ways of getting there and not just make the congestion ridiculous. So I'm just interested in how this is going to work, and I'd love to be able to say let's spend a little bit more time getting analysis from CCI so I understand how that works. So I don't know, I'm not sure how procedurally that this happens to say I like a lot of the amendments. I'm concerned about this one just because of the speed with which it came toward. And I'd like some more thinking. I'd just like to.
Speaker 8: Say for the record, it did it was sent by the new deadline. Just I understand that you did not see it until 1:00 AM. Yeah, but I just want to say that.
Speaker 1: For once again. Once again, the Herbold slipped it in at noon.
Speaker 0: I the chair just sort of recognizes your point that we do have a live amendment that you, as a matter of fact about that, that there there's some appetite for maybe postponing it, but there might be sufficient votes to vote it up or vote it down as well. So let's keep that in the back of our minds as we continue our colloquy. Councilmember Pacheco.
Speaker 6: Sure. So I appreciate the amendment. Unfortunately, I'm going to vote no on the amendment. It just largely this amendment would have unintended consequences of making far more delays in projects in downtown core. To go through the CBO review process specifically, I had a chance to reach out to Director Tolleson and we received a rough estimate from SSI that about 4363 additional units of housing every year would be subject to CBO delays if this amendment passes between 2012 and 2017. If this amendment were had had been in effect, 120 additional projects in urban centers would have been subject to CBO review, meaning that the units would have been delayed in that time period. In addition, 155 projects in urban villages that would have not been subject to review under the legislation would again be subject to review in this amendment passes. I agree with the premise that this amendment would like to reduce the number of parking stalls as we were adding. But I think this conversation is just better had in regards to parking maximums rather than as part of the CBO conversation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper and Pacheco, for your comments. Katherine Herbold.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Rebuttal? Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: I just want to make the point that 85% of housing development over the last ten years has been luxury housing development. The kinds of of housing developments that are providing more parking than than is needed under the law are unlikely to be affordable housing projects. Affordable housing projects are looking to reduce the costs of of building housing both to the low income housing developer as well as to the tenant. And so this amendment, I believe, is very unlikely to address in impact those types of projects. I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to allow for the public to move towards analyzing these projects for their environmental impacts from the provision of unnecessary parking. That is something that doesn't exist right now. And I think it's an important tool that we can use to change public policy. As it relates to the overprovision of parking, we have to balance the housing development. Housing development for whom? Home needs housing development, as well as our needs to impact public policy as it relates to to to parking development and the use of space for the development of parking.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember, I have Councilmember O'Brien in queue. I just have this vibe from the phone that you want to speak. Is that right? Councilmember Brian.
Speaker 2: That is correct.
Speaker 0: See that?
Speaker 5: Amazing.
Speaker 0: You have the floor, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate the incentive, this legislation or this amendment, but I will also be voting against it. I believe, as others have said, that the amount of parking we're building in many neighborhoods is too much and we should address that. But I don't think that that should be through a CPA appeal process where the hearing examiner decides. Rather, I think we should revisit our parking maximums where we have them and perhaps consider lowering them and where we don't have parking maximums, consider setting them. And I think that's a specific policy that the council should take up. I think it's appropriate and consistent with our environmental rules. But I don't think that should be up to whoever has money to appeal to make a decision, I think is an important policy decision that the council should weigh in with the mayor and setting specific targets.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. You came in loudly and clearly. We still have an amendment on the table. Would anyone else like to express any opinions or ask any questions before we vote on it? I think we have sufficient information. Councilmember Herbo, would you like to make any closing comments on your proposal? Everyone ready to vote? Okay, so amendment number four, dealing with the. Parking Spaces issue is described by council member Herbold has been moved and seconded all those in favor of the amendment. Raise your hand and say i.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 0: I'm not gonna leave my sister hanging there. I'll get. Get on that one. Got to ice their accounts from O'Brien. All those in favor. Thank you. All those opposed say no, no, no.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Okay. The. The amendment fails. Okay. So now we have an amended piece of legislation that had three amendments that did pass, and we're going to vote on that in a minute. I want to make sure that everyone has a chance to say anything they like to about the amended bass legislation. Guzman Pacheco.
Speaker 6: Sure. Again, I just want to express my gratitude to Councilmember O'Brien for co-sponsoring this legislation with me, Councilmember Herbold and Councilman Mosqueda, for as well for working with me on some of the amendments. You know, as I kind of heard a lot of public comment, both through this process in committee as well as here today and in the public hearing. Very often I heard about the desire to have the next council, the next council, the next council. And as many of us have heard, week after week, just you know what? Don't you know this this council should just wait for the next council. I am appreciative of the fact that we've all been working and continuing to do our jobs, but also mindful of just the urgent need of not just housing and environmental stewardship. And so that's why the value system by which we've acted upon today and I will be voting on today. From a personal experience, you know, I heard just that when I've heard stories of both the ADA legislation being being delayed for a lot and being delayed MHRA for those that have used that process, the CPO process to delay projects for affordable housing, those have very real consequences. And it's not until you have to look your mother in the eye and you have to struggle with her to help her find affordable housing. Do you realize that there's a price to be paid in those that have to pay or the closest to you? That's something that I kept in mind as I kind of went through this process and why we needed to reform it, because those affordable housing projects that are delayed have consequences. Those are consequences that are paid by by those that are most vulnerable in our community. And for me and it happens to be my parents. And so I thank my colleagues on this council for helping me with this through this process, as well as hopefully voting in support of this legislation in a few minutes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Pacheco. Any other comments or questions?
Speaker 8: Councilmember Herbold, thank you. I just want to speak to some of the things that I've heard from members of the public. I am concerned that people who I believe are well-meaning and who do care about their community and their environment and are not folks who are weaponizing this type of process have significant concerns about this bill. I think, you know, these were characterized early on as common sense super reforms. I think it's when so many people, again, who I feel have really legitimate concerns. We have not been able to use this this process to assuage those concerns. I would suggest that they perhaps are not common sense concerns and that the dialog around this legislation would benefit from more more engagement with the public. That said, I have asked central staff to do sort of a deep dove. One of the things that I heard from a lot of folks is that CPR results in really positive outcomes for the city and the community. Some of those outcomes include better projects. It includes putting the city in a better position to defend its own projects if it goes through that separate review, first in central staff did a review of the 54 cases that were either amended or remanded over the last ten years. An example of one of those cases is this gala tower, which we hear about where the hearing examiner amended the CPA determination on light impacts on adjacent buildings and loading dock management. It appears that some of the the cases that were 25% of 54 cases that were reviewed that were amended or remanded to the hearing examiner. None of those those cases that were actually resulted in positive impacts through the appeal process would be exempted from appeal in this legislation. So that's that's the good news. I do remain concerned about the project action and non project actions that may not be appealable under this legislation. So over seven years of appeals, central staff analysis showed that two of a total of 32 project actions or development proposals appealed would not have been required to undertake CPR under this new legislation. But in both of those cases, the hearing examiner ruled in the city's favor as it related to CPA issues, not in the appellants favor. So though, in one of those cases, the appellants won their case on the basis of the land use code interpretation, not the city issues, not the CPA issues. So that was on the on the project actions on over seven years of appeals of the non project actions. Central staff analysis showed that four of a total of 22 nine project actions would subject would possibly be subject to a waiver of appeals under this law in one of those four cases. It could still be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board on other grounds. So I bring this as a little bit of context and texture on a review of the the last seven in one case, seven years and ten years in another case, to basically echo Councilmember Sawant's statement earlier that I think a lot of folks have on both sides have over promised what this legislation will require. I don't think it's going to so limit SIPA appeals as some people fear, and I don't think it's going to so eliminate CPA appeals as some other people are hoping. And so just a couple other issues I want to I want to comment on that. I've heard from members of the public. Many constituents have reached out to me concerned about the lack of ability to use CPA appeal for economic issues. It's important to remember that this legislation will still include economic issues in CPA review and analysis, but not allow for their appeal. This goes beyond what the state already requires. The state does not require the use of CPA review on economic issues. That is something that the City of Seattle has chosen to do, even though the state does not require it. And then lastly, some folks have been writing recently concerned that STC inappropriately and in conflict with. Eight law doesn't follow the code when it comes to the timeline of CEPA consideration. CCI publishes its environmental review in combination with its decision on the permits, and some people suggested that that is in conflict with the requirement of CCI to publish its environmental review on at the earliest possible moment. It's actually the city's practice means that a determination of non significance is published with the master use permit and that is a decision that relies on the design review boards final decision. And so the city legally must weigh into the design review board acts before publishing a determination of non-significant. So the concern that where were dragging out the the determination of significance in the analysis on the CFA process until the last possible moment. And that's why we're getting all these decisions in favor of appellants from the hearing examiner and that that is somehow in conflict with state law is actually not true because state law requires that those things be done together. So just trying to it would have been better if we had been able to use the process, I think to dispel a lot of the create a frequently asked questions document or something to dispel some of the myths about this legislation. So thank you for indulging in going through some of this stuff right now.
Speaker 1: Can we put an epic you together now?
Speaker 8: I think that would be a great thing to do. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Herbold, any questions or comments? Customer Brian, any closing comments?
Speaker 2: Not for me. Okay.
Speaker 0: So with that, I'll just sort of say that. Thank you, Casper Herbold, for those comments. Those are and I want to thank Liz Whitson and central staff for for the viewing public. We sort of have a. Impartial agnostic researchers and analysts who just sort of look at the issues and the facts and they give us the facts on prior appeals. And that was very helpful. I take any appeal process very seriously, and even when we have seen, I guess you could call it weaponized or abused is a good word. The process abused anyone's right to appeal. I take very seriously, I guess, as an attorney and someone who's litigated matters against the city, I just take it very seriously. I'm convinced that these are reasonable changes and that we've looked at these from a variety of perspectives and and the amendments and all still make good sense to me. So I will be supporting it as well. Okay. Having said that, please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco. I so want. I make sure. Herbold i. Whereas. Mosquito I. O'Brien. My. President Herrell.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and share of Senate seats. Please read the next agenda item and I'll say a few words about it and then get to there.
Speaker 2: I'm going to sign off. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I'm okay. Thank you. Casper. Brian. Sure before the clerk reads the next agenda item as provided under RTW. 42.178555 will now consider the adoption of Resolution 31911 and the conclusion of the Council Member comments. We will hear from comments from the public who wish to speak on the resolution. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to environmental review; amending Sections 3.02.110, 25.05.035, 25.05.055, 25.05.070, 25.05.100, 25.05.440, 25.05.448, 25.05.545, 25.05.680, 25.05.800, 25.05.900, and 25.05.914 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify timelines and the content of administrative appeals, to authorize the development of Director’s Rules to clarify the content of environmental documents, and to make corrections and technical amendments. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10072019_Res 31911 | Speaker 0: I'm okay. Thank you. Casper. Brian. Sure before the clerk reads the next agenda item as provided under RTW. 42.178555 will now consider the adoption of Resolution 31911 and the conclusion of the Council Member comments. We will hear from comments from the public who wish to speak on the resolution. And the requirement is that we give an approximate equal opportunity to speak on either side of the issue, and that's what we will do. And having said that, will the clerk please read agenda item number two into the record?
Speaker 7: The report of the City Council Agenda Item two Resolution 319 11 Opposing Washington Initiative Measure 976 and urging Seattle voters to vote no.
Speaker 8: On AI 976.
Speaker 7: On the November 5th, 2019 General Election Ballot.
Speaker 0: Okay, so what I'm going to do before I turn the mike over to Councilman, whereas I'm going to actually move it in second and then we'll hear from Councilmember. Whereas while that's a live resolution, okay, so I will move to adopt resolution 31911 has been moved and seconded a councilmember. Whereas will you please present the argument?
Speaker 1: Yes, I will. Thank you. I was in the impression that we're doing public comment first, but that's fine.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 0: I think we'll hear from the council members first. Okay, then I'm fine. I'm sorry. I'm looking it. We could do it either way. Just 1/2.
Speaker 1: That's okay. I can do it. I just was told the opposite, but that's fine.
Speaker 0: I just want to say. No. I think we're going to go to council members first.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. Age before beauty. So thank you. Council president or do we read into the record?
Speaker 0: It's been really great record and has been moving in second and so you could just present it. You only have to move it just to tell us why you think this is good policy for us to adopt.
Speaker 1: All right. I will. So this was on the introduction referral calendar September 30th, and you should all have a copy of you. I think you got it last week. A copy of the resolution, resolution 31911. So thank you. Council President Resolution 31911 Urges Seattle voters to vote no on Initiative 976 and outlines the reasons why, if this initiative passes, it will cripple our transportation system and threaten statewide transportation investments, including, but not limited to connected Washington local transfer transportation benefit districts, sound transit ferries, rail and freight mobility, transit options and public safety. Our region has grown exponentially, and all municipalities, large and small, are working hard to keep up with the demands of population growth, particularly transportation, particularly in King County and particularly in the city of Seattle. Statewide transportation improvements have been hard fought and are the result of great in part not I'm sorry partizan work at the state and in here in our tri county region. Pierce, King and Snohomish, for example, Sound Transit is a voter approved, voter accountable authority that provides multimodal, multimodal transit options across the home king and Pierce County. The people have voted affirmatively to invest in transportation, yet this initiatives is framed as a money saver by rich return to a $30 car tabs, quote unquote. It would, in fact, reverse the will of the people, increase congestion, delay construction projects and put 4 billion of state funding at risk. In addition, this initiative targets public funds that pay for services for seniors, veterans, children and the disabled. Our most vulnerable A96 is on the ballot for the general election in November, and I urge Seattle voters, voters and my colleagues to join me in voting no on this harmful initiative. Mr. President, at this time, I would like an opportunity to read a few of the whereas into the record.
Speaker 0: Please do, Casimir.
Speaker 1: Whereas there are, as you know, it's a four page resolution, there are 11 very important key and critical, whereas is, however, there are four that I want to read into the record for the viewing public. Number one, whereas the Washington initiative measure 976 here and after 978976 would undermine progress made by the City of Seattle Sound Transit in the state of Washington in building a more equitable and sustainable transportation system that responds to the challenges posed by the region's extra extraordinary growth and ongoing climate crisis and past failures. To build a mass transit system that could efficiently and cost effectively serve the needs of Seattle in the 21st century. By eliminating major funding sources for light rail expansion, bus services in Seattle, and the primary sources of non highway spending at the state level. And. Whereas, I 1976 would repeal funding authority for all or substantial portions of transportation benefit districts in Seattle and 61 other cities across Washington State, a sum of 60 million per year that is largely dedicated to improving safety and maintaining infrastructure and as in Seattle, to reducing crowding and expanding access to the bus service. Third, whereas I. 976 would also eliminate or reduce funding now dedicated to low income transit access and orca passes to all Seattle Public High School students, sale promise scholars and income eligible middle school students. And. Whereas, 976 is intended to eliminate 20 billion in funding for expansion of light rail to West Seattle and Balad along other elements of the 2016 voter approved Sound Transit three measure. As I shared council president, there were 11, whereas as I pulled for a particular that I thought were very important not only for my colleagues and the public, but certainly the viewing public as such, I would hope and I move that sale. City Council passed resolution number 31911. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cast. Whereas with any of our colleagues like the opportunity to speak on this, what I am checking now is we're going to hear public comment from members of the public. I'm checking to see if it's appropriate that councilmembers could speak after public comment.
Speaker 8: Is that would you prefer?
Speaker 0: I'm flexible either way, but I don't even know if I if the rules allow us to do that because typically we hear from the dyas and then the public and then we've also had some requests to do a little differently. But right now, be a great time while I'm getting a ruling to hear from one of our colleagues. So, Councilmember Herb, what would you like to say? A few words.
Speaker 8: Thank you. As Councilmember Suarez noted, the Transportation Benefit District provides 350000 hours of service, a lot of hours of service that has resulted in Seattle being one of the only cities in the nation that has actually seen an increase in transit use in the Regional Transit Committee meeting last month, I'm a member of that regional committee. King County staff indicated that Seattle could lose up to 175000 hours of bus service in 2020. That's half of the service funded by the voter approved Seattle Transportation Benefit District. One third of the City Service C line service is provided through the Seattle Transportation Benefit District, and 976 would of course harm funding for light rail projects, including Seattle and Ballard Lines. So really appreciate bringing this resolution forward. It's critically important for our transit needs here in Seattle.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kathryn Herbold, Councilmember Swan, would you be okay to say a few words now and then we'll hear from the public unless other customers wanting to speak. And you'd like to say something. We'll hear from Casper Baxter as well. So, Councilmember Solana, thank you.
Speaker 4: President Harrell. I will, needless to say, be voting yes on this resolution, which strongly urges Washington State voters to vote no on Tim Iman's initiative. 976 not only will name, not only would 976 if passed reduce or eliminate funding for public transit. At a time when we have to greatly accelerate our measures to address the climate crisis, it would make the existing measures more regressive, absolutely unconscionable. But we also have to make a note that the reason Tim Eyman and the right wing keep getting an echo in our state is because of our broken tax system, where it is the nation's most regressive tax system. So in addition to opposing such regressive measures like a represented by 1976, we need strong leadership to fight for progressive revenue sources like, you know, for example, the Drum Pro Seattle Coalition, which fought for the high earners income tax and got member Herbold and I co-sponsored that legislation which has now cleared its first hurdle in court and is on its way hopefully to clear its second hurdle. So we need progressive measure or revenue measures like that to stop the right wing from getting an echo for regressive measures. But in the meanwhile, is absolutely critical that the state's voters reject 1976.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Councilmember Belcher.
Speaker 1: Great. And thank you, colleagues. I certainly am going to support what you are arguing for. But I also want to say thank you to our legislature and thanks in no small part to our eastern Washington legislators. Oftentimes, I think we find ourselves on opposite sides of various arguments. But in the transportation world, we all agree, and we have supported legislation to improve state highways. I believe that every single county in Washington has received benefits fixing their highways through previous work that the legislature has done. I want to acknowledge Senator Curtis King as an example of someone, a Republican from Yakima, that I can work with to help reduce congestion here and also to support the highways for his constituents on the eastern side of the mountains. Voters in our city want more bus service, and we have frequently and repeatedly voted for levies that support that. And I recognize that what would happen if I 1976 passed is that many of the funds that are used for very important things that we all support, such as paying for orca cards for seniors recently, for our high school students, for seniors and veterans. And I would very strongly consider that to be in opposition to what we are doing here in the city to try to make transportation available and affordable for all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Becerra, Casper Pacheco.
Speaker 6: I'll just be brief. I just want to say that I will be supporting this resolution and applaud Councilmember Juarez for all her work doing this. I just want to really echo something that I've heard consistently through Vision 2050 about our region growing and with 1.2 million new jobs and 1.8 million new residents expected in the next 30 years, we know we need investments in our infrastructure to keep all of us moving. So I will be supporting this resolution and would like to go on the record as saying as I think that initiative 976 is malarkey.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that, Councilmember Pacheco. Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to Councilmember Suarez for bringing this forward. I think it bears repeating what Councilmember Swanson mentioned. Many folks who are struggling are clearly concerned about the cost of their car tabs, and that is the result of our upside down tax system. So as we work to support Initiative 976, we also in the same breath call for us to right side up our upside down tax system. We have to have revenue to invest in transportation. We have to have revenue to invest in our crumbling bridges. We have to have this revenue to make sure that our economy functions. We are talking about a transportation system that allows for goods to get to the only deep water port in the western states here. We're talking about a major hub of transit and infrastructure that relies on us to have good functioning roads where we have to pay for that somehow. We have to make sure that small businesses and large businesses have the ability for workers to commute to get there, because we haven't built the housing that we need and we need that transportation infrastructure system. In order for us to do that, we need to rely on this revenue. That initiative 976 helps and I am sorry that that initiative 976 will take away from us if we if we see this pass. So we must oppose initiative 976. I want to underscore something that Councilmember Bagshaw also mentioned. This is not just about threatening our roads and our and our bridges. It's about taking away the very fabric of the system that helped provide services to seniors, veterans and children and the disabled. So I encourage folks to continue their effort to get the word out. No on 976. That's what this council is advocating for today, to get information out about what is really critical. And that is clarity and not confusion that's been propagated by, to my mind, yet again. Thank you to Councilmember Juarez for continuing to underscore our commitment to get the word out to voters to vote no on Initiative 976.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catherine Mosquito. Any further comments from any of our colleagues from the dais? Okay. So that concludes comments from council members and will now provide an equal opportunity to hear comments from members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution. The total time allotted for comments will be 20 minutes and speakers will be called in alternating order between the two public comment sections, either for or against the resolution because we have one sign up in opposition to a resolution and five sign up in support. I'm going to start off with the Opposition, which is Mr. Iman, and then I'll go to the support, which should be Matthew Leong, and then I will likely continue to hear the support and then give Mr. Iman on the back end equal amount of time, because we could just go 2 minutes to instruments without ever having to try and come up five times. And so that does make a lot of sense. So, Mr. Iman, why don't we start with you for 2 minutes, but then you will be called back after that, after we hear from the support supporters of the resolution. Mr. Iman, you have the floor, sir.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you very much. This is a government resolution telling voters how to vote on a citizen initiative. It is an arrogant, improper use of tax dollars. Voters do not like politicians telling them how they should vote. This hasn't been a public hearing. This has been a politician hearing. This kind of manipulation, however, does not work with the initiative process. Everybody in the state gets to vote on it. You guys can rant and rave all you want. It doesn't really matter. Your vote counts exactly the same as every other voter in the state of Washington. So that's fine. And it doesn't surprise me that there is a poll out that shows that this is passing 70% across the state and it's leading in Seattle, 52 to 48. Those 52% of Seattle voters that are in favor of this measure aren't doing it because they like me. They find that it's completely dishonest to be taxing people on a $10,000 car and taxing it as if it's worth $25,000. And the tax burden, even for the people in Seattle, is absolutely reaching a tipping point where even they are realizing their property taxes are going through the roof. Every other tax is going through the roof. They're struggling. They're having a tough time. And this initiative comes along when the legislature had for two and a half years a way to be able to fix this problem. To say that a $10,000 cars were 10,000 for taxation purposes. They didn't do that. For two and a half years, voters have been saying do something about this problem and they've done nothing. When this initiative qualified in January, they had an entire legislative session to fix the problem, and they didn't. They could have put an alternative on the ballot. They didn't do that either. They've done absolutely nothing. And why is it we believe that by voting this initiative down and keeping a dishonest tax in law, that somehow they're going to turn around and start fixing it. Now people are getting ripped off. Everybody knows it and the politicians aren't doing a thing about it. And this initiative is the only way the people can actually fix the problem, get rid of this dishonest tax and come up with a better system, one where it requires voter approval and one where they have to actually tax the vehicle like it's worth 10,000.
Speaker 0: On the support side, Matthew Lane you have 2 minutes, sir. And then for Matthew, go to Kelsey Measure actually.
Speaker 5: So my name is Matthew Lang and I'm lead organizer at the Transit Riders Union and a proud member of the No. 976 Coalition. The Coalition has decided that I will actually be the only one that is going up to speak today. So I if there's any objection, I'm sure that they will bring it up. I've been on this campaign trail for about a year now, testified at Olympia, been working really closely to make sure that this initiative fails because it is going to be extremely harmful to all people in Washington State. A bus, bike, pedestrian rail and other multimodal cuts in our city will be extremely harmful to the members of the Transit Riders Union that use all those modes of transportation. Workers are going to suffer because of this initiative. Tens of thousands or thousands of jobs in the construction industry are going to be cut as we stop building roads, as we stop fixing potholes throughout the throughout the state. I've been hearing that entire counties might have to cut their entire bus systems because they rely so heavily on the transit benefit districts. I tell you, supports the leadership of the council on this and wants to make sure that we keep our market opportunity programs for youth, seniors and veterans, that we keep our transportation equity program, which is developing an equity analysis to bring transit to traditionally underserved populations. Currently, 53% of all carbon emissions in our city are coming from passenger vehicles or cars and trucks. Allowing any cuts to services to bus service would be in direct opposition to our stated emissions and commute trip reduction goals. So in that vein, the Transit Riders Union and the No. 976 Coalition support the leadership of the Seattle City Council in denouncing 1876, please vote yes on Resolution 30 1911. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'll call the names since I have them here. Kelsey Messier, would you like to speak? Andrew Johnston Would you like to speak true or not here? Steve Zamsky Would you like to speak?
Speaker 5: No. Vote no on nine, seven, six and Brown.
Speaker 0: Rachael Brown, would you like to speak? Rachel Okay. And I think Joyce LAMB was here, but she signed up for another area. So the way I sort of mis poorly described the, the sequence of events because I probably put the opposition side at a disadvantage because I was assuming that all of you would speak since you all signed up. So I think it appropriate to give Mr.. Mr. Iman another minute. And if you want to say another minute and then we're going to close by public comment, would you like to say another minute? Mr. Iemma And I did told you that you would have more time, assuming that the other side was going to speak longer. And that was a little unfair to your side about choosing.
Speaker 6: A time I really appreciate. Bruce, say you now the rules and let me know how it is going to work. I'm I'm very grateful for that. I think that just the basic point I'd want to make is if it was a private company that was gouging people like this, taking more money, then they're really entitled to the government shut them down. But because it's the government itself taking more money than there should from the taxpayers, all we're getting is excuses. You're saying it doesn't matter whether or not it's dishonest. It doesn't matter if it's artificially inflated because we're spending the money that we shouldn't be taking from you and relying on really good stuff. And what we're dealing with is we have a state that has a three and a half billion dollar tax surplus, which is more than enough money to backfill any affected government program. Get rid of the dishonest tax. Use the surplus in order to be able to backfill the affected programs and transition to a system that is a heck of a lot more fair, that under 976 they have to get voter approval and they have to use Kelley Blue Book or the actual value of a vehicle so that if a $10,000 car is going to be taxed, it's going to be taxed at $10,000. That seems reasonable to me. What I find just inconceivable and I'm out of time is that you can't recognize the fact that people are extremely upset about this, and they're very upset because their elected officials aren't telling them and acknowledging that it's a problem. Instead, you're saying, just take it because we're using the money on really good stuff. And I think most people think if it's dishonest, you shouldn't be imposing at all regardless of what you spend the money on.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the supporters of the resolution. Like one last bite of the apple here.
Speaker 5: I've just got one more thing to say. So I just bought a 2019 car and I'm going to have to pay about $450 this year in my car tabs. And I'm okay with that because I have the privilege to be able to do that. And I understand that access to transportation is one of the biggest markers for poverty in the country. If you don't have access to transportation, you can't get to work, you can't get around the city. We have to be able to provide these opportunities for all people in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. I'm going to close the public comment section. We've had ample comments from the diocese and so I'm going to prepare this matter for a vote. Just one moment here. Protecting the things I do. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Just a moment, please, because my colleagues are actually stealing his papers over here.
Speaker 0: Okay. All those in favor of supporting resolution 31911. Please say I. I opposed the ayes have it. The resolution has passed and the chair will sign it. Please, please read the next agenda item into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION opposing Washington Initiative Measure 976 (“I-976”) and urging Seattle voters to vote “No” on I-976 on the November 5, 2019, general election ballot. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_Res 31910 | Speaker 1: Bill passes and chair was sign it. Please read the first agenda item.
Speaker 4: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Resolution 319 ten requesting a plan to develop an infant scent work pilot program for eligible city of Seattle employees and their infants.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President, and thanks, council colleagues and all of the folks who came to testify today. And over the last few months, as we've been putting this presentation together to bring forward for the city's consideration, as you heard, bringing children to work has become a growing trend, allowing parents and caretakers the ability to come back to work while having the bonding time that they need with their new child. Let me be very clear about something. This is about all genders and all family types. This is about making sure that parents and guardians can bring their children to work if they need to. And there's very positive reasons for this. The ability to bond, the ability to be around children. Making sure that we are both addressing the health benefits of having those kiddos around. And there's also an equity issue that we're trying to address here. The negative consequences of having the lack of childcare, the lack of access to childcare, and the lack of affordable childcare. So this resolution, this effort today really combines both the positive aspects of having time with your kiddo and addresses the real consequences of having lack of access to childcare. We'll continue to work on these issues as we celebrate that every family now has the ability to take 12 weeks of paid leave beginning in 2020. We know that many families will potentially not be able to take this full 12 weeks because it's not full pay in some cases. And we're very excited that our state is now leading the nation in the length of time that every parent and adoptive parent and folks who are getting a child through various ways will be able to take 12 weeks. But this is pales in comparison to what other countries offer six months, a year, two years of guaranteed paid time off and guaranteed income. So while we're happy about the ability to now have more families to be able to take leave, we also know that at the end of those 12 weeks, many families are faced with the impossible decision of whether or not they pay for childcare, leave the job market, and what to do with their kiddo. This resolution offers a solution to enforce that work resolution and ask the executive to consider with input from the community, including the Women's Commission, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Labor Standards, our City Unions, new parents and Guardians and the Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee to come up with a pilot strategy within six months that we can implement here at the City of Seattle. We know these programs are good for employees in workplaces. They reduce turnover, reduce stress for parents and guardians while increasing the health outcomes of kids by allowing for additional bonding time and breastfeeding and breastfeeding. The benefits go on. There's increased healthy brain development for the child, greater job satisfaction for the employee, and lower health care costs. And importantly, we don't talk about this often within that first 12 months when a parent is able to be with their infant. There is reduction in parental suicide and reduction in complications for the health of the parent. And this is also true for those who are adopting kiddos. There is increased life expectancy for kids when they're able to stay with their parents and have additional breastfeeding just feeding time and to be close to their parent or guardian. So I also want to be clear about another thing. This is not for me. This is not for me. This is for every employee here at the city of Seattle. I am lucky in that we have cobbled together various leave opportunities for the first year of our infant's life to come. This is about a long standing policy that we know to be a true and proven public health benefit when infants can come to work. It is good for the health of that baby. It is good for the health of the parent and guardian. And frankly, it's good for the health of the employer as well. So to anyone who's asking, this is absolutely about the greater good of Seattle's workforce. And in Seattle, we like to be pioneers. We like to have a plot ourselves for all the work that we've done on labor standards. But let's be real. We're actually catching up on this one. We're making up for lost time. We are not the first ones, as you've heard. There's at least 200 companies across the country with countless non-profits and for profit businesses, including municipalities like you heard from King County, Washington State Department of Health has already implemented this. And in King County, I was really inspired by the report that we received at the Board of Health, initiated by Councilmembers and Barofsky, to allow for people to bring their infants to work. Thanks again to Christina Logsdon and Elizabeth Evans from the King County Office of Councilmember Dombroski for their work to initiate a pilot at King County and their support for this resolution. The resolution largely tracks what King County has implemented, and there's three new additions that I'd like to call out, Mr. President, that I think are important.
Speaker 1: Please do.
Speaker 5: The first is that we're promoting equity across economic status and job classifications. So this resolution asks the question what alternative options exist for employees like bus drivers, firefighters, police officers, frontline folks who cannot bring their kiddo to work physically with them? Maybe there's a flexible schedule, childcare subsidies, additional paid time off, something like that to compensate for those individuals who work in somewhat dangerous situations. The second thing is we are going to ensure success with this. With this proposal, we've ensured success by asking for training programs for both participating staff and NONPARTICIPATING staff to ensure for successful programing . And as you've heard from Elizabeth Evans and Christina Logsdon, the presence of infants sometimes can actually be a boon for the entire workplace, not just for the infant and the parent. And then lastly, there's a racial equity and cultural competency component to this. We've asked for cultural and religious accommodations to be baked into the pilot. And this also recognizes what Christina and Elizabeth said, which is often it's women of color who have less life likelihood of having the longevity of breastfeeding, and that further complicates health outcomes. So the resolution is designed to ask the mayor to give us a pilot within the first six months sorry, between now and six months from now, we are hoping that the mayor will work with us and with the community at large to come up with both the financial needs, the policy framework and the training opportunities. And we look forward to implementing the strategy within a six month period. We're also going to be looking at training and alternative provisions as well as physical safety requests for kiddos and making sure that there's a successful workplace. And with that, I'd just like to thank the folks who helped to bring this resolution to you today. Protect 17 are union friends. Martin Luther King County Labor Council, who you heard from at Katie Jarrow, Civic Ventures, Moms Rising who testified. Police officers working in Washington, the Fair Work Center, Office of Labor Centers, Office of Civil Rights. And again, Councilmember Dombrowski. Special thanks to several in our office for coordinating with all of those stakeholders to bring this forward. And with that, Mr. President, I'm really excited about the resolution in front of you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilmember Skeeter, Casper and Bagshaw.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito, it would be just fine with me if you were doing this for Camilla.
Speaker 5: So you thank you.
Speaker 6: I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that this is for the better. Good. And I do want to say thank you to Councilmember Dombrowski across the street, our good friend from public health. But also since we know and in the mayor's budget that she has indicated to us that you're my request to have a child care center in 2020, and city hall does not look like we're going to have the support that we had hoped for. But this is at least something to get us started. And I'm interested in knowing and I'm sure that we'll hear a lot more about this in the coming months. But whether or not there will be set aside rooms for people that want to go down, take their child if the child is fussy, but, you know, have computers set up places for them to continue work, having, you know, quieting their child and also separate breastfeeding rooms more than what we've got already. So I know that this is just a study, but I would really love to see if we can be really creative about this. So everybody has privacy when needed and the child can stay with a parent.
Speaker 5: Excellent.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Casper. And make sure you know the comments or questions before we vote on this resolution. And I want to just make a quick sort of personal comment. Thank you, Councilmember Muscat, for bringing this legislation forward. And for those that testified this today, one of our Legislative Department employees had a young son here visiting, and I think there was something going on around the afternoon that required him to be here. And I have to admit, it just it warms my heart just to be able to, because this employee still could do the job. They do it quite well, by the way. But I looked at this young boy and. And then I told my staff and I walked in, I had a chance to ride the elevator with them. I said, Well, that was me because my mother and father work for the city, both about 30 years apiece. And I was always down here in the library because that's where she worked. And it's city like with my father. And while there weren't official policies like this, they were just long term employees and they were younger then in their twenties and thirties. But I was welcomed and I don't think they had a lot of options. I think I was sort of stuck down here sometimes for appointments and whatnot, but I think that this kind of thing changed the culture to where we could say we want to be not just infant friendly, but children friendly. And and so I like where we're heading with this. I think we'll see the benefits of this kind of policy five, ten, 15 years down as cultures change in the workplace. So thank you for bringing this forward. Okay. There's no other soapboxes to get on. I'm going to move this. I move to adopt resolution 31910.
Speaker 0: Oh, thank you.
Speaker 1: Moved in second and any other comments those in favor of adopting the resolution 31910. Please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted chair will sign it. You're right. Please read the next agenda item into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION requesting a plan to develop an “Infants at Work” pilot program for eligible City of Seattle employees and their infants. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119658 | Speaker 1: I'm sure I will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. You can read a shorter title if you like.
Speaker 4: Agenda item three Council Bill 119 658 Relating to Rental Agreements Committee recommends that they'll pass.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Herbold This bill prohibits a landlord from seeking damages from a tenant or a household member who has experienced domestic violence so long as they have provided written documentation to the landlord, signed by a qualified third party, stating in the in the statement that the tenant or household member reported to a qualified third party that they are a victim of domestic violence and the name of the perpetrator that caused the violence. This qualified third parties can be law enforcement, health professionals, court employees, licensed mental health professionals, or advocates for crime, victim or witness programs. The time, date and location of the act of domestic violence that relate resulted in the property damage and a brief description of the property damage. These are all the contents of this third party report. This was modeled off of the principle of of limiting liability that is already established in state tenant law, which allows a survivor to terminate a lease before the end of the term of the lease without penalty. The key provision of this legislation is that the survivor should not be held liable for damages caused by their abuser. This bill specifically states that when perpetrators cause damage to a unit, it is they who are responsible for that damage. Advocates with the coalition ending gender based violence insisted that we structure the reporting requirements to maintain anonymity of the perpetrator in reporting to mitigate the risk of retaliation. This is a best practice in the gender based violence advocacy and support to ensure safety. And it preserves the agency of a survivor to make. Decisions that deeply impact their lives. Hopefully, my colleagues here received an email last Thursday from the Coalition speaking to this point. This provision of protecting the anonymity of the perpetrator while limiting the liability of the survivor created a practical challenge for the bill that many constituents and advocates representing landlords expressed, namely, namely, the question of a landlords ability to recoup their damages. To respond to this challenge with the support of the Rental Housing Association, the Multifamily Housing Association and tenants rights organizations like Washington can in the Housing Justice Project and the Coalition, we introduced a landlord mitigation fund modeled after a similar resource used in the state to help landlords in these scenarios.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Catherine Herbold, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you for bringing this forward and I appreciate our conversation this morning. And I think a specific question I had asked and you answered, I just wondered if you'd repeat it, is that you have been working with the Rental Housing Authority and others just to get their buy in and to get their input as well. I heard someone testify today. I appreciated that. But I wonder if you'd just bring it up a little bit and flesh it out a little bit more?
Speaker 3: Sure. Well, as I said, we recognized that the provision of limiting the liability to the tenant and the desire and best practice of not releasing the name of the perpetrator created a practical challenge that constituents and advocates representing landlords expressed to me, namely the question of a landlord's ability to recoup for damages caused by the perpetrator if they can't locate them. And so to respond to this challenge and with the support of the Rental Housing Association and the Multifamily Housing Association, we introduced a landlord mitigation fund in this legislation.
Speaker 6: And you also responded this morning that you felt that you got sufficient input from them and it was added in this legislation that we had their support at least.
Speaker 3: Correct? Yeah. And I think we heard some conversation about interest in working together collaboratively in the state legislative session to ensure that the statewide landlord mitigation fund is available for this purpose. We will be working within the context of this year's budget for bridge funding to get us through to that point. But that's a I'm anticipating ongoing collaborative work on that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: You catch her with any questions or comments on this bill? I'll make a closing comment, and that is my support for the bill is actually very simple that as this egregious example shows that a and sometimes I say victim not I say victim as opposed to Survivor because I don't want to lose track of the fact that they often are victims of brutal violence and have survived it. So whether it be a victim or a survivor of violence, make sure they are not stuck with a bill for property damage after experiencing something like that. So that is what I think gets to the heart of this legislation, which I fully support. I don't think that there was any intent in this legislation to deprive a landlord an ability to try to recoup it from a responsible party for perhaps or even create a fund for it. And I think that's the other part of this legislation. I know their policy basis as to why I support it. And so I'm very hopeful that as we both work on a state clarification and we work with all of the groups that are vested on this issue, that perhaps we either improve it or implement it just right. Because the strong policy reason behind this and that is not to penalize a survivor, makes all the sense in the world to me. And I would venture to say landlords would fully agree me agree with me on that. And thank you for bringing this example because this is the kind of policy we want to reverse. So thank you for bringing this legislation forward. And with that, please call the roll. Any other comments? No hands. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Senator O'Brien. All right. Pacheco I so want I make sure. Herbold I was president. Harrell I aid in favor and oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and Cheryl, sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to rental agreements; relieving a tenant experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, unlawful harassment, or stalking from liability for damage to the landlord’s property caused by a perpetrator of domestic violence, sexual assault, unlawful harassment, or stalking; creating a landlord mitigation program; and amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, and 22.206.170 of, and adding new Section 7.24.033 to, the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119619 | Speaker 4: Agenda item for Council Bill 119 619 relating to notices of Residential Rental Tenants Committee Recommends Eagle Pass.
Speaker 1: Because remember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. So this bill is important because of one of the goals identified again in the losing home report of increasing tenant knowledge of the rights and resources that are available to represent themselves is a key strategy. The Seattle Department of Construction Inspection named the this. This is a response to statement of legislative intent 30 35a2 that I sponsored equipping, recommending that we identify ways to equip tenants to understand their rights early as a strategy to manage escalating issues between tenants and landlords. And it's important to name the Residential Landlord Tenant Act is primarily a self-help tool and can only be as effective as tenants are able to advocate and represent themselves. So this legislation itself would not only identify the right that the tenant has when they're when they receive a notice to terminate tenancy, when they receive a notice to increase their rent or they receive a notice from their landlord to that they the landlord intends to enter their unit. The notice will notify the tenant what their rights are and instance instances when resources need to be available to address those rights. It will notify the tenant of those resources as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, César. Remember Herbold, any questions or comments on this bill that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Mosquera I O'Brien Pacheco. I so want I make sure I Herbold whereas I'm President Harrell I hate in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passenger of assignment please read the next agenda. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to notices to residential rental tenants; requiring certain notices to contain a reference to City landlord-tenant information and resources; and amending Section 22.206.180 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119620 | Speaker 1: Bill passenger of assignment please read the next agenda.
Speaker 4: Item agenda item five Constable 119 620 Relating to residential rent payments require receipts and non electrical payment options and amending section 7.20 4.0 30th said I misspoke. So the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Member Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This bill has been put forward by CCI because of the issues that they have identified in responding to tenant calls associated with some property owners who require payment be done electronically. Not everybody has a means to electronic payment, and often there are fees associated with electronic payment. So this bill ensures that property owners do not limit payment of rent by electronic means only. There was some concern that this bill would preclude a property owner from all other non-cash payment options and become more vulnerable to risk of fraud and theft. The language of the bill specifies that electronic payment options are okay as long as they also accept other options like cash check or other payment means like money orders. The the goal is to give the tenant choice.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Captain Herbold. Any questions or comments that please call the rule on the passage of the Bill MACHEDA II.
Speaker 2: O'Brien. Pacheco. Hi, Sergeant I. Bexar Herbold Hi. Juarez. President Harrell I Adan favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill Pass and Sherwood Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rent payments; requiring receipts and non-electronic payment options; and amending Section 7.24.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119621 | Speaker 1: Bill Pass and Sherwood Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item six Council Vote 119 621 Relating to termination of Residential Rental Tenancies Committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 1: Task Force Member Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This bill is intended to proactively prevent conflict between tenants and landlords around about habitability issues that result in eviction proceedings. The Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance is the city's main tool to ensure that housing is safe and up to basic maintenance standards, and landlords are required to be registered with the rental registration and inspection program before evicting a tenant per hour just cause eviction ordinance. The Seattle Department of Construction Inspections identified that some landlords were who, as you say, some landlords who had not registered their units under the rental registration inspection ordinance were doing the registration. In those instances, when they were planning on evicting somebody, they were doing that registration actually during the eviction hearing. And the the intent of our of our law was was to make it so that landlords could not evict tenants who were not registered with with the rental agreement registration program. And so this. Was actually a loophole in our ability to ensure that landlords were fulfilling their obligation to to be registered with SDC. So this law would instead require registration in advance of issuing a notice to terminate. Rio is a key tool to shift the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections Enforcement from complaint driven to proactive. Frequent violations are missing or nonfunctional smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, safe handrails and exposed wires. The the focus of the registration program are life safety violations. So, again, this would require in an instance where a landlord failed to have their unit registered with the REO program, it would require the landlord to basically start the eviction process all over again from from step one, rather than giving them the opportunity to register in the middle of the process.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Herbold, any other questions or comments?
Speaker 5: Just a quick.
Speaker 0: Question, Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Mosquito.
Speaker 5: Quick comment. I just want to say thanks to Councilmember Herbold for your work on these four pieces of legislation, and I know you've been working diligently on these and under the weather today. And I think it just shows that your commitment to getting these over the finish line before budget. So it's a lot of work and thanks for your championing of the.
Speaker 3: As I'm saying, so.
Speaker 1: I'll drink to that. Any other questions or comments?
Speaker 3: The Seltzer Cold medicine.
Speaker 1: Cold medicine. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda I. O'BRIEN All right. PACHECO So aren't I. Begala Sure. Herbold I was President Herrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed. Sure. Sign it. Please read the next agenda item the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; requiring compliance with the Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance before issuing notices to terminate a tenancy; and amending Sections 22.206.160 and 22.214.075 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119639 | Speaker 1: Bill passed. Sure. Sign it. Please read the next agenda item the short title.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 639 Related to our public utilities, tackling certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold.
Speaker 3: This is legislation to authorize the public utilities to grant an easement for access across portions of the Cedar River water pipeline right of way to serve adjacent properties that would otherwise not have driveway access. Granting this easement would resolve a property owner lawsuit and allow for some minimal compensation to the city of easement rights of 30 $500
Speaker 1: . Thank you. Any questions or comments that please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Mosquera I. O'Brien Right. Pacheco I so want I beg SRA Herbold I was worst sorry President Harrell high eight in favor and an.
Speaker 1: Bill pass and chair of Senate. Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 4: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item eight Council Bill 119 631 Relating to the satellite department authorizing General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of satellite to execute the Northern Grid Funding Agreement, authorize seeing the execution of supplements, extensions and amendments to such agreements subject to appropriated budget authority and ratifying confirm research | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of Seattle Public Utilities; and authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute an easement agreement with Little Green Valley, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; Nancy J. Gleason; Ron L. Nickell aka Ronald L. Nickell and Sandra Flint Nickell, Husband and Wife; William H. Flint; The Heirs of Charles Eugene Flint; and Joan H. Zimmerman, allowing the use of certain City of Seattle property in the north half of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 22 North, Range 6 East, W.M., in King County Washington for access purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119631 | Speaker 4: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item eight Council Bill 119 631 Relating to the satellite department authorizing General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of satellite to execute the Northern Grid Funding Agreement, authorize seeing the execution of supplements, extensions and amendments to such agreements subject to appropriated budget authority and ratifying confirm research and prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is one of five bills dealing with Seattle City late today. And first and foremost, I want to say thanks and congratulations to Aaron House, who is wrapping up this year with this medley of Seattle City Lake Grand Finale Bills. So thanks to her for her work. Constable 119631 enables City Light to enter into a two year funding agreement with Northern Grid on a and biannual extensions. Seattle satellite has been participating in regional transmission planning as a member of Columbia Grid since 2009. The transmission owners in the Pacific Northwest are consolidating into a large and larger region by having a single process for enhanced regional planning with an expanded planning footprint. Transmission planning is key to long term operations of the Western Electric Grid and is a critical element to maintain the reliability of the transmission grid in the near and long term. By participating in the regional transmission planning, we have included Seattle City sorry, Seattle City Light has included this participation in their budget and by changing the entities, Seattle City Law is not seeking additional appropriations.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Cast members get any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Mosquera I O'Brien Pacheco. I want I make sure I herbold i. Whereas President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of the Senate next agenda.
Speaker 4: Item. Agenda Item nine Council. Bill 119 632. Relating to the satellite department granting authority for the Department to offer term limited pilot programs to steady demand response and low income assistance programs. Committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute the NorthernGrid Funding Agreement; authorizing the execution of supplements, extensions, and amendments to such agreement subject to appropriated budget authority; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119632 | Speaker 4: Item. Agenda Item nine Council. Bill 119 632. Relating to the satellite department granting authority for the Department to offer term limited pilot programs to steady demand response and low income assistance programs. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Just remember, Skeeter.
Speaker 5: Council colleagues, as you may remember, in July of 2018, we requested recommendations in our updated Seattle City Light Rail redesign as part of the resolution adopting Seattle City Lights 2019 to 24 strategic plan and endorsed a six year path for those rate changes. Seattle City Light Review Panel and the Seattle City Light responded to this request in the design report and by submitting this draft report to us in April of this year. So this effort in front of us moves forward with four of those pilots to help us take those recommendations from the review panel to the next step. And again, thanks to the all volunteer body, nine member body for your work on coming up with some strategies not only for rate redesign, but helping us initially these initiate these four pilot programs. This includes pilots for low income customers to inform city lights, future proposal for rate design discounts and for services assisting low income customers. This ordinance would authorize Seattle City Light to move forward with the pilot programs, and we expect the pilot programs to go live in 2020 to give us ample time to inform our rate design changes later that year. Ready for action in 2021?
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments that please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Shira, I. O'Brien Pacheco. I want I Bagshaw I Herbold. I was President Harrell high ed in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passenger assignment. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; granting authority for the Department to offer term-limited pilot programs to study demand response and low-income assistance programs. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119633 | Speaker 1: Bill passenger assignment. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 4: Agenda item ten Council Bill 119 633. Relating to the rates, terms and conditions for the use and sells resupplied by the satellite department for 2020. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Because remember mosquito.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a technical ordinance that includes three elements related to Seattle City, like rates and fees. The first is the franchise agreement between the between Seattle and bureau in the city of Seattle and Berrien. The second is how City Light handles cost adjustments triggered by the Bonneville Power Administration. The entity we pay for power and the transmission of power. And the third technical aspect here is adding a new code section related to electric vehicle charging stations, outlining that the facilities are available to any member of the public and authorizing city light to design fees to reflect the cost of the service and recoup the capital and operating costs of the charging equipment plus the costs of the energy used.
Speaker 1: Get any questions or comments now, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Mosquito I O'Brien Pacheco. I so want I make sure I. Herbold i. Whereas I. President Harrell. Eight In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passenger side please read Agenda Number 11. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the rates, terms, and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2020; amending Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Sections 21.49.030, 21.49.052, 21.49.055, 21.49.057, and 21.49.081; adding a new Section 21.49.070 to the SMC; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119614 | Speaker 1: Thank you for the comments. Very good. Any other questions or comments? Not those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries an appointment is confirmed. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 4: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee ten than 14 Constable 119 614 vacating car placed north between north 34th Street and North 35th Street on the petition of Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Just remember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: IQ says a street vacation for Seattle Public Utilities. This is the North Transfer Station. This has been going on for a number of years. Folks may recall that years ago before the rebuild, there was a street. There was to the direction that would be the east of the existing transfer station. And there was a request to vacate that and buy the parcels on the other side of that street to be able to have a larger footprint for the the transfer station. That work has all been done. They've met their public benefit requirements, including purchasing a parcel in kitty corner, installing and maintaining in perpetuity a playground there. They also have other public benefits, including a viewing room above the above the what do they call it, the no, no tip floor or something. And then the also some public space on the east side of the property. This would be the final action we take just certifying that that there they've met the requirement and the street would be vacated.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: For Scudder O'Brien? Pacheco So on I Bagshaw Hi Herbold I was president Harrell I in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and chair of Senate Please read the next agenda.
Speaker 4: Item. Agenda Item 15 Resolution 31908 Requesting the Seattle Department of Transportation develop policy options for the maintenance and existing sidewalks, creating create a public education program on snow and ice removal responsibilities, and develop a program to enforce snow and ice removal requirements by private property owners. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE vacating Carr Place North between North 34th Street and North 35th Street, on the petition of Seattle Public Utilities (Clerk File 312535). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09232019_CB 119654 | Speaker 0: The confirmation speeches I've ever heard. Thank you very much. Okay. Please read the next agenda item. I will remind our colleagues that if you do feel the need to take a short break, I could have called for a recess. That's what I was contemplating. But we're going to keep trying to plow through it. But if you have personal needs you have to attend to, we'll work around it. Long as we have a quorum here, we should be. Okay. So please read the next Jan item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item three accountable 119 654 Relating to Hotel Employees Health and Safety Repealing Chapter 14.25 would settle on a spa code. The committee recommends the bill pass customary.
Speaker 6: Mesquita Thank you very much, Mr. President. This will be short. Thanks for all of your past support on the four pieces of legislation that we just passed related to the hotel worker protections. As we celebrate, we also have one technical item we still have to address, which is the fact that the legislation from Initiative 124 is still on the books. And while those protections are not in place pending the ongoing court ruling, we do have to in some places, conflicting sets of policies on the books. And we want to make sure that we strike the original provisions of Initiative 124 so that when the four pieces of the legislation on hotel worker legislation is signed into law, there is no conflict with that. We'd recommend passage of Council Bill 119654 as suggested from my Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. Any questions or comments on this legislation?
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito. You've done a great job.
Speaker 0: All right, there you go. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to hotel employees’ health and safety; repealing Chapter 14.25 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Section 3.15.000 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09232019_CB 119519 | Speaker 0: This legislation. Let me back up by saying the first council bill, 119519 was the first bill in consideration for the requirements of the 2007 surveillance ordinance. And I think many of you in particular, Councilmember Gonzales and others, for the passage in the work, looking at the surveillance ordinance and what we're trying to do. And under our current system, the chief technology officer was required to compile a master list of surveillance. Surveillance technology used by city departments, basically do an inventory of everything we are using. And 29 technologies were identified in four departments, those departments being City Light, the Department of Transportation, the Fire Department and Seattle Police Department and so forth . The 29 technologies the department must prepare what we call a sur air surveillance impact report for each existing or proposed technology. To the extent there will be an acquisition that the project management team would you would use and the Air Surveillance Impact Report would be submitted for all retroactive technologies and newly proposed technology such that there is an open and transparent conversation on everything we're using and everything we may use in the future. And so this process, which is quite comprehensive, is a five step process. That's the initial draft of the air. And there you have the department drafting it, putting it out there for public consumption, all of the public reporting requirements listed in the surveillance ordinance. And then from there a fairly comprehensive public engagement piece where a public hearings, public meetings are scheduled in the department and the departments provide feedback with center staff, monitoring that to make sure that we are aware of what's going on. There is a community surveillance working group, that River that reviews the SLR, and they create what's called an impact assessment document addressing privacy and civil liberty concerns. And we want to thank the ACLU and Shanker in particular, for his leadership, being a strong member of the community surveillance group and and working on the impact assessment. And from there, the CTO, Syed Bashir, provides a response letter. It sort of memorializes the working groups concerns and there's sort of a process sitting down, if you will, a meeting of the minds to identify all of the privacy issues, the surveillance issue, the city's technological needs, identify all the issues that surface. And from there it is presented to the council. And that was done. That was been has been going on for quite some time. And I'd like to see the department say it's been a labor of love, but it's been quite resource intensive for several months, if not years. Today we're looking at two technologies, the use of traffic cameras that uses closed circuit television, CCTV and automated license plate readers. Recall those LP hours just by way of background. The lawyers have been there. Well, let me back up. The traffic cameras have been in use since 2000, for almost 19 years now, and the lawyers have been in use since 2007. And the traffic cameras, as an example, are used in almost every state in our country. So looking at these two technologies. And looking at the privacy needs that are that are addressed. You have what we're called SARS, presented to the council. We took a look at the SARS, and they were indeed treaties. They were maybe a few inches thick, if I'm not to embellish that. And there were there were a lot of resources and time and effort put in put into those SARS. It was at least the chair's opinion that that was helpful. But to some extent, we needed an executive report, if you will, a summation, a primer, whatever you want to call it, but a condensed report. And so that became known as the the Condensed Surveillance Impact Report to CSIR. And so those two documents for these two technology, one each for technology, the two SARS and to condense SARS became part of the package attached to the legislation. And the legislation self of course creates a private right of action that these are integrated documents. They all work together. And there was a what I'll call a negotiation process that was fairly involved, fairly in-depth, and it was the chairs. I don't think I have the power to order it, but to the extent I do, I ordered I use that term loosely that the department sit down with any privacy advocates and hash it out and then just try to wordsmith as much language as possible, but come up with a great document that we can be proud of to take to the Council. And that was done. And through that process, there originally 19 points that were raised, which were still in that area of we can't quite get there yet. And we went back to the table and central staff was at the table with the departments and the working group. And from those 19 points there are roughly about four points that were still somewhat of some disagreement. And it was the chair's opinion, I think, members of the committee's opinion that had raised significant legal issues that need to be addressed. And we need to talk about some of those legal issues in executive committee as would be appropriate when legal issues are raised. So from that process, I want to tell you that as we made several amendments at the committee table last week and all of those amendments that the chair accepted and were voted on and agreed to by the table are incorporated in what I will call amendment number 11. So Amendment number 11 addressed some concerns that Councilmember Herbold had raised and think Councilmember O'Brien had raised. And I think Councilmember Gonzales perhaps. But we came up with a package of amendments at the table and those were reviewed by law and accepted. And so we have. That suite of amendments ready to go. And we need a little time to harmonize those changes with the base legislation and the SIRC since they were changes to the CCR started using the sacraments and that is ready. So if we are to consider that amendment number 11, that encompasses the amendments made at the table. The legislation would be ripe to vote on today. Councilmember O'Brien has a series of amendments, and I'll relinquish the microphone to Councilmember O'Brien in a second. Councilwoman Bryant has some amendments that, if accepted, we would still need one more week to harmonize the CSI hours with the sewers. And so my encompassing amendment would wait. And so it would be inappropriate me to do that until I see where we come out on the amendments. Now, let me say before Councilman O'Brien proposes his amendments, that I'm not sure exactly how many there are, but I think there are four. And. And I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's because he's got the the oil heating legislation as well as he's been working on feverishly. He's been really working hard these last several weeks. So I sincerely appreciate the efforts put into what he's trying to do this with this surveillance ordinance. But I will tell you that I come out not supporting them, not so much. Because of the substance is bad policy. In fact, I don't think the substance changes a lot, but there was a process that was done. And and we're looking at two technologies of 29. And this process to me, is fundamental. And doing this right as a city in that process was to make sure that ACLU and Shanker in particular, because of his expertize in this area, really crafted and wordsmiths a piece of legislation that's a healthy process as a public process. And that was done. And my impression now is that that was sort of a deal, and that's how we're going to have to move forward when working with communities and the language. Now, that is, in my understanding, was agreed upon during that process by Shankar and others is what we are revisiting now. And one could argue that's still part of the process. But I will tell you, with 27 more technologies to go, that will erode the city's ability to come up with meaningful policy, because we could wordsmith this forever. And I will share with you that these two technologies, one have been around for 19 years, one for 12 years , that this is a retroactive view. And if we are to negotiate with communities and and experts and come up with agreed upon language and let's have a good process and so forth, so that's my record. On looking at these amendments somewhat biased because we've been working on this so feverishly and I've asked two departments to step up big and they stepped up big. I believe their hearts, their minds and their intellect were in the right position. This is one of the best surveillance ordinances known to this country, and I think it's ready to be voted on. So having said that comes from Bryan, you still, I'm sure, would like to walk through some amendments and the chair would entertain them. Madam Clerk, I'm not sure which ones. I have to suspend the rules on which ones are right, because all of them so. Except for mine. So we won't have to suspend the rules in mine because I did it the right way, by the way. But in all seriousness, if there's no objection to suspend the rules, rules we you hear from council member O'Brien. You know, Jackson customer in Brown. You have the floor.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President. Just in opening remarks, I, I appreciate your opening remarks and the process you've laid out here. And I fully respect, you know, where you are and my amendments. You have led a very intense and thoughtful and thorough process to date. And yet here I am still proposing amendments. But I hope you and others don't see that as criticism of this process. As I have dug into this and I appreciate the acknowledgment of of the past few weeks really trying to understand this and even some of the stuff we heard in public comment today. It is complex. And late last night, as I was working on this and discussing it with with my wife and a friend of hers. It was immediately the conversation turned to how complex this stuff is and what do we do about technology and where is it going? And it's changing so fast. And what are people doing with our data?
Speaker 5: And I.
Speaker 7: I don't know. How is government we are going to. I don't yet know. How is government? We are going to act adequately, manage all the data that we're capable of capturing. And I think the process you've run so far on two technologies is outstanding. It was extremely time consuming and these are two of the easier ones. And I think we have a lot of work to do to figure out how we adequately safeguard this field that is constantly evolving and it has critical implications to the things that I think we share on this floor. And so I see this as the work you've done to date, including the amendments that I propose as an opportunity to pause and learn what we learned so far. But this is something that I think is going to be constantly evolving as we go forward with that. Colleagues, there are you should have four separate amendments that are on the what I'll call the salmon colored pieces of paper, the mirror, the four yellow ones that were handed out in a timely fashion. But there were minor changes that are one significant, three minor changes that had to happen, maybe two significant, two minor changes that had to happen. And it came after time. So thank you for suspending the rule so I can consider those. I'm going to walk through them in the order of the amendments. And so the first one I have is numbered Amendment five. So it says proposed Amendment five to Council Bill 119519 version to a this the document in front of you outlines nine different things they would change. These are things that last week had been reviewed by the departments and there was and I want to be careful not to mischaracterize anybody. But my take was there was kind of broad consensus from from our start in general that these would be consistent and allow them to do what they wanted to do. Council President And the second time I could walk through all nine of these pieces in attempt to clarify, I'm not sure that I will be able to clarify everything because it's somewhat technical. Or I could just take questions from people if they wanted me to walk through a specific item or over another. So I mentioned that it's on the salmon colored if you're looking at the top and perhaps maybe you printed it out without on color. It's dated 923, 2019, and it says V2 behind that date in the header. Just to be clear that when we discuss this and vote on it, we all know we're voting on the same thing.
Speaker 0: So the question is whether we take questions. We just want Councilmember O'Brien to sort of plow through. I'm.
Speaker 7: I can move swiftly if you'd like to do.
Speaker 0: I'd like you to move swiftly. And because I had a question on a few of them. So why don't you talk about what we're trying to do on this amendment?
Speaker 7: And I'm going to largely read from from the items, but I'll move swiftly. So first with this, this is these are all the changes that are incorporated in Amendment five. So to establish that closed circuit TV can only be used for the purposes outlined in Section 1.2, which is to monitor general traffic conditions on public rights of way traffic conditions after an unplanned incident in traffic conditions impacted by a planned event. It also says a closed circuit TV cannot be used in conjunction with facial recognition or lights license plate reader technology.
Speaker 0: I'm going to stop at number two. Since we have suspended the rules, I will ask, we may not need it. Both Greg and Lisa. This at least sit at the table in case some questions come up. I'll stop you in point number two, because this is why I'm not supporting this particular amendment. This this is an example. And number two, there's certainly not I would agree with number two where it says CCTV cannot be used in conjunction with physical facial recognition or license plate reader technology. I agree with that point. So why would I oppose it? If you look at and I don't expect you turn to the page, if you look at the SLR, which is a governing document, 4.2, it clearly states that, well, let me back up in the director's assessment of the technology. It clearly says and I'll read you that. The language in the report, it says. Facial recognition technology is not in use at the Department of Transportation. Should it be considered in the future? The surveillance ordinance specifies that any material or substantial changes to the current camera technology will be subject to the surveillance ordinance and require another SBIR process. So, I mean, just tell you what that says in the document already, that they're not using it and should they use it, another SAR would be triggered. So when I see that and there are other sections 4.2 in the OCR and page 23 which clearly says exactly what this technology is to be used for. Which is our commitment to use it only for those purposes that says these systems are built strictly for this purpose and no information about the plates that are captured to create travel times is stored or used for other purposes. Now, that language was agreed upon during this first cut, if you will, because we wanted to make it clear that is not to be used. And if it is to be used in another way, another SDR is created. So I'm using number two as an example of it's both redundant and necessary, and there are some other issues embedded in some of these that quite candidly. We've presented to you and negotiated a deal. Okay. So you could go with number. You could either rebut number two or go with number three.
Speaker 7: And I'll just state I don't disagree with anything you said. Council President Harold, the, the the essay itself is quite an extensive document. And my interest in putting this in the the condensed essay are, which is just a six page document is to highlight to make sure that for folks that are trying to track this in the public, they may not be able to find the language that you found. And I think facial recognition software is a critically important piece of what we're doing. Again, I agree with what you said, that this doesn't add it. It was already part of it, but the highlight in the condensed version, so that it is clear that someone who may have time to read a six page document but not a multi 100 page document, would be able to pull that out immediately. So I'll keep moving through this. Number three clarifies it closer to TV, maybe use for traffic, continuing studies images used for social media traffic updates and training materials, which are all current practices at our site. The fourth thing it does, it authorizes longer retention of still images used for training for social media traffic updates. Just to add, again, the intent is we don't take still images from these closed circuit TV cameras, but occasionally they will use still images, take a still image of it to post on, say, a Twitter feed that says there's an accident at this corner and show an image of it. That photo then would live on Twitter for a little longer, so it allows that to happen. Number five, under data minimization retention, which is section 3.2, it clarifies that the line items A through C or the only purposes for which the system can be used, which is live stream stream feed of current traffic conditions, recorded video traffic or for engineering studies or still images. Traffic conditions use and training materials are included in social media updates. It restrict social media updates to the subject of traffic only. It also requires written approval of each incidents of recording and retention, of instance of recording, and that we retain that for ten years, which is the existing city policy . Written approval is required for the for the recording of still images and the potential posting of social media annually. So again, if someone needs to record part of this closed circuit TV for a traffic engineering study, they would need to get written approval to record it. They could give blanket approval to make on an annual basis to take still images for from the closed circuit TV to use for social media so that every time someone wants to snap a picture for a Twitter account, they need to go to a written approval. So that would be a once a year and we give the guidelines for that. But for the other studies we need on a case by case basis, written approval. Let's keep going.
Speaker 0: We're. You're talking about Amendment five, still correct?
Speaker 7: Correct. I'm talking about number seven on Amendment five.
Speaker 0: So it's just let's go. Just stop it. Number go eight, nine for anybody. That would just take that by saying that things catch my breath.
Speaker 7: And so then the last two restricts operation of closed circuit TV to users who have undergone SDI training, including the handling and deletion of data. Again, making sure the folks that are using this have been trained on it and then requires live stream broadcasts to be consistent with the condensed air. I am by no means nearly an expert as either Greg or Lisa, and so it's probably appropriate for my colleagues to confirm with them that what I read was not misinterpreted or misleading at all. Or maybe there's something that we need to be clarified. I want to just make sure we're open to that.
Speaker 0: So as Councilmember O'Brien described all of amendment number five. Did you see something? I'm sure does.
Speaker 8: No, I was answering. Councilmember O'Brien, we don't have any comment. He read it accurately.
Speaker 0: Okay. So this is why I oppose this amendment, and I'll just take a vote in. And since we have other. We have a busy day. Some questions or if clarifying questions. Let me comment on this, since I'm the. Well, one would take your questions. First, I'm fine.
Speaker 4: I wasn't sure what order you wanted to go to, but didn't want to miss the opportunity to ask some questions here as as the the original sponsor of the surveillance technology ordinance. I just want to get some clarification on this proposed amendment. And this answer is probably or this question is probably applicable to all of the proposed amendments that we have here, particularly as it relates to the condensed SARS. But in terms of what is represented on proposed Amendment five to this Council bill, is anything are any of the specific changes that are articulated in the amendment not included in the underlying sir.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Gahanna is okay for council staff. We haven't done a point by point comparison and we expect that there would need to be some amendment, some revisions made just to harmonize it. Okay.
Speaker 4: So my understanding of how this has been described, both in council briefing and on the dais, is that the condensed ACR is intended to be, in effect, an executive summary of the contents of the survey. Did I hear the intent incorrectly, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: No, that's that's my understanding, too.
Speaker 4: So ordinarily, executive summaries would would be completely 100% aligned with whatever the content is in the underlying document. So I'm now hearing from council central staff that that may not be the case and that there may be new requirements in the condensed ACR that are not actually reflected in the ESA.
Speaker 7: Correct in my if I may, my attempt here was that to focus on amending the six page document and then the SLR, which is hundreds of pages, with the understanding that as we make changes to the condensed version, it will require similar changes in the ACR. And again, I think the SARS. So the the and as Council President Harold said, if we do adopt, I think any of my amendments, we would not be able to vote on this to attach to the SARS, because that will require some changes. My understanding is that the departments have been tracking closely the proposed changes in the CCAR and I believe have an awareness of the things that need to be changed in the SARS. And what I've heard is it would just take them a couple of days to make those changes. But I, I am barely have my head around the complexity of the six page document. I definitely cannot personally speak to the complexity in the multi-hundred page document.
Speaker 4: So I mean, I think setting aside the complexities of each document, I think where my line of questioning is coming from is I'm concerned that we're using the condensed SARS, which were not envisioned or imagined or even. Articulated in the underlying surveillance technology audience that were using this additional tool to amend the underlying asset are thereby creating some potential conflict between a condensed SARS and the underlying SARS. And so what I'm hearing now is that that is actually true. We are creating conflict through adoption of these amendments with the underlying SARS.
Speaker 7: I think if we adopt these at the moment, there will be conflict again and won't be passed or adopted yet. My understanding in talking to folks who will be doing that work is they are prepared to reconcile those and have it be resolved within a week so that those conflicts would go away.
Speaker 4: And while I understand that and I appreciate that, I think where my concern is is that we're we're we're. We're effectively creating two different tools and multiple bites at the apple to modify the essay are in the essay are supposed to be the underlying document that is legally binding on the departments. And so I think it's inconsistent that that effect is in my mind appears to be inconsistent with the description of the condensed as they are and the intent, which is that it's for a couple of purposes, one, primarily for readability, so that if somebody from the street wanted to review Assayas, they could easily and identify the information and the obligations and the duties and responsibilities and then and and to to be effectively an executive summary of the underlying ACR, which is hundreds and could be up to hundreds of pages depending on the technology. So I guess I'm not I'm I'm, I'm, I'm having difficulty reconciling how your intent, which as described appears to be sort of. More technical in nature is actually not extremely substantive in nature in terms of actually modifying the NASA's. And I suppose there are lots of ways to meet the stated goals and purposes that you've described, including requiring the departments to make a more readable document of the underlying SSR and post that publicly so that people understand the rules of the game as it relates to whatever technology that they are using, as opposed to making substantive changes via a condensed SLR to as substantive as they are.
Speaker 7: So I think if I hear you correctly, your preference would be or would have been for me to be making amendments to the SARS document at this point, not the CSIR.
Speaker 4: Right. I mean.
Speaker 7: Substantive. I think Council President Harold raised that one. There was simply pulling language from the air, simplifying and putting in the CSIRO. That may have been an appropriate amendment to this and I acknowledge I did not I chose not to go into the as they are and amend it. But if that is in the future, how the Council should be weighing in on amending this technologies to go through that, I think that's something for us to think through and I'm certainly open to that. I'm not sure that I personally will be the one doing that because of my timing here.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I mean, I do think that that again, this is the first two technologies out of a list of dozens of technologies that that a city council perhaps not this city council will have to consider. And we are setting precedent in terms of how we are going to set up our process and how we're going to evaluate these these complex technologies and these complex policy issues. And in my mind and my understanding, the underlying answers are legally binding documents, and they have been incorporated into the ordinance at this point. And I think that the appropriate place to make these types of amendments are in the underlying C.R. and if we are truly interested in making those seers accessible and digestible and understandable to the general public, then we need to impose that requirement upon the agencies utilizing those technologies to do so rather than using, you know, condensed layers which are purported to be executive summaries as the place to do a mandatory work to the underlying science. Which leads me to my last question, which is are the condensed SARS also incorporated into the ordinance, or are these just separate and apart?
Speaker 8: Councilmember The condensed SARS would be attached to the ordinance and incorporated by reference same as the regular SARS.
Speaker 4: So now we have an easier to track compliance with and we have a condensed as are to track compliance with.
Speaker 8: That's correct. And if any of Councilmember O'Brien's amendments passed today, you would not vote on the bill. You would give a week or so to the departments to be able to bring those things into harmony. And then next week you could pass it with all of them being in sync.
Speaker 4: So. So I think I've articulated what my concerns are so far. I mean, I really do think we have an opportunity to set up a process that is clean and crisp here. And I and I don't say that to insult the process that you have undergone. Council President. I just am concerned that we're going to be creating two parallel documents that that in the future could be read in conflict and in thereby inadvertently create a situation where the city will be found liable or out of compliance with a surveillance technology ordinance, even though it had a meaningful, good faith intent to comply with a surveillance technology ordinance. Just based on this virtue that there are now two documents that that may be similar but not exact in terms of the language and the requirements upon upon the agency. So I'm I'm I'm struggling with with that reality if these amendments were to pass today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Gonzales, you've actually described why I don't support these amendments. And in all due respect, Councilman Brian is are raising some some some great issues. These issues were raised and the SBIR was a 141 page document, 141 page document that I didn't describe in my introductory remarks. It has a very significant racial equity tool kit component and engagement and public process component, fiscal impacts, opponent questions to the city about what happens if employees or the departments misuse the technology? What happens to underrepresented communities if they are unfairly targeted or there's a disparate impact that 141 page document. It's a lot for the layperson just to sit there and read unless they ran out of good novels to read or something. And we then said, Well, let's condense it analysis CSIR. And again, as the chair trying to shepherd this legislation through. I want. I asked, are there any inconsistencies? We're talking about if one supersedes the other. There were to date, there were no inconsistencies. Can language be improved? Of course, in 141 page document, that could always be improved. But it's important that with the traffic camera technology, as example, that's why I preface by saying we've been using this for 19 years, we do not record. I mean, that was I think one person test testified about how there is some recording. But if you look at the use of this technology, again, camera views are masked for event viewing documents in in buildings. The staff are trained and as part of their requirements not to zoom in on individuals or license plates, we share the information with another agency. And when it is recorded in certain let's say there's a traffic study as an example, it is permanently deleted within ten days. These are conditions in the air that we must comply with. If we violate those conditions, we're subject to a private right of action, which again is unprecedented. So I see these. Amendments to the CSIR as being unnecessary and again, late for for lack of a better description. Sure. Anyway. So I'm ready to actually take a vote on amendment number five unless Councilmember Bryan wanted to describe it a little more. He went through the nine. But Casper and Bryan, did you want to say any more about an amendment or just talk about amendment number five at this point?
Speaker 7: No, I'll just you know, I'll apologize to colleagues if if I should have been trying to amend the SA instead of the CSIR, my understanding was this was the appropriate process to do it, but it sounds like there are some concerns about the strategy I used and I didn't intend to circumvent the process. I was just trying to get my policy things in there.
Speaker 0: So yeah, and I appreciate the apology, but. You're making an argument, I'm sure, carrying the water for somebody. And those arguments were made months ago in central staff. You can talk about your process. You did. To get us to date ready to vote. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we revisiting issues that were conceded earlier in the process?
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 0: I was just guest to counter such that to respond to.
Speaker 8: That many of them. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great cast member and I do people in queue.
Speaker 7: I do think that some of these things is bringing language from one place to another and we can argue whether that adds any value or not. But there are other things, such as the requirement of written approval for someone recording the CCTV or taking still images from it. And that may have been discussed and it may have been agreed to, but I think that's an important policy decision for us to make as a council. And I feel strongly that if someone is going to deviate from the norm or we're not recording it and do record it, there should be a written record of approval to do that and that should be saved. And so if I should have done that in the essay instead of the CSIR, we should get clarity for how people make that. But I don't think these are meant to come to the council just to be rubber stamped. I think there is an opportunity for us to have a final influence on some policy decisions, and that's a few of the pieces that I'm trying to do in this piece.
Speaker 0: Council member. Herbal? No, I didn't know which one. First cancer herbal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess it is it for me. It's less about. And I appreciate for the council members who have worked really hard on this, Councilmember Gonzalez, as as it relates to the overarching legislation in Councilmember Harrell as it relates to this particular body of work. But I'm in so I'm less concerned about the process piece of this and what order we should do things. And I am a little confused about the intent and what we're accomplishing. I was under the impression last week when we talked about these amendments in principle that the goal was to address a concern that the CSI hours were opening up this technology in ways that the SARS weren't and. Logically, it seems to me that if that was the case, we wouldn't need to go back and amend the stories because we would be these these amendments would simply be restating in a condensed form what the sabers already say.
Speaker 3: So if the goal.
Speaker 4: Is to make sure that the seizures do not broaden the ability to use the CCTV as as that's what I was under. That was what my understanding was. The goal is to make sure that the ability to use those cameras is not broadened beyond what was contemplated in the sale as they are. I'm not sure I understand why, after passing this amendment, we would need to go back and amend the SLR.
Speaker 7: So I think there's a couple different perspectives on this because it's new and we haven't been through the process. And so I think there's a lot of folks, including myself, trying to envision how this will be used and what happens. So I've heard people argue that because the language in the condensed SDR is condensed, and so it summarizes things. If someone were to just read that, it may not have the level of detail that says what you can and can't do. And so there's a fear that, no, you need to add more detail to this. So for instance, as Council President Harrell talked about that you can't use facial recognition software that is spoken of elsewhere in the ACR. But there's a sense, there's a fear that without that it feels like this is too broad or opening it back up to the concern you had. There are other places, like I mentioned, with getting written approval. That is actually a policy shift from what's in the document and we need to get reconciled and that's intentional. I just you know, I'm choosing the path that I thought was what we were going on. But we haven't we haven't laid out like a whole protocol for how we should amend CSA hours and hours of the council. And so we're kind of living through that as we go.
Speaker 0: Gaspar Pacheco.
Speaker 5: I was just going to call the question.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a request to get on with the other 29 items on our agenda sooner or later. Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 6: Well, great. Do I get to speak? Yes. Amazing. Okay. I will go very short. I will go very briefly. Number one, I want to thank the council president for your work, to make sure that all these issues were raised in committee and central staff, really, for putting together sort of the matrix of the various issues that we are considering today and considered at the table. And a lot of work has gone into this. And also for folks at the ACLU, that crosswalk to me was very helpful. One of the things that I did with that on Thursday and Friday last week was to look through what items are sort of legally okay and what items are potentially challenging but not impossible to implement administratively. And I tried to identify where there was harmony between what was legally okay and implementable and support some of those efforts. And I think in this amendment specifically, there are items in there that we discussed that you're at the council presidents committee and I think are important for clarifying the intent here. So I agree that maybe there's some confusion about where it should be clarified and how we harmonize those documents. And my real effort here is to make sure that there's no confusion out there. One of the things that was raised at the table was a good example of how these closed circuit televisions, while tracking traffic issues may be used unintentionally by us, the city, to do things that we would never support. And they're one good example that I gave is escort. And Seattle Police Department had been working to provide safe areas for people to have a one day strike on Broadway a few weeks ago. That's an important effort that workers should have the right to do. I would hate for that information, even though it's never going to be recorded by the city, to be displayed on a monitor and have an employer record that and then use that to intimidate workers, for example, which is also not legal. But we want to make sure that we've protected our city in every way possible. And so there are some areas in there that I think we amended in your committee. I saw this. This amendment here was really elevating those pieces and creating greater harmony. I wanted to support it. And if this is not the right place to do that, perhaps we continue to work on it. But my intention was really to create that clarity while it might not be legally required. I thought it was a nice, helpful way to articulate the true intent of these technologies. So there was no ambiguity in the public. And I appreciate your ongoing entertainment of this conversation, Mr. President, but that's why I was going to be supportive.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. So thanks for the discussion on. We're just voting on amendment number five. Okay. Just to be clear, any more discussion, just amendment number five. So Councilmember O'Brien has made the motion to amendment. I think actually we.
Speaker 7: Haven't moved in such a move amendment. All move Amendment five is described on the salmon sheet, which has the date 923, 2019 and v2 after it.
Speaker 0: Again and councilman risk mitigated second. So I'm going to do a voice vote and just raise your hands so the clerk could get it. All those in favor of amendment number five. Say I and raise your hand, I. One to all those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. Yes. Okay. So that one failed. So we're going to move to amendment number four. I'm sorry. Number four, let's yeah, let's go backwards because we're going to go to is amendment number six six. So that's on salmon colored as well. Correct. Comes from Brown?
Speaker 7: That's correct. And his version, too. Not everyone printed on the same color page. So just want to be clearer. Clear their colleagues. I'll try to streamline this. This is a similar set of amendments, at least a similar theme as to the one we just turned down. Except it's for the other technology, the license plate reader technology. I'll walk through it really quickly, if that's okay. There's only six items to discuss. One is it clarifies the purpose and allowable uses of license plate reader data and the resultant travel time information. It restricts the use of all license plate reader data and not just data that includes license plate numbers. It prohibits the use of a license plate reader system to collect images of vehicles or occupants. It prohibits Ascot from providing data collected by the state of the art transportation license plate reader system to entities other than watchdog. It makes it explicit that Watchdog does not have access to the state license plate reader system, and it also restricts our state sharing of LPR data only to washed out for travel time purposes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. And and I'll just respond, is the one of the proposal based legislation, the reason I'm not supporting this amendment is for pretty much the same reason I talked about earlier in the essay. And what we're trying to accomplish is very important, I think, to understand in the same way that our state is never in position, really possession of the images that first of all, the technology by its very nature doesn't capture all of the license plate, the capture of between 5 to 10%. As they move into view, the images are simply sent to watch Dot and the softer reads the plate number and as a timestamp that compares to time stands to match it on a plate in order for us to get the the reports that are generated and looking at travel time. So the department made it crystal clear the technology cannot be used for enforcement. We don't keep this data and we're trying to get traffic reports from it. And I believe that the proposed amendment by the maker is captured adequately in the ACR and again was thoroughly examined earlier in the process. Any other discussion on the amendment? Any questions? Okay. So I just want to. Councilmember Gonzalez, I.
Speaker 4: Just want to confirm the same sort of line of questioning I had in the first place. Is this effectively attempting to amend the C.R. or is this carbon copy? Nothing new here in terms of requirements, duties and obligations as reflected in the ESA.
Speaker 8: This issue is addressed in the OCR and the ARE and it is an issue where the department has outlined practice about the data that they capture. They have said that they capture raw data to include a timestamp, a station identifier, a camera channel, an alphanumeric plate string and a confidence factor. Most of those things, I don't know what they are, but what the amendment would do is say that Estcourt could capture those things and only those things. So if there was a another piece of data that the LPR wanted to capture, then it would have to be brought before you all in a new C.R.. However, that would be the case anyways because of the underlying surveillance ordinance. If there was any substantive change to any of the hours, they have to come before you again.
Speaker 4: Right. So capturing different kinds of information that go outside of what you just described that would be considered a material change that would require asked to come back to the city council to amend the ACR anyhow.
Speaker 8: That's correct. So that this is this this language is is helpful from a clarification and from a reader standpoint. But the reality of it is that the underlying ordinance protects against this anyway.
Speaker 4: No, no need to amend the C.R. if this passes.
Speaker 8: Well, it uses the language only. And as I've said before, if there were any other data captured besides whatever thoughts already listed, they would have to come ask you. So I would say that this is not legally necessary.
Speaker 0: That's very well.
Speaker 4: Understood that you're saying this is not legally necessary. My question, though, is, is would passage of this amendment require us to go back and amend the C.R.?
Speaker 8: Oh, thank you. I think the agency would still want to bring it into harmony. They would probably would take that only language and put it in the air. Does it require it? I would have to let the I would have to ask the attorneys at.
Speaker 0: Okay. So did you make the motion for Emily Casper and Brian for Amendment number six?
Speaker 7: I will move what's listed as proposed Amendment six with the date 1923, 2019, version two as discussed.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: So moved and second amendment number six has been moved in second. All those in favor say I and raise your hand.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. That's okay. So we're going to go to Amendment number seven on that. What was it, madam? I was asked what the countless in my book. 4 to 5. Okay. Number seven. Councilmember O'Brien, walk us through number seven, please.
Speaker 7: So this amendment and the next amendment are not a suite of amendments, but actually a single amendment, and they do relate to a policy amendment seven. Just for folks following, again, it's also on the salmon record, on the salmon colored paper. But at the top it has today's date, 923, 2019 and a V to buy it. So source version two. This this is about the license plate reader data and the requirement. Oh, sorry. No, that's the one. This is about the license plate reader. And that makes it explicit that that will not be used, made available in response to civil or criminal enforcement purposes, except as provided by a superseding judicial warrant to me. The language you saw earlier today was more broad. And the concern that was raised, which I share, is language that simply says I'm going to pull up my yellow version from this morning. I'm saying give it to someone so I don't have it in front of me. Would be had said except as prohibited by law without the technical reality that this data is being collected by people that for the most part aren't lawyers. And the concern is that if someone like ICE were to approach someone and say, hey, I'm a federal agent, I need you to hand this over, and federal law says you have to give it to me. How are they going to interpret and what do they do? And I'm worried that that language that is vague or broad would allow that to happen in cases that we don't want it to happen. I both want to acknowledge that the potentially hypothetical nature of these scenarios and it's hard to walk down all those hypothetical scenarios. And at the same time, there are enough examples in today's world where these types of transactions are happening and that maybe in the case where there's an employee somewhere who feels strongly that they want to share information and this gives them the cover to do that, or someone that's just not an expert on it. And so, again, this is the the language that I think is narrowly tailored to say the only conditions under which this information can be shared and used for civil or criminal enforcement purposes.
Speaker 0: Fran Gonzalez, thank you.
Speaker 4: I see this amendment as more than just an amendment to the underlying SLR via the condensed, as I actually see this as a potential amendment to the underlying ordinance where this issue around warrants and what kind of warrants would merit or require an agency to share data or information gathered through technologies approved by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and through the searches. We had had a very long conversation in the original drafting of the surveillance technology ordinance around sort of around this burden of proof or requirement of when that information or data should be shared originally. So I'm not going to support this amendment because I see it as frankly not. I see it as going back into the surveillance technology ordinance and actually underlying amending or attempting to amend the underlying warrant requirements around when agencies are intended to share information that may have been captured with law enforcement or for other purposes via this particular language. And that that is very that to me is a different policy conversation. If we want to amend the surveillance technology ordinance to modify that standard or to, you know, change our obligations somehow in terms of how we respond to judicial warrants, then we should have that conversation.
Speaker 0: Okay. So and I opposed it as well. Then I just want to go back to the technology again and I understand the the hypothetical concerns, but in the NCR, we make it very clear we we we don't use it for enforcement. It's never used for enforcement. We don't we're not in possession of the LPR images. We are not in possession of it. We transfer 5 to 10% of the reads with some competency level and we get information back. And the department has stated that as its exclusive use of the document so the of the technology so in there but consumer brands you won't see one closing word on.
Speaker 7: This I concur that we're clear that the city will not be using this enforcement. This language is specifically that we do not hand it over to someone else to use it for civil or criminal enforcement purposes. And that's the distinction.
Speaker 0: Very good distinction. And I don't know when we are obligating that it's not to be used by a third party that we have another kind of control over. We want I don't know if that would be a liability we would want to assume in our ordinance. And so it's been moved and. Yeah. Do you want to say something, sir? I'm sorry, I'm trying to. We're good.
Speaker 4: I'd love to hear what comes from Gonzales has to say about that. This is pretty. If we're if we're setting new policy that was debated in the underlying surveillance ordinance, I really want to defer to the prime sponsor of that bill to hear her concerns. Yeah, if I could just add to that. I mean, I think we again, another another policy discussion and decision point that we made in the underlying ordinance was was the question around whether or not we should require third parties or outside parties to comply with the restrictions and requirements and legal mandates of our surveillance technology ordinance. In the debate around that particular question, this Council decided to not to to to only make sure that those rules are applying to what we control and how we can use the data. Now, there are situations that are reasonable. Largely, we heard from from the Seattle Police Department and some other agencies where we receive legitimate judicial warrants for purposes of public safety reasons. And the question became, are those agencies responsible for handing over that information if we possess it, not what other agencies might be doing with that data or information, but what do we have in our possession and what are our legal obligations under under constitutional law and otherwise to respond to those judicial warrants? Again, I'm happy to have this conversation about changing that threshold or that potential policy. But I fundamentally see this as an attempt to resurrect that conversation, which fundamentally would have the effect, in my mind, of of of modifying the base base ordinance of a surveillance technology which had already decided under which circumstances the city of Seattle would be required to respond to a judicial judicial warrant if we were in possession of data or information that was gathered as a result of surveillance technology that we had been utilizing, and that was appropriately approved through a search process. So I'm just flagging my concern that this is going much further than just amending an SLR, but actually amending the underlying ordinance. That may be something we want to have a conversation about again, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that conversation in the context of of a search that is specific to one type of technology, because I think the implications are much broader.
Speaker 0: Okay. Was Kasper and Brown's amendment? It was not moves. So Kasper and Brian, will you move amendment number seven?
Speaker 7: I will move. I will move amendment number seven dated today 923 2019 version to.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Guess moves and second amendment number seven and moving second and all those in favor say I and raise your hand. All although the polls say no. One, raise your hand. No. Don't fails to. So let's go to number eight.
Speaker 7: So this one also relates to the license plate reader technology and the relationship between start and Wash, not the State Department of Transportation and the city department transportation. This council president Harrell, you described, I think in layman's terms, a bit of how the technology works. What we capture is handed off to another department. My understanding is currently there is not a written requirement for I'm sorry, a written agreement between our stop and wash night. But the underlying language would require that we're sorry. This amendment would require that within six months, there needs to be a written requirement, a written agreement as to how that data is shared and specifically adds language that the watchdog would need to be held to the same requirement and restrictions set forth in our policies. So I'm going to pull up from the language for a second and just try to articulate why I think this is particularly important. We are collecting some data. I believe that the reasons for collecting the data are legitimate reasons to study travel times, and I think they serve the public well. They do have the potential to be misused. You know, we aren't collecting personally identifiable information license plates in certain times of day. And where people.
Speaker 5: Are.
Speaker 7: Our policies are that that data is deleted almost immediately once we've served the purpose of measuring travel times. But when we hand that data off to another party, that's not bound by those same conditions. There's a fear that someone may use that data for other sources for other purposes, or they may hand it over to another agency that requested for other purposes. And I think this is at the heart of the entire surveillance ordinance and the things that I think is appropriate for us as a council to struggle with. There's a number of ways I think this could play out. If this amendment passes there in the next six month, why start in? Our state could come to an agreement of data sharing that basically holds washed out to the same standards we're holding them to. At which point, I would feel very comfortable that the data sharing would continue and we would continue to read the information. It may be that why start or start come back to us and say we were unable to reach agreement washed out, was not willing to be held to the same standards as our state at that point. This amendment would require that they no longer share the data, which means we would no longer have that travel time information . Because as far as I know, with the technology, the only way we can get the travel time information is by sharing the data with Washed. That, I think is a legitimate policy question that this council can struggle with. If, if asked, felt strongly that they wanted that information, they could come back to this council before that and say, hey, we we can only get X, Y and Z in the agreement. And we would like you to amend the the the ACR, the CCAR to give us some more flexibility. Or we can decide, no, it's not worth the risk of collecting that data without the assurances. And we'd rather live without the travel time data because the idea that this might be used against our will for data, for things, you know, such as immigration or ICE, doing it to track down people in cities, Seattle. So I'll stop there. I think that this is the type of thing that is appropriate for us to be doing and laying out the guidelines by which we not just collect information, but the conditions under which we would share it with other parties. And and I don't want to prejudge what a future council may decide as what's the appropriate balance there. But at the moment, I think it's appropriate to say that that watchdog should be held to the same standards and ask them to go work on that data sharing agreement.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman O'Brien. I'll make a comment sort of consistent with my other comments. The reason I don't support this amendment. First, I know that the law department has raised some issues that I won't divulge the issues, but I think they flagged this one. I'll just put it that way. Is that correct, Greg? That's correct. It was flagged. I'll just leave it at that, number one. But number two, I think as a as a city, if we choose not to use LPR. We can start using it. This is we are a recipient of the information we're getting. We've used it since 2007. We are getting good data for traffic management, which is the purpose of the LPR. And I think that the chances of us getting washed out within six months to agree to this kind of surveillance ordinance are slim to none. And I think that would be fooling ourselves if we think within six months we can achieve that. Now there are another there is another route, I think, to get there that could be perhaps in the future, council could set a resolution and negotiate with the wash DOD and have our department work with them to put in the right safeguards. But I think to require it now in this process is. Is burdensome and impractical. I think we should should try to get there another way, though. I would like to have washed out and guarded as much as we are, but I don't think we'll be able to achieve that within six months. And if we don't, either we have to pull the technology or we are in violation of our ordinance. Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just want to go back in my time machine again to when we first had a debate around the surveillance technology ordinance. This was also another policy point that was debated, discussed and ultimately rejected by the city council. When we approved the surveillance technology ordinance, there was a there was a strong interest by the advocates at the time to require, as an overarching principle within the surveillance technology ordinance, that whomever we do business with sign a contract, an agreement agreeing to comply with our ordinance. And we had a very long debate and discussion around whether, as a matter of policy that was practical or appropriate for us to impose our city law in some cases up meaning to the federal government or to the state, and whether we have legal standing to be able to actually make that enforceable setting and that that conversation was separate and apart from whether from whether or not it was even practical to be able to have that kind of contractual relationship with agencies that we deal with. So again, during that debate, we determined that that was not a direction we wanted to head with the understanding that the servers would take care of any potential concerns related to the type of information we were capturing that might be available to third party agencies that would cause a significant privacy concerns and that the servers were the place where we needed to make sure that those restrictions were in place in order to comply fully with our own ordinance. So it's similar to, I think, the way that we look at information, we gather at the city in general as it relates to ICE enforcement, you know, we can only be compelled to hand over what we actually collect. So we need to be very careful about what we are collecting, knowing that federal agencies and state agencies will even under even under this rubric will be, you know, still have FOIA and other public records, request tools to be able to get that information from us. But again, I see this I see this amendment as as opening the door again to that policy question that we had in the underlying surveillance technology ordinance, debate around whether or not we were going to impose upon third parties an obligation to comply with the surveillance technology ordinance before we agreed to do business with them as memorialized in a separate and in an agreement that was separate and apart from the sur, separate and apart from the condenser, and certainly separate and apart from the underlying technology ordinance. So I think that it really creates a very complicated system. I think it's also going to result in a situation where we will never engage in regional efforts with any agency at all, whether it's a legitimate or even if it's a legitimate reason to engage in business with a regional agency. So, again, I'm I'm just we may want to have that conversation from a broader policy perspective, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that that make that policy decision in the context of of an amendment. I guarantee that this amendment will turn up again when we consider other other types of technologies related to other departments. And if if that's going to be the case, then let's reopen the surveillance technology ordinance to have that conversation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez, did you want to make the motion? Did you want to?
Speaker 7: I wanted to just go someplace. Can Councilman Gonzales, my my intent when we passed the original surveillance ordinance was indeed, if we weren't going to have a blanket requirement, because it wasn't clear how that would be enforceable, that the third parties would be bound by this. But for me at least, it didn't preclude saying on a case by case basis, as we gather technology, if it's necessary to share with third parties that we are, it's not it would be appropriate for us to consider what requirements we put on that data when it goes out our door and we essentially lose all control of it. And this is one that I think, you know, what this amendment sets up is the possibility, which I think is real frankly that washed out and asked can reach agreement that watchdogs like. Yeah we delete the data as soon as we process it our vendors do the same thing. It comes back to you. We're happy to sign on to those conditions. It's fine and we get to keep moving forward. And if they're unable to do that, it'd be good to understand. Why they're unable to do it. Is it because. No, we like to keep that in case we want to give it to somebody or is it technically not feasible? And here's the reason we need to do it. And at that point, they could come back to the council, decide on the policy decision, do we even want to be collecting license plate information for the purpose of the traffic? Is a trade off not worth it anymore if we don't have control of what that data is being used for? So I feel strongly that this is an appropriate place to add a third party requirement. This doesn't say I mean, this says that without this agreement after six months, they would have to stop collecting the data. But obviously the parties could come back to the council between now and then and say, we think it's really important that we keep collecting it and here's what we're able to agree to. And we think you should make the case to the to the public. We can make the case publicly that we're collecting it without this. I fear what what I have to tell constituents is we collect this data. We have strict controls on what we can do with the data, but we are giving it to another agency, which we don't have any control over what they do with it. We hope that they will honor our concerns, but we don't have the control over it. And that causes me some concerns.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you want to make the motion concerned, Brian?
Speaker 4: May I ask the question?
Speaker 0: Council member Herbold.
Speaker 4: Does the Lane current language not still require a that third party agreement? It just simply doesn't say that the third party agreement are the same restrictions and requirements in the seizure. So there's still that sorry.
Speaker 7: The underlined part is not the amendment. That was my amendment to the new amendment. But we should ask Central South. I believe this whole language was is new.
Speaker 8: Yes, I think that you're right. Councilmember Harold Herbold. Sorry, the the language that that is in the case now in the seizure state and was state must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing the LPR data. And it's made clear in other areas of the seizure that that data is to be used only for traffic purposes. I think that is already underway. I believe that is the case. If START came back and said that they think that the data might be used for something else, they would be obligated under the surveillance ordinance to come back to the council. The the difficult part about this amendment is how would the city of Seattle enforce any kind of agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation?
Speaker 4: So we would still have the ability to sort of have that analysis of those trade offs if there was either no agreement or the agreement was inconsistent with the sur.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'll.
Speaker 7: Can I can I just.
Speaker 0: Please clarify.
Speaker 7: I believe what the underlying if this if my amendment fails, the language that will be in the seizure will simply say, I start in Washington must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing NPR data. That's correct, but not the conditions under which they are.
Speaker 4: I think that there's more.
Speaker 7: There's more.
Speaker 8: Conversations. Sir?
Speaker 7: Yes, sir.
Speaker 8: Aye, sir. As well.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 8: And I think that the purpose is for traffic collection. For collection of traffic data and calculating travel times.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think it's important to note that we don't know why. Shots. Our retaining requirements are under state law. We know what ours are and what we're willing to live with. And so this amendment again imposes the same requirements that we have in our CSR, but we don't know what all those policies are. And I think we heard this, this discussion was a lively debate at the working group level and this is where we had come out on it, which is inconsistent with this amendment. Okay. It's been moved. Has it been seconded? It has not been moved. So because remember. And can you.
Speaker 7: Move? I will move to ask the clerk. There's a version two and a version three that I think are identical. So I'm just going to stick with. Okay. I don't believe anyone has version three in front of him. Oh, you do? Three. I'm not sure that there's I did a quick look over to maybe moved here based on the last three amendments, but we should probably at least get it accurate.
Speaker 2: We should have more data.
Speaker 1: You can see that.
Speaker 7: I see that I compared the language to try to figure out what changed between version two and version three, because they both say as of 1:15 p.m. at 923.
Speaker 3: I think they're identical, sir.
Speaker 7: Okay. So I'm going to go with version two just because that's the only one everyone has. And if it turns out we missed something, then we'll deal with that later. But it may not turn out. So I'm going to go ahead and move Amendment eight on the Salman sheet that's listed at the top as 923 2019 version two.
Speaker 0: Their second let's imagine amendment number eight has been moved in second and all those in favor say I in raise your hand.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: Always the polls say no and raise your hand no. It is what fails. It failed. Three, six. Do we have a number nine?
Speaker 7: No, I'm not moving nine or ten. So I'm done counting. President Herrell. Okay. Thank you so much. Time and that exercise. Well, I appreciate your indulgence.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Pacheco. You may lead us through the oil heat legislation, so get your Robert's Rules of Order hat on pretty soon here. So what? This thing leaves us with the legislation that passed out of the committee, and I'll describe that as amendment number 11. And that's just the way it's written up. So there are not a eight, nine, ten or 11. So let me just let me clarify what motion I'm making. I am making a motion number 11 that basically incorporates the amendments that unanimously passed at committee table that incorporate the 2 hours and the two CSI hours coming out of that out of the committee. Okay. I hope that's clear. So I'm going to move to pass amendment number 11. Is there a second? Okay. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: Somebody from the Comedy Central States that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any discussion on this amendment? And I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it passes because of all the hard work that everyone's done. All those in favor of the amendment say i. I.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: Opposed. Okay. The amendment passes. So now we have a surveillance ordinance as amended that's ready for vote. Yeah. Let me find my number here. Just one sec.
Speaker 5: Hmm.
Speaker 0: It is number.
Speaker 3: 119519 council member.
Speaker 0: Sorry, sir.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: I'll say a few things after. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119519 as amended.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco I so want to make sure. Gonzalez Bill President Harrell I nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of Senate. Let me just say a few thanks to councilmember Brian for and Shankar thanks for pushing the envelope on all of these issues. I know that some things were not gotten that people did want, but I think it's still one of the the best surveillance ordinances this country has seen. I hope we're setting the bar for other citizens in states to follow. Councilman Gonzales, I want to thank you for your full engagement and your leadership on the surveillance ordinance Saad Bashir, Ginger and Brewster, Jason Cambridge and Adam Emery, Greg and Lisa, thank you very much. Greg Doss, Lisa Kay, Kate Garman, awesome as usual and the Community Surveillance Working Group, thanks you for all of your engagement. So with this, it was a long time coming, but thank you for all your work in Councilman Brian. Thank you again.
Speaker 7: I also want to just personally thank Greg and Lisa and I'm not sure which names of folks that start in the light apartment who are responding to your requests on my behalf over the weekend to get through that. And that was a really Herculean effort. And despite my disappointment in the outcome today, I'm extremely grateful for the time you all put in to this this weekend and the past few weeks to keep you up to speed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2018 surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Department of Transportation’s use of closed-circuit television traffic cameras and license plate readers. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09232019_CB 119647 | Speaker 5: the rest of the block face was rezone. The reason would facilitate the development of 127 Union apartment building with ground floor retail. The PLUS Committee recommended amended this application to increase the MTA requirements to the correct level, which would require 9% of the units be affordable or the developer pay $20 per square foot. Oh. I moved to a grant while I moved to Grant Clark file 314359 as condition.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any other questions or comments? So those in favor of granting the petition as conditions please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The chair was signed. The findings, conclusions and decision of the Council. Please read the next item.
Speaker 1: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item nine Council Bill 119 651 Relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32% Miss Baker to Page 1661, the committee recommends a steep scuse me no recommendation.
Speaker 0: Because we're in Pacheco.
Speaker 5: So this is the council bill associated with the previous contract reason it just grants the reason and accepts the property use and development agreement.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? I'll move to pass Council Bill 119651. Is there a second, please? Called the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas Mosquera O'Brien Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell high five in favor not.
Speaker 3: Opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show side.
Speaker 5: Three 1010.
Speaker 0: And 11 place.
Speaker 7: Customer base of your vote in.
Speaker 0: Council member back can you call the roll on the can you extend the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed. There we go now filibuster for me can you can you read items ten and 11 into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda items 1011 council vote 119 649 approving confirming the plan of Roman place in portions of the southwest quarter in the southwest quarter, section 22. Can we excuse me, agenda item 11 clear file 314378 for you Unit Lot Subdivision Application of Black Hawk Investment LLC to subdivide one person to 14 unit lots and 5930 636 Avenue South
Speaker 0: . From Pacheco.
Speaker 5: Colleagues, this is the final plat approval ordinance of the 14 unit Raymond Place Subdivision in the Othello neighborhood. Our action today follows CCI permit approvals, preliminary plat approval by the hearing examiner, development of the project and final review by Stsci. As done as I confirm that all conditions have been met and recommend that Council grant final approval. This is the property located at 5936 36th Avenue South in Othello, a half block west of MLK Way. It's approximately 13,329 square feet. Originally zoned for low rise three was rezone under MHRA to neighborhood commercial two with a 75 foot height limit. And it's dividing the two lots into 14 lots for townhouses with vehicular access provided through an alley.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And you describe both the bill and the clerk following your description, correct?
Speaker 5: The clerk bill.
Speaker 0: Yes. So we have the bill and the clerk filed those. Both were read in the right. Okay. So I'll take them individually. So on the council, Bill 119649i will move to pass counts. Bill 119649. I can't move the second act. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas Macheda O'Brien Pacheco so on. By John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and show sign it I will move to accept and file clerk file 314378. Those in favor of accepting and filing the clerk file, please vote i i. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the Clark file has been accepted and filed. Very good. So please read items 12 through 16.
Speaker 1: Agenda items 12 through 16 appointments 1433 1434 Appointment of Twila minor as members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners for a term two September 30th, 2022 appointment. Michael Diaz as members of Housing Authority Board of Commissioners return to March 20th, 2023. A re appointment of Robert de Crutchfield and Paul Purcell as members of a housing authority board for Term two December 1st, 2022, and reappointment of Gerald Smiley as Member Sale Housing Authority Board for Term two March 19th, 2023. The committee recommends that these appointments be confirmed.
Speaker 0: Kathryn Pacheco.
Speaker 5: Colleagues, these are five appointments to the Seattle Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Their appointment packets are in the agenda items and we are hoping to get full approval of the five appointments.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mesquita, would you like to make some comments, too?
Speaker 6: Sure. We have to do. Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco, for your support. These are the five appointments to the Seattle Housing Authority Board that came through the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. The first is appointment of Twila Miner as a member. She is an exemplary saris. She provides an exemplary service to the community as a member of the Denise Harris community. She runs the Feeding Ministry at Greater Mount. Bigger Church, is an active volunteer for emergency feeding programs of Seattle and King County and collects donations to help stock the emergency feeding warehouse for the last five years. She's been a resident of the Seattle Housing Authority since 2001. The appointment of Michael Diaz is coming before us, as well as a new member. Michael was formerly an employee of Plymouth Housing Group, where he oversaw the rental housing office and has been a resident of the Seattle housing authorities in 2006. And then we have three reappointment, the reappointment of Robert Crutchfield as member for his second term, serving on the authority board. He was an adjunct professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Washington and Honorary Professor of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Queensland, Australia. We have the reappointment of Paul Purcell, who would be serving for his second term as well. He is a founder and strategic advisor of the Beacon Development Group, where he has overseen development of over 80 projects totaling about $900 million of investments in affordable housing for clients across Washington. And finally, the reappointment of Gerald Smiley. This would be Gerald's second term. He's a laborer from Local 242 organizes with the Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition and Labors Local 242 and is the owner of Big League Prep Free Mobile App, where he provides training for youth coaches. And he is a Puget Sound State Board member committee. Recommends appointments of 1430 through 1434 be confirmed.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other comments on any of these appoint appointments? 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 reports of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item 17 Casper 119 648 Relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing superintendent to amend the existing ten year lease with the Seattle Children's Play Garden to add a third additional extended term of five years. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, madam clerk. As you stated, this is a parks bill that authorizes superintendent to amend the existing.
Speaker 3: Ten year lease.
Speaker 2: This program opens more recreational opportunities for children with physical challenges essentially located at Coleman PLAYFIELD, which is an ideal place for specialized recreational facility development. Public assets in their communities can be recommends for council passed this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Words. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get out. Hi, O'Brien, Chaco. I so want Major Gonzalez Herbal President Harold Hi. Six in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passenger side please read the next agenda item short title.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 18 Council Bill 119 655 related to the Seattle monorail approving a letter of agreement between the Seattle Monorail Services LLC and the Sale Center Department. Can we recommend the bill passes?
Speaker 0: Amended gets been worse.
Speaker 3: Thank you. If we could all sing the monorail song from The Simpsons as I read this, that would be great. This would approve a letter of agreement between Seattle.
Speaker 2: Monorail Services and Seattle Center. It would authorize the call center director to negotiate to execute an amendment to the monorail concession agreement. The biggest piece of this for me is the implementation of the Oracle program as an option to use on the monorail, which will begin October 2019, I sponsored an amendment that requires Director Dellums to report back.
Speaker 3: To committee to finalize the agreement. If I don't.
Speaker 2: Like the agreement. So Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends full council pass council bill 119655 as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. There's any questions or comments. Councilwoman back quickly.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilmember suarez wonderful job on this. I want to acknowledge robert nelms and and tom al brough. I think at one point we I know this went on for a very long time. And I think at one point we just suggested throw the lawyers out of the room and have a beer summit since 2014. And it worked. So anyway, thank you for your help. Yep. Got it done. Good.
Speaker 0: Those are our comments. Let's call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco. So on Mencia. Gonzalez Herbold. President Herald High seven in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed. And Cheryl Simon, please read the agenda. Item number 19.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 19. Council Bill 119 647 authorizing the general manager, CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a memorandum of agreement between the City of Seattle and the Michael Shute Indian tribe. Can we recommend that the bill passed?
Speaker 0: That's been us.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: And as Madam Clerk stated this an ordinance to execute a memorandum of agreement.
Speaker 3: The city owns.
Speaker 2: A collection of 12,000 artifacts and obtained between 1986 and 1989 as part of the Cultural Resource Mitigation Plan developed for safety improvements to the Cedar Masonry Dam and construction. The collection contains artifacts like projectile points, cause cobblestones, flakes and fire altered rock, representing approximately 10,000 years of human habitation. The Indian tribe desires to.
Speaker 3: Obtain house and maintain nine pieces.
Speaker 2: That hold historic and cultural significance for the Moccasin nation and other tribes in the region. The Committee recommends Council.
Speaker 3: Full Council Pass Council.
Speaker 2: Bill 119647.
Speaker 0: Think you can summarize any questions or comments? Now please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez. Purple President Harrell High seven in favor not opposed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a memorandum of agreement between The City of Seattle and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe for the transfer and curation of the Chester Morse Collection; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09232019_CB 119607 | Speaker 0: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here in city hall. Good afternoon, Councilman. Restroom since he is hiding over there. How are you? Thanks for being here. The. Just one sec here. The September 23rd, 2019 city council meeting will come to order. 2:05 p.m.. I'm Bruce Harrell. President Council Report Please call the role.
Speaker 1: Juarez must get out i o'bryan the taker here so what.
Speaker 2: You're.
Speaker 3: Gonna.
Speaker 4: Hear Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Here Herbold President Harrell nine present.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. At this point we will. Moved to adapt the introduction for a calendar. You. No objection. The introduction of pro calendars adopted. We say a few comments about today's agenda because we are preparing for budget and we'll start hearing our budget presentations this week. And the committees have wrapped up a lot of legislation. We have a series of pieces of legislation with multiple amendments, and this is going to be pretty challenging to get through. We will get through it, but it's going to be somewhat challenging because we have amendments sort of flying around at the last minute as sometimes we have to do. I also, as I described at council briefing this morning, we'll have to leave somewhat early for a an obligation and Councilmember Checo may chair the meeting on the back end of it. And so because of that I'm going to make a few adjustments on the agenda to particular and some of those that require amendments because in all due respect to Councilmember Pacheco, it might be a little challenging for him not having done this to some extent in the script. This is a little it's little pliable sometimes. It sometimes is a little difficult to follow. So having said that, we can make a few amendments to the agenda. The first one is, as I describe this morning, I would like to move the entire report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee items five, six and seven and item 21, which is the oil heat legislation. I like to move that after agenda item one so that I could share those items. Is there a second? Okay. Those are the only changes to the agenda I'd like to make and any other comments before I move it? Okay. I move that the agenda be amended as stated. Is there a second? All those in favor of the amendment say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So the the agenda will be amended as stated. The minutes of the September 9th, 2018, city council meetings have been reviewed, and there's no objection the minutes will be signed . In. Objection. The minutes are signed. Presentations. We have several presentations this afternoon and so I'll just call the presentations out in the order with which they were presented to me before. The first one is actually going to be many of us attended the mayor's address on the budget to 2020 budget and as part of the sort of the protocol or the procedures that it will should be presented to the to the full council. So first arrested. Deputy Mayor Mike Fong, please come to the podium and hand the mayor's address on the proposed budget, and you're welcome to say a few words if you like.
Speaker 5: Great. Thanks. President Harrell and Council Members. Earlier today, Mayor Durkan delivered a special presentation of the proposed budget address at Franklin High School. We were pleased to have many of you in attendance. Thank you. It's now my pleasure to formally deliver to you the mayor's proposed budget message in compliance with Article five, Section six of the city charter. And here are copies in hard copies have also been delivered to your offices. And thank you for your time. And we look forward to working with all of you through the budget process.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And the speech was well-received. FRANKLIN High schools were at their best, and it's a great presentation. We also have Councilmember Mosquito who will present a proclamation on Nannies Day. Councilmember Mosquito, you have the floor.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. All right. All the nannies in the house. So thank you all for your incredible work over the last almost two years, as we've been working to lift up the voice of nannies, of caretakers, of housekeepers and domestic workers. As you all know, we've been in a lot of conversations over the last few years with the Seattle nanny network, the nanny collective, Seattle Domestic Workers Alliance, and Working Washington, the We Dream and Black Coalition and so many others who helped us last year passed that the first ever nationwide city level Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. And today, today builds on that momentum. We have the opportunity to present the Seattle Nahanni Day proclamation. Thanks to the Mayor, Mayor Durkan and to Kelsey Niland from her office for the leadership in collaborating on this effort with community partners in our office. Today's proclamation is timely for many reasons, not to mention the fact that at the national level we have the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights that our very own Congresswoman Jayapal is continuing to champion. And many folks in the audience have been working to elevate that at the national level. But we also know that this is continuing on the win of last year and the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which was championed by nannies here in Seattle and mostly women and people of color, who brought this issue forward to us through community organizations and really sat at the table and helped us draft the policy. We're also excited to bring this proclamation forward today because this is a global effort across our country and across the globe. People are calling for September 22nd through September 28th to be recognized, this national nanny recognition week. We are honored to be part of that effort with the cities across the United States, Europe and Australia, for example . And third, we just heard a budget briefing that now is the time to make sure that we're investing in thriving economies. And it is nannies who make the city run, nannies who help to make sure that others can go to work. Nannies who especially help women come and rejoin the workplace and make sure that children have the care and support they need to grow up to be smart, to be healthy, and to be fierce and independent like many of our nannies are. I'm really excited to be presenting this proclamation and I'd like to read a few, whereas, as Mr. President, please do. WHEREAS nannies and other pairs play critical roles in our local economy to ensure the health and prosperity of families. And. Whereas, the work of nannies and other domestic workers helps make other work outside the home possible. And. WHEREAS, despite the important role of domestic workers in the household and the overall economy, domestic work is still not recognized as a protected work by the state or federal government, which we will change. And. WHEREAS, the United States in the United States, nannies have historically been exempted from most laws governing insurance, collective bargaining protections from discrimination and harassment and other labor standards. And we are changing that. We have included in the National Hour in our cities Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, a quasi bargaining table to make sure that nannies and their hiring entities have an opportunity to sit at a table and to talk about future labor protections. Beyond the minimum wage, rest breaks, protection from retaliation that we've included in last year's bill. And we're also continuing to recognize and honor their work through this proclamation today. Mr. President, we have a few folks who are here that would love to speak to this issue and accept the proclamation. We have Maria Solis, Sandra Holton, Laura Gonzalez and Molly McEwen, potentially among others. And at this time, I'd love to present the proclamation, if I may, Mr. President. And on no.
Speaker 0: Objection, we'd like to suspend the rules to hear from our guest. SINGER Objection. The rules are suspended. Thank you very much, councilmember skater.
Speaker 4: You need to let me know.
Speaker 3: All right. Okay. Okay. 3:00 because there's. When I started this so many assholes the wrong place. But I said that I'll call this a Cadillac once again. I must get at the name of the concert, or that I should have a Seattle glasses. But I said, Oh, you mean Detroit. This this September ceremonies day is still significant. Mucho para nosotros and most are desert leprosy on the unsightly de la straphangers as they look at the annual colonial past other intermissions. Yet we are primarily wholemeal and say sorry. That is that any longer than the impact interim nosotros nosotros gracias for by most esta the echo media de las manis can I just tell us what I mean? That's kind of a comprehensive seahorse. Nosotros caramels eat caramels with I must go mostly for I'm wasters. Yes, por favor purposes. Just more importantly, not opponents and losses. Gwendolen and Yosef and Laura, they can also trust. I mean, I'm almost the whole nada, but it's a significant squid. I must be in class yet. I didn't. Hi. My name is Maria Celeste Robles. Thank you. Mayor Durkan Council Macheda and the members of the Seattle City Council. Thank you for making today September 20th, our Seattle Nanny Day. This means a lot to us on behalf of the nannies in the city. We want to thank you for the messy workers ordinance that went into effect on July 1st. But there is still work to be done. This law is already having tremendous impact.
Speaker 4: On our lives. So we thank you.
Speaker 3: Thanks to the families that trust us with our children to take care of and love as if they were ours. Please do not be jealous that the children sometimes cry at the end of our day. That only shows the good work we do and how much we love them.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Then we just got ourselves into an indoor outdoor travel committee or just almost a. And representational quality wasn't in yet us l'alliance travel horror the LaGuardia statue of Seattle and I thought I must you participative commenter in El Proceso La Raza on the normas but I garantizar Laura Keller the announcer Funciona Comodo La Necesitamos. I mean, all systems organize and operate. Boyer, La Lane National, the travel carousel overrepresented Congress's staff. But I eligible Senator Kamala Harris la Lacalle are you that I'm a colossal la yossi less conditional nevertheless but I mean you'll as it I'm told by the avocado it is cancerous Chloe those are the rituals protectionism which at the apple but supuesto those estamos are actually also the real El Camino aqui and Seattle. But I don't know Colombia almost Laudato si la only that elsewhere. So not only the articles but the most powerful war. So you know, so transparent in LA in LA Lucha below the ritual of trabajo, horizontal oriental base grasses. But I suggested they are possibly. My name is Sandra Holden. Thank you very much for giving us the recognition that our heart, our hard work deserves. Today, we're here on behalf of the Seattle Nanny Collective and the Seattle Domestic Workers Alliance that so far we have been able to actively participate in the process of developing standards to ensure that the ordinance works as well as we need. We also recognize and we also, where else, organizing to support the national law, the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, presented by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Senator Kamala Harris, which will help increase wages and standards for millions of domestic workers across the country that have been already excluded
Speaker 4: . From rights and protections for so many, so many years.
Speaker 3: Of course, we are all proud to lead the way here in Seattle, but we will never have come here without the unity and the effort and ensuring of our community. So we ask you to join us today to fight for the rights of domestic workers throughout the country. Thanks again for making Seattle's nanny day today and for recognizing the work and contributions of thousands of nannies in this city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And to. Well, thank you, Katherine Mesquita, for such a great proclamation. Next, we will have Councilmember Herbold, and this is a good segway into her proclamation relating to diaper needs Awareness Week Council member Herbold.
Speaker 4: Fantastic. Thank you. It's an honor to sponsor and present a proclamation declaring this week type Diaper Need Awareness Week with council members Gonzales and Mosquito. This proclamation is sponsored on behalf of West Side Baby, who distributes diapers to families in need in western Washington. And I'd like to also recognize that there are several caretakers and parents of babies working in the Legislative Department and more babies on the way. Diaper Need Awareness Week is recognized across the country as an initiative of the National Diaper Bank Network, and the city of Seattle has worked to decrease disparities for infants, toddlers and their caretakers in recognizing the developmental and health outcomes that come at this important age, especially for families living on low income and families of color. This week, Westside Baby is organizing diaper drives across the city, and a box will be left in reception for people to donate at City Hall on Tuesday. And if I could read from the proclamation.
Speaker 0: Please, the rules are suspended, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Whereas one in three families does not have a sufficient supply of clean diapers for their children. And children go through 6.
Speaker 1: To 12 diapers.
Speaker 4: A day. And a caretaker or parent may have to buy diapers for the first 2 to 3 years of their child's lives. And. Whereas, according to a report by the Council on Economic Advisors.
Speaker 1: Having a sufficient.
Speaker 4: Supply of diapers is a burden on one third of low income families and can account for 14% of a low income families. Income and an adequate supply of diapers can cost between $70 and $100 a month. And in order to afford this, 48% of families delay changing a diaper, putting infants and toddlers in discomfort, pain and at risk of skin infections. And. WHEREAS, the supply of diapers is generally an eligibility requirement for infants and toddlers to participate in child care programs and quality early education programs. And through the leadership of the Department of Education or Early Learning and other departments, the city strives to address health and developmental inequalities for communities of color and low income communities by investing in child care and early.
Speaker 3: Child care.
Speaker 4: Sorry, early childhood education programs. And. Whereas, there are currently no government assistance programs to help families with diapers and to the goal of collectively alleviating diaper need, the city of Seattle encourages citizens to donate generously to diaper banks, diaper drives and those organizations that distribute diapers to families in need. And Seattle is proud to be home of West Side Baby and other community organizations that recognize the importance of increasing the availability and access to diapers. Now, therefore, the Seattle City Council do hereby proclaim the week of September 23rd through September 29th, 2019, as Diaper Need Awareness Week. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The rules are. And we'd love to hear from anyone if they like to present.
Speaker 3: Do. Hello. My name is Sarah Cody Roth, and it is an honor to be here today to celebrate Diaper Need Awareness Week. I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Gonzalez and Mosqueda for making this possible and recognizing diaper need in the city of Seattle. It may come as a shock that 16% of families in the city of Seattle struggle to afford enough diapers for their families, for their children. In some communities within the city of Seattle, that number is as high as 75%. Three quarters of families in the communities of color in Seattle cannot afford enough clean diapers to keep their children safe and warm and dry. As was mentioned. Diapers are a critical, basic need during a child's early development. Not having enough clean diapers can impact a child's development, but it can also impact their parents ability to go to work. It can. We know from recent studies make it hard for up to three in five parents to go to work and have to miss work within a month because they don't have enough clean diapers to leave at daycare. We know that the ripple effects of diaper need stretch far beyond a single child, a parent. It goes to our entire communities health and economic well-being. And so it is an honor to be here and to be able to talk about and bring awareness to diaper need in our city and to be able to imagine together the ripple effects of ending diaper need in our city. West Side Baby believes that that is possible and we are so honored to have the partnership of the City of Seattle to be raising awareness of this critical issue. We look forward to continuing to work together. Thank you for having us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Which will be presented by council members sworn presenting a proclamation relating to standing with Kashmir. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. President Howell, I would like to read the proclamation and then offer it to our committee members. And they would like to say a few words.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Community members. I'm presenting a proclamation designating tomorrow, September 24th, 2019, to be a stand with Kashmir Day tomorrow. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will be presenting Indian Prime Minister Narendra modi with an award. And we hope that the city council and the city of Seattle as a whole will be standing up to say that this award is in the face of serious human rights abuses and serious issues taking place in India at the hands of the Modi led and Bharatiya Janata Party BJP led government. Modi has built a political career on racism, religious discrimination and scapegoating, and the various clauses of the proclamation will go more into it. But I just wanted to say very quickly the timing of this proclamation. Last month, the Modi government unilaterally ended any vestiges of Kashmiri independence, sending in thousands of troops in an occupation, closing communications in and out of the region, and arresting elected political leaders. Many South Asian activists and organizations in the Seattle region, some of whose representatives are here with us today and I thank them for it, have opposed the occupation of Kashmir and have objected to the Gates Foundation giving Modi this award in this context. And I want to say on a personal note, having grown up in Mumbai and having seen firsthand some of the destruction and violence and atrocities that are being carried out by the capitalist imperialist government like anywhere else, India is not unique. Let's not make Orientalist arguments about this, but the fact is that injustice anywhere is an obstacle to justice everywhere. And that is why it is important that we are all as South Asian community members in the Seattle region. Speaking out together, a proclamation from the Seattle City Council stand with Kashmir Day. Whereas the Seattle City Council supports democratic rights for all peoples in opposes religious and ethno nationalist discrimination. And. WHEREAS, the far right Bharatiya Janata Party BJP government of India's Prime Minister Narendra modi has been criticized for promoting violence against religious minorities, silencing dissent and actions which Prime Minister Modi, the nickname The Butcher of Gujarat, a reference to the 2002 massacre when Narendra modi was chief minister of the state of Gujarat, in which more than a thousand people were killed in anti-Muslim violence and many Muslim women were targeted for rape and other forms of sexual violence. And. Whereas, discrimination and violence against lower gas communities, particularly Dalits, has exacerbated under Prime Minister Modi's BJP government since they took power in 2014. And. Whereas, on August 12, 2019, the Modi led central government abrogated Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which had guaranteed Jammu and Kashmir status as a semi-autonomous Don Imus state and expanded military occupation of the state with thousands of troops. And. Whereas, Kashmir has been placed under communications lockdown and political leaders have been detained. And. WHEREAS, in August, India published an updated National Register of Citizens requiring nearly 2 million people, mostly Muslim, to prove their Indian citizenship or face detention at mass detention camps. The Indian government plans to build and deport. And. WHEREAS, The Gates Foundation, based in Seattle, announced plans to present Prime Minister Modi an award for the SWAT Bharat Abhiyan or Clean India mission on Tuesday, September 24, 2019. And. Whereas, Stand with Kashmir APA here Seattle, South Asians for Black Lives, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Pakistan Association of Greater Seattle, Sikhs for Justice and Voices for Freedom have opposed Modi receiving this award. And. WHEREAS, The City Council believes that the award is inconsistent with Seattle's status as an inclusive, open city that is welcome to Indian , Pakistani and Kashmiri communities of all colors and religions. Now, therefore, the Seattle City Council proclaims. Tuesday, September 24, 2019. Stand with Kashmir Day.
Speaker 0: Then again, the rules are still suspended. We'd love to hear from any guests receiving this proclamation. Thank you, Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 5: Closer. I. You see?
Speaker 0: Good afternoon.
Speaker 5: Hi. You have to excuse my very damaged vocal chords. Hours of protesting will do that to you. Well, these are words from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is completely counterintuitive. While we continue to read, watch and listen to the to the horrors that have been occurring in Kashmir for the past 51 days. The bill and that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation decision to give the fascist tyrant that is Narendra modi a humanitarian award makes less and less sense. As we all know, Modi is responsible for the recent deployment of tens of thousands of Indian troops into Kashmir, the siege of 8 million Kashmiris, and the recent detainment of over 40,000 young men and boys. How can an organization led by humanitarians give an award to such a man as our organization? Stand with Kashmir? Seattle receives this proclamation from the Seattle City Council. We continue to push the Gates Foundation to make the right decision and rescind the award that they will give Modi. We thank Councilwoman Sharma and the Seattle City Council for their efforts and support. Our chapter of San with Kashmir is ecstatic to see this day announced as a stand with Kashmir day. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Priya Nair. I am a community organizer at API here. I would like to read API hire is dedicated to supporting survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence. We take strong stands against the Indian military's use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Recognizing the intersections between interpersonal and state violence, API is dedicated to ending all forms of violence and oppression. In this context, we demand the Gates Foundation, not honor Narendra modi. Under his administration, the Indian government's stance against the foundation's core belief that all lives have equal value. His development work is overshadowed and undermined by injustice and violence against marginalized communities. I would like to thank. Council members from Iceland and the rest of the council for making this happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you. Councilmember Swan, in our proclamation will be presented by Councilmember Pacheco for a proclamation supporting Sandra Archibald. Councilwoman Pacheco.
Speaker 5: Oh, colleagues, I believe my office this morning during council briefing started passing that around. Dean Archibold is our Sandra Archibold is the dean of the UW Evans School and she is retiring. So I will be presenting it to her at her official retirement party later this week.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And it was presented, I believe, fully signed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. So at this time, we'll take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda or our introduction on Pro Calendar or our 2019 work program. We have about 30 pieces of legislation today, many of which have amendments which will require some discussion. We have three pages of sheets. And so unless there's objection from the dais, I'm going to take the comment period down to one minute so we could hear from as many people as possible. And I'll start off with Elizabeth Burton, who's first, and then Patience, who is second, and Alison Eisinger, this third one, two and three. And Patience, if you don't mind, you can come to this Mike and then Elizabeth, you can start in the middle and we'll keep both microphones in play here. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council members. Hello, I'm Dr..
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Burton, speaking on behalf of the Seattle chapter for People. People for Climate Action County Wide. Our organization has approximately 500 members.
Speaker 2: I'm here to testify about the heating oil ordinance, which we are in favor of.
Speaker 3: As Creditbloomberg has said.
Speaker 2: Our house is on fire. The climate crisis is an.
Speaker 3: Emergency, and in order to put it out, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. This ordinance is a necessary and appropriate step in that direction. It not only reduces carbon emissions, it does so in a way that helps our financially vulnerable citizens, those with the lowest incomes. For the sake of future civilization, Seattle's transition off of fossil fuels is not optional. We are mindful of the fact that that transition puts the jobs of people in the fossil fuel industry at risk. And we take that seriously. And we are pleased that this ordinance offers job retraining, support for oil service employees. We urge you to pass the ordinance as written with the fastest possible timeline. Do not water it down. We have no time to waste. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, council members. For the record, my name is Patience Malaba and I work with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle King County. Our 180 members work across the region towards our vision of ensuring that all people have access to safe, healthy and affordable homes. And I'm here today to speak in support of the appointment of the Office of Housing Director Emily Alvarado, who not only gets this vision, but has lived this vision through and through. And I must mention that she is part of the great HGC stuff alumni who are doing great things throughout the community. Emily is someone with a bold vision for housing. She has been in front of the biggest housing issues in the city and as the affordable housing community, we are thrilled to see this appointment and we ask you to move forward in voting to confirm Emily today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, patients. And in just one moment, let me call the next three speakers that will follow you. So that'd be like Chris Green La Chris, if you don't mind coming to our right, your left, Yvette, Dinesh and then Cyndi Lum the crease. Yvette and Cyndi. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council members. My name is Alison Eisinger. I'm the director of the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness. We educate, advocate and organize for safety, housing and justice and an end to the crisis, which, of course, means that we are deeply interested in who becomes the next director of the City of Seattle Office of Housing. So I'm here to speak in warm support of your confirmation of Emily Alvarado. Emily and I have known each other for about ten years, and I have the email trail to prove it. And I went back and looked at my emails and found all kinds of interesting subjects of dialog, just a few key reminders that I gleaned that I want to lift up here. She's very smart. She talks very fast. She knows how to listen. She is immersed in the details of policy and she will read you in. But you better listen fast. She is not intimidated all. And since it is the middle of the day at work and we are talking about serious things, I am just going to raise a symbolic cup of coffee. As a fellow New Yorker, Emily will recognize this. This is the New York City disposable coffee cup that says we are happy to serve you. I know that Emily will do her service for all the people of our city, including those who have no homes and whose needs have to be prioritized as we spend precious city dollars. And we are happy to work with you, Emily, as you do your service. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kind priests.
Speaker 2: Last week.
Speaker 3: The Latino man told you that our lives could be could grow at any time. And anyone with any judgment knows this to be true. Instead of declaring a day of mourning and fasting and begging God, our Creator, to give us back our Republic with liberty.
Speaker 2: Life, liberty and justice for all.
Speaker 3: As secured, you declared the council and the mayor declared a day of celebrate, a month long celebration, eat, drink and be merry for because the atheist who denies the existence of God and declares that life that we exist there, even the church children, the unborn life is at risk. While Rome burnt, Nero fiddled. May I please pray our Heavenly Father restored to us the Union, the justice and the domestic tranquility that was enjoyed by our own happen to all inhabitants in America. As Thomas Jefferson said, this is my petition and my request. In Jesus name, I pray.
Speaker 0: Amen. Okay. Following me. That will be Cindy and then William Clark.
Speaker 5: Greetings. Council President. Council Member. Today I'm advocating on behalf of the Detective Cookie Chess Park. You'll have to look that up because I don't have a minute to speak on this. Aaron is a project manager, so speak on that and Send is one of our intrepid volunteers. We want to we're asking because we know there's an excess marine sugar tax. Right. What better way to be invested into the community, which is the most diverse in the state as far as I'm concerned? Then in the Detective Cookie Chess Park, which offered an alternative to being on the streets in our community, we're asking for the order of 400,000 to complete the project because it has begun with dedicated a couple of summers ago by Mayor Mary. So with the excess sugar tax money and we know we're doing a budgeting process, we're asking you that instead of spending $500,000 on one public toilet, that you consider spending $400,000 to complete the detective cookie chess park in beautiful downtown Rainier Beach. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, this is for you. You need to be reminded of the demographics in the neighborhood. Maybe make this refresh your memory. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: And as I mentioned, I'm the project manager for the detective Cookie Chess Park. Our vision is to create a small pub.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I probably will start over now. Are you Cindy?
Speaker 3: I'm speaking for Cindy. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: Got it.
Speaker 3: So our vision is to create a small public park which can be played on Built-In Chess tables and a giant chessboard. Right in the heart of Rainier Beach. Our mission is to provide access to the empowering game of chess for youth and adults in Rainier Beach community, which is one of the communities in Seattle that is most affected by the soda tax. Chess has been proven to enhance, enhance academic performance and teach youth that and teach life skills to youth and that all actions have consequences. In closing, this park is ready to be built as soon as we can raise the money and the community is eager to start using it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: It's our.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Following William Clarke will be worn Arabic.
Speaker 5: In March, I saw a terrible thing happen. I live in a retirement place, a very nice furniture full of Quillen hill. And there's a sliver of a park. Maybe Seattle's Smarter Forest Park adjacent to our building. It's not across the street. It's on our block. I came down with a bag of groceries for some of these people living in tents, and there were three policemen and six Parks Department people putting on a theatrical. Displacement. Hmm. I promise you, it was theatrical. It was a terrible embarrassment to the people in the tents and to myself. I had no idea. How little compassion. Seattle. That is all of us. Have four people living in tents. I admit that they are largely. There. Because of mental illness. Which includes alcoholism. I spoke with the.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Clarke. And just wrap up, sir. Just go ahead and wrap up, if you don't mind.
Speaker 5: My suggestion is that we change the rules so that. Persons can use the parks with tents. Thank you. It will be very difficult.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Following Warren will be Shannon Ellis Brock.
Speaker 5: Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Warren Electric. I stand here to talk to you about council bill 119607 as your heat bill in the United States of America. Fossil fuels make are producing 63.5% of the electrical energy generated in Tacoma. There's only 3% produced by fossil fuels, 2% in Snohomish County, 2% in Seattle. And Puget Sound Energy is 59% by fossil fuels. Weatherization would reduce an 18% by the United States weatherization board. 18% efficiency gain by going into weatherization by generation, by natural gas is 39% efficient. Biodiesel is 32% efficient. It we're willing to take out 80% efficient furnaces and put in generation by fossil fuels to provide extra fossil fuels. In Friday's meeting with Council member O'Brien, Elinor was asked that Seattle have an ability to provide electrical energy. The answer was we have enough energy to provide it for the buildings that are coming online. It was never said that we have enough electrical energy to produce for all the stuff that we want to transfer over this stuff that we want to bring online all the cars, trucks, bikes, motor scooters or electric scooters and everything else . I believe our electrical energy that we're going to have to produce to accomplish this. The switch over on heating oil to start with natural gas is not far down the line. Is it going to be identified by the council committee that I think those abilities to produce that will be using primarily fossil fuels to do it. Thank you, sir. So just in the last thing to say that we could gain a lot more by reducing our amount of energy we use, then trying to figure out how to just eliminate one sector of it that's efficient.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Following Shannon. Well, I'll read a few names off after you. Go ahead, Shannon.
Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you. My name is Shannon Ellis Brock, and I am here today because the Northwest Energy Coalition asked me to come and speak. I had some reservations. I had to do some research. Here I am. I'm with Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union, and we have work with the city in the past on initiatives such as the Community Power Works. We work with Seattle City Light on their Dockless Heat Pump program, and we're in favor of the heating oil tax. I think a big concern is the middle income people, that people are worried that we'll miss the moderate income families. I just want to remind council and people that are opposing this, there are options available. I'm not here just to tell our credit union, but there are other financial institutions that offer low income financing options for people to switch from oil heat. Most of those programs include oil tank deep conversion at a really quickly because I have 10 seconds left. Based on the research I was given, it cost about $800 a month. With the new tax to heat a house with oil, a loan payment for a dockless heat pump is about $100 a month. So it's an energy is a cost savings to homeowners to do that. And again, this program is for everybody, low income, moderate income families.
Speaker 1: There's institutions like the credit union, others that are here to help. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So it was Shannon was our ninth speaker and out of around 30. And so we're not doing a very effective job of cutting off the mic at one minute because people are going over and I recognize it's tough to speak under a minute. I fully recognize this with Madam Clerk. I'm going to ask that so I don't have to be so heavy handed at one minute. In 10 seconds, just please turn off the mic. So you've been forewarned that the mic will be going off in one minute and 10 seconds. And so let's try to let's try to wrap it up earlier and we'll try to be a little more flexible. So having said that, Leah Missick will be followed by Rebecca saya. Leah Rebecca, then Alec CONAN.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon. I'm Liam MESSICK and I'm with Climate Solutions.
Speaker 1: I'm here to testify in support.
Speaker 3: Of the heating oil ordinance in Washington State. Greenhouse gas pollution stemming from buildings has been growing.
Speaker 1: Here in Seattle.
Speaker 3: Emissions from oil heating represent almost a fifth of carbon pollution from homes. Heating oil is a public health issue in Seattle. About a quarter of tanks are leaking and that number is increasing. Long term exposure to oil fumes can cause liver and kidney damage. Currently, making the switch to clean heating does include upfront costs, which is why we support that. Folks who meet income qualifications, including renters, will have their home upgrades fully covered and others.
Speaker 1: Will receive rebates.
Speaker 3: To make the switch. Heating oil is expensive. Once the cost of the switch is covered, people will have efficient clean heating at a much lower and stable utility cost. They'll also be eligible for more energy payment assistance and free weatherization services. I'm really glad this legislation allows for a just transition. Revenue is directed to workforce development, support for clean heating technology skills. This ordinance is well crafted and will reduce greenhouse gas pollution, improve public health and give folks the opportunity to have cleaner, cheaper heating. Thank you. This is how we need to address the climate crisis.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Rebecca will be followed by Alec and then Joel.
Speaker 3: Hi there. Rebecca Sayre of Infiniti Real Estate Development. And I was asked to come here to talk about the real estate perspective of the heating oil ordinance, which we support. Basically, the market is showing us that people want healthy homes. People spend 80 to 90% of their time in their home. And the particulates from oil, the dangers from spills, the challenges from renters who have to put, Heidi, often be the fillers of the tanks of heating oil. It's a burden. And buyers are wanting cleaner, healthier technologies. Builders are starting to build electric homes. This is a good, smart step forward for cutting our carbon emissions. It's a good 60. 80% is a good, healthy chunk of carbon emissions reductions. And it also puts us on the pathway to being a vibrant, healthy community for the long term. If we want to have homes that people want to live in, this is a really good step. So at that point, I will leave it at that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Falling off. One sec. Jo Wall, do you mind checking the other mike over here and you follow Alec.
Speaker 5: An afternoon canceled. Alec on in with 350 Seattle here today to urge you to please cast the strongest possible version of the oil heating tax ordinance. As I'm sure you know, on Friday, a conservative estimate of 10,000 people marched on city hall to demand bold and immediate climate action, and thousands of them were young people. I was involved partly in organizing that, and I was blown away by how many of those people were young people. And while I certainly can't speak for those 10,000 people, I don't think it's a wild thing to see that every single one of them would be deeply alarmed to find out that this council was considering delaying the implementation of this ordinance and that this Council had been asked to extend the deadline by which we would phase out climate wrecking health, damaging fossil fuels from our energy mix. So with that said, I'll just wrap up by saying please honor the youth leadership that we saw on Friday. Please honor our younger generation and pass the strongest possible version of this ordinance without delaying it by a single day. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you, Alec.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I came down here to give you my thoughts on the heating oil tax. I have a property that's heated with heating oil, and I found it to be a very reliable source of heat and easily maintained and cost effective for my tenants, which I pay the bill regardless of what the market price for oil is . I understand this bill came out of a report from the Bullard Foundation. They said, here's what we want you to do and you guys are doing it. A couple of things to think about is that this is a big world we live in. Oil exploration happens. It's going to come out of the ground. You can say we're not going to burn it in Seattle, but it will get mined. It will come out. Some alternative thoughts that you might look at is such things as requiring efficiency and you all. Fuel air mixture tests a kind of thing to get us to make sure that we're burning it at.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Joe. All right. Our next two speakers are the Honorable Michael Fuller sued Jewish Jurists and Shani Wheeler. The Honorable. And then Shani. Please proceed. The honorable.
Speaker 5: I have a problem with all of your telling. Honorable Maka Fuller Through Ijaws A New America one. Oh, America's in conflict. So this is a betray against our own forces who fought to make this country safe, free and secure. Sleeping on the street. But also and it's devastating to me. And yes, openly validated all three of three. No sanctuary of a criminal act. He got three or four Kate Plus and got 309. Enforcement of Sanctuary City Act and Violation of George H.W. Bush. White House President who signed into Law America with Disabilities Act July 26, 1990 in Section five of War Rehabilitation Act 1973, that's not being enforced would violate the Federal Funding Act of 2000. Also our First Amendment right to protest the equal protection of the 14th Amendment. Rights Amendment right. And. Due process, equal protection of our 14th Amendment right procedure, due process and substantive due process.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. But following.
Speaker 5: I'm tired of being sick and tired.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Following Shawnee will be. Sooraj Lobo.
Speaker 5: Changes. Just email me on watching the show.
Speaker 0: Is it on? It was turned off at the last.
Speaker 3: I know you're going to go. Good afternoon, president and members of the council. For the record, my name is Johnny Wheeler. I am the political director for Team Joint Council. But I'm not here to talk to you and that perspective or that hat. When I look at this policy and notice all of the zip codes in the surrounding areas, I think of my great grandfather who migrated from a little town called Mineola, Texas, which does not exist today. He grew up right outside of the plantation in which his parents were slaves on, but made his way to Seattle, Washington, and built what he thought was a working, middle class American dream. And that's in the Central District. And so when I'm looking at this policy, I don't see a win for climate justice. I see another way of Seattle, the gentrify Seattle and push our communities of color and our most vulnerable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Shirley.
Speaker 5: Greetings. City Council name Swaraj, Lobo and Progressive Comfort Solutions were a heating contractor in Seattle. I've been in the street for 20 years. I don't know if anybody else has worked with heating oil, but I challenge you to find two things. One, anybody who lives with heating oil quickly lives with heating oil. Who prefers that over anything else. And challenge you to find anybody who works with heating oil. And I have who enjoys that work. So I could speak to the environmental element one gallon of oil, cantaloupe, hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh water and aquifers, carbon and so forth. Let's just speak about jobs we're hiring. We can train anybody to do to install three pumps on the job pay training, full benefits. We're hiring. So if you guys have people looking for work, please send them our way. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Nina, Olivia, Nina. And then Steve Gelb. And then Tom Seymour. Nina, Steve and Tamar. Do I have any? Do I have a nina here? No. Yes, I. Nina. So Nina. Then Steve. And then Tom.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. Thank you so much. My name is Nino Olivier and I work for Progressive Comfort Solutions. I have just finished watching Greta's address to the UN United Nations world leaders. And I think and I meant excuse me, I'm addressing today's oil heating oil ordinance and we are for it. In Greta's words, we are running out of time. We need to address these issues of fossil fuel use here in Seattle. And this is a step forward. Like we like Suraj, my my my supervisor and company owner has just said this opportunity creates jobs and works to build communities in hopes to move towards an electrified greater Seattle away from the use of fossil fuels. I beg you to consider this ordinance and move forward with it. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Continue to.
Speaker 2: Steve. We have Steve Gelb and then is Tara. Tamar, who do.
Speaker 5: In.
Speaker 2: The. Hold on just a second, please. So what is your name? Sorry.
Speaker 5: Tamar.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's you, says Tamar.
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Susan Boyd and then Gerard.
Speaker 3: Mark, go ahead, please. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon. On Friday, millions of young people around the world and thousands here in Seattle told us they are mad and scared and disappointed in our lack of strong action to fight climate change and save the planet. They called on you, our leaders, to take action to give them a future. I'm Steve Kalb, chair of Shift Zero's Building Electrification Task Force. Shift Zero is an alliance of over 30 green building, energy efficiency and climate action organizations and businesses that have come together to support policies and programs that advance zero carbon buildings for all communities in Washington state. You have an opportunity today to take meaningful action in battling climate change by passing the heating oil legislation without amendments. This ordinance is a critical step in addressing carbon pollution and indoor air quality in Seattle homes. It's a model policy that creates an equitable pathway for homeowners to transition from outdated, unhealthy, inefficient and expensive oil heating systems to clean electric heat pumps powered by our carbon free electricity supply.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: I comma. Thank you. Then Susan Boyd, then Jerrod Moore.
Speaker 5: Awesome. Hello, Honorable City Council. I'm just here to speak on the necessity of passing the heating bill ordinance in the strongest possible terms. I was raised on Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and when I was a child, I was like, I saw firsthand some of the effects of how polluting oil heating can be. I will never forget when I went outside of our outside of our quarters and we turned on the faucets and brown and yellow water came out. It is clear, based off of the climate strike that happened recently, that we need to we need drastic action. And there is there's no way that we can we can delay on these types of on these types of ordinances. And I want to reiterate that we need to start thinking in terms of future generations of people who are going to come after us. And the future is in, you know, clean electricity and a future of well-paying jobs will follow suit. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you for coming. Come. Susan. Susan, then Jared.
Speaker 3: Hi there. Counsel, thank you for the time. My name is Susan Boyd. I'm the CEO of Bellwether Housing, and I'm here to give you my strong support for the appointment of Emily Alvarado as the director of the Office of Housing. Emily is one of the smartest people I know. She is singularly capable of understanding the real and perceived constraints around the problems we face in affordable housing and weaving through a new path to a solution that no one else has seen. She is able to do this because she listens. I have seen her in conversations with policymakers, community members and advocates. She hears what they need. She absorbs the wisdom they offer, and importantly, she hears what is not being said and is willing to name that also. She is, as you I'm sure know, a gifted translator of ideas. She understands the power of housing to transform lives and communities, and she knows how to convey this powerfully and persuasively to all kinds of people. Her energy and passion is infectious and her sheer hustle just her ability to get stuff done at times when everyone else thinks there's not another way around is inspiring. Great.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Susan. After Jared, we have Shankar and Julia Buck.
Speaker 3: Please.
Speaker 5: Thank you, council members, for having us here today. My name is Jared Moore. I've done security and privacy research at the University of Washington and an artificial intelligence research. And I'm here to talk about the Seattle surveillance ordinance, specifically the license plate readers and the CCTV, CCTV from Ascot. There are a number of amendments which I would like to speak in favor of today, in particular the Enforceability amendment. I think it's really important that Seattle, as a leader with this kind of ordinance, you know, paves the way for cities and countries around the world. I think that's why it's going to take a little bit longer that we're going to have a couple inches of text, as Councilmember Harrell talked about last time. And that in particular, we want to focus on the language saying that these things don't store information. The license plate readers in particular, it's just not accurate. They have to literally store information in order to process another car going down the road 5 minutes later. It's that sort of specificity of language that I and many other people would like to see in what we passed today. So thanks a bunch.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Shared. Shankar.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon, counsel. Shankar Narayan from ACLU of Washington seconding Jared's comments to support the strengthening of the amendments. Today, I'd like to remind the Council that this ordinance is really about protecting vulnerable communities from the impacts of technology, and that the technology we're talking about, license plate readers, is one where ICE has already come knocking on the doors of local jurisdictions to get that information for immigration purposes. And that technology, as used by was DOD is actually providing that exact same raw license plate data to a third party agency with no current agreement. So was could actually provide that information to ICE today and there would be no way to stop it. I'm not saying watch will do this, but I'd like to remind you also that our Department of Licensing said the exact same thing about their facial recognition system before it was actually used to run searches for immigration enforcement. So taking a trust us approach just won't cut it anymore. Please strengthen the amendments as much as you can. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Shankar. Please proceed.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon. My name is Julia and I'd like to encourage the council to pass the Healthy Homes Healthy Buildings Ordinance to help shift 18,000 homes currently on oil to electric heat. I did grow up in an oil heated reference and residence, and while I was a child at the time, I do remember the stress and excavation that was required when our oil tank sprung a leak. I care about both atmospheric carbon and about people's exposure to indoor air pollutants. So I'd love for everyone in Seattle to be able to enjoy the temperature, sensitivity, cleanliness and lower monthly bills that I've gotten through electric heat pumps. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. So unless there's objection, colleagues, I'm going to cut off public comment at this section. We got through most of them. We still didn't have a few more, but we have a very aggressive agenda. So I'd like to move into the next section of the agenda, which would be payment of the bills. So please read that section into the record.
Speaker 1: Police Constable 119 657 A property manager pays out of claims for the week of September 9th, 2000, 19 through September 13th, 2018, at ordering payment thereof.
Speaker 0: Moved to pass Council Bill 119657 so moved in second. Is the bill passed any questions that please got the roll on the passage of the bill whereas.
Speaker 1: All right let's get to O'Brien Pacheco so on by John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass the chair of Senate please read the agenda item number one the clerk file on the mayor's address.
Speaker 1: Agenda item one clerk file 314 433 Mayor Jenny Durkin's budget address on the 2020 budget.
Speaker 0: This is the. Formal procedure where we accepted the speech as we did. I don't anticipate that presenting problems. So at this point I'll move to accept. Stark file 3144, three, three. It's been moved in second that we accept the Clark file those in favor of accepting and filing the Clark file please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the Clark file has been accepted and filed, so we had some agenda reordering the recording of agenda items. So please read the first agenda item.
Speaker 1: From the amended agenda reported the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee Agenda Item five Council Vote 119 519 Relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2018 Surveillance Impact reports for the Seattle Department of Transportation's use of closed circuit television, traffic cameras and license plate Readers Committee recommends a vote pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Okay, so bear with me, colleagues, little bit. I know some of you have been following this very, very, almost religiously, and some of you have not had the opportunity to go in a deep dove, as others shall sort of walk us through it. This legislation. Let me back up by saying the first council bill, 119519 was the first bill in consideration for the requirements of the 2007 surveillance ordinance. And I think many of you in particular, Councilmember Gonzales and others, for the passage in the work, looking at the surveillance ordinance and what we're trying to do. And under our current system, the chief technology officer was required to compile a master list of surveillance. Surveillance technology used by city departments, basically do an inventory of everything we are using. And 29 technologies were identified in four departments, those departments being City Light, the Department of Transportation, the Fire Department and Seattle Police Department and so forth . The 29 technologies the department must prepare what we call a sur air surveillance impact report for each existing or proposed technology. To the extent there will be an acquisition that the project management team would you would use and the Air Surveillance Impact Report would be submitted for all retroactive technologies and newly proposed technology such that there is an open and transparent conversation on everything we're using and everything we may use in the future. And so this process, which is quite comprehensive, is a five step process. That's the initial draft of the air. And there you have the department drafting it, putting it out there for public consumption, all of the public reporting requirements listed in the surveillance ordinance. And then from there a fairly comprehensive public engagement piece where a public hearings, public meetings are scheduled in the department and the departments provide feedback with center staff, monitoring that to make sure that we are aware of what's going on. There is a community surveillance working group, that River that reviews the SLR, and they create what's called an impact assessment document addressing privacy and civil liberty concerns. And we want to thank the ACLU and Shanker in particular, for his leadership, being a strong member of the community surveillance group and and working on the impact assessment. And from there, the CTO, Syed Bashir, provides a response letter. It sort of memorializes the working groups concerns and there's sort of a process sitting down, if you will, a meeting of the minds to identify all of the privacy issues, the surveillance issue, the city's technological needs, identify all the issues that surface. And from there it is presented to the council. And that was done. That was been has been going on for quite some time. And I'd like to see the department say it's been a labor of love, but it's been quite resource intensive for several months, if not years. Today we're looking at two technologies, the use of traffic cameras that uses closed circuit television, CCTV and automated license plate readers. Recall those LP hours just by way of background. The lawyers have been there. Well, let me back up. The traffic cameras have been in use since 2000, for almost 19 years now, and the lawyers have been in use since 2007. And the traffic cameras, as an example, are used in almost every state in our country. So looking at these two technologies. And looking at the privacy needs that are that are addressed. You have what we're called SARS, presented to the council. We took a look at the SARS, and they were indeed treaties. They were maybe a few inches thick, if I'm not to embellish that. And there were there were a lot of resources and time and effort put in put into those SARS. It was at least the chair's opinion that that was helpful. But to some extent, we needed an executive report, if you will, a summation, a primer, whatever you want to call it, but a condensed report. And so that became known as the the Condensed Surveillance Impact Report to CSIR. And so those two documents for these two technology, one each for technology, the two SARS and to condense SARS became part of the package attached to the legislation. And the legislation self of course creates a private right of action that these are integrated documents. They all work together. And there was a what I'll call a negotiation process that was fairly involved, fairly in-depth, and it was the chairs. I don't think I have the power to order it, but to the extent I do, I ordered I use that term loosely that the department sit down with any privacy advocates and hash it out and then just try to wordsmith as much language as possible, but come up with a great document that we can be proud of to take to the Council. And that was done. And through that process, there originally 19 points that were raised, which were still in that area of we can't quite get there yet. And we went back to the table and central staff was at the table with the departments and the working group. And from those 19 points there are roughly about four points that were still somewhat of some disagreement. And it was the chair's opinion, I think, members of the committee's opinion that had raised significant legal issues that need to be addressed. And we need to talk about some of those legal issues in executive committee as would be appropriate when legal issues are raised. So from that process, I want to tell you that as we made several amendments at the committee table last week and all of those amendments that the chair accepted and were voted on and agreed to by the table are incorporated in what I will call amendment number 11. So Amendment number 11 addressed some concerns that Councilmember Herbold had raised and think Councilmember O'Brien had raised. And I think Councilmember Gonzales perhaps. But we came up with a package of amendments at the table and those were reviewed by law and accepted. And so we have. That suite of amendments ready to go. And we need a little time to harmonize those changes with the base legislation and the SIRC since they were changes to the CCR started using the sacraments and that is ready. So if we are to consider that amendment number 11, that encompasses the amendments made at the table. The legislation would be ripe to vote on today. Councilmember O'Brien has a series of amendments, and I'll relinquish the microphone to Councilmember O'Brien in a second. Councilwoman Bryant has some amendments that, if accepted, we would still need one more week to harmonize the CSI hours with the sewers. And so my encompassing amendment would wait. And so it would be inappropriate me to do that until I see where we come out on the amendments. Now, let me say before Councilman O'Brien proposes his amendments, that I'm not sure exactly how many there are, but I think there are four. And. And I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's because he's got the the oil heating legislation as well as he's been working on feverishly. He's been really working hard these last several weeks. So I sincerely appreciate the efforts put into what he's trying to do this with this surveillance ordinance. But I will tell you that I come out not supporting them, not so much. Because of the substance is bad policy. In fact, I don't think the substance changes a lot, but there was a process that was done. And and we're looking at two technologies of 29. And this process to me, is fundamental. And doing this right as a city in that process was to make sure that ACLU and Shanker in particular, because of his expertize in this area, really crafted and wordsmiths a piece of legislation that's a healthy process as a public process. And that was done. And my impression now is that that was sort of a deal, and that's how we're going to have to move forward when working with communities and the language. Now, that is, in my understanding, was agreed upon during that process by Shankar and others is what we are revisiting now. And one could argue that's still part of the process. But I will tell you, with 27 more technologies to go, that will erode the city's ability to come up with meaningful policy, because we could wordsmith this forever. And I will share with you that these two technologies, one have been around for 19 years, one for 12 years , that this is a retroactive view. And if we are to negotiate with communities and and experts and come up with agreed upon language and let's have a good process and so forth, so that's my record. On looking at these amendments somewhat biased because we've been working on this so feverishly and I've asked two departments to step up big and they stepped up big. I believe their hearts, their minds and their intellect were in the right position. This is one of the best surveillance ordinances known to this country, and I think it's ready to be voted on. So having said that comes from Bryan, you still, I'm sure, would like to walk through some amendments and the chair would entertain them. Madam Clerk, I'm not sure which ones. I have to suspend the rules on which ones are right, because all of them so. Except for mine. So we won't have to suspend the rules in mine because I did it the right way, by the way. But in all seriousness, if there's no objection to suspend the rules, rules we you hear from council member O'Brien. You know, Jackson customer in Brown. You have the floor.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President. Just in opening remarks, I, I appreciate your opening remarks and the process you've laid out here. And I fully respect, you know, where you are and my amendments. You have led a very intense and thoughtful and thorough process to date. And yet here I am still proposing amendments. But I hope you and others don't see that as criticism of this process. As I have dug into this and I appreciate the acknowledgment of of the past few weeks really trying to understand this and even some of the stuff we heard in public comment today. It is complex. And late last night, as I was working on this and discussing it with with my wife and a friend of hers. It was immediately the conversation turned to how complex this stuff is and what do we do about technology and where is it going? And it's changing so fast. And what are people doing with our data?
Speaker 5: And I.
Speaker 7: I don't know. How is government we are going to. I don't yet know. How is government? We are going to act adequately, manage all the data that we're capable of capturing. And I think the process you've run so far on two technologies is outstanding. It was extremely time consuming and these are two of the easier ones. And I think we have a lot of work to do to figure out how we adequately safeguard this field that is constantly evolving and it has critical implications to the things that I think we share on this floor. And so I see this as the work you've done to date, including the amendments that I propose as an opportunity to pause and learn what we learned so far. But this is something that I think is going to be constantly evolving as we go forward with that. Colleagues, there are you should have four separate amendments that are on the what I'll call the salmon colored pieces of paper, the mirror, the four yellow ones that were handed out in a timely fashion. But there were minor changes that are one significant, three minor changes that had to happen, maybe two significant, two minor changes that had to happen. And it came after time. So thank you for suspending the rule so I can consider those. I'm going to walk through them in the order of the amendments. And so the first one I have is numbered Amendment five. So it says proposed Amendment five to Council Bill 119519 version to a this the document in front of you outlines nine different things they would change. These are things that last week had been reviewed by the departments and there was and I want to be careful not to mischaracterize anybody. But my take was there was kind of broad consensus from from our start in general that these would be consistent and allow them to do what they wanted to do. Council President And the second time I could walk through all nine of these pieces in attempt to clarify, I'm not sure that I will be able to clarify everything because it's somewhat technical. Or I could just take questions from people if they wanted me to walk through a specific item or over another. So I mentioned that it's on the salmon colored if you're looking at the top and perhaps maybe you printed it out without on color. It's dated 923, 2019, and it says V2 behind that date in the header. Just to be clear that when we discuss this and vote on it, we all know we're voting on the same thing.
Speaker 0: So the question is whether we take questions. We just want Councilmember O'Brien to sort of plow through. I'm.
Speaker 7: I can move swiftly if you'd like to do.
Speaker 0: I'd like you to move swiftly. And because I had a question on a few of them. So why don't you talk about what we're trying to do on this amendment?
Speaker 7: And I'm going to largely read from from the items, but I'll move swiftly. So first with this, this is these are all the changes that are incorporated in Amendment five. So to establish that closed circuit TV can only be used for the purposes outlined in Section 1.2, which is to monitor general traffic conditions on public rights of way traffic conditions after an unplanned incident in traffic conditions impacted by a planned event. It also says a closed circuit TV cannot be used in conjunction with facial recognition or lights license plate reader technology.
Speaker 0: I'm going to stop at number two. Since we have suspended the rules, I will ask, we may not need it. Both Greg and Lisa. This at least sit at the table in case some questions come up. I'll stop you in point number two, because this is why I'm not supporting this particular amendment. This this is an example. And number two, there's certainly not I would agree with number two where it says CCTV cannot be used in conjunction with physical facial recognition or license plate reader technology. I agree with that point. So why would I oppose it? If you look at and I don't expect you turn to the page, if you look at the SLR, which is a governing document, 4.2, it clearly states that, well, let me back up in the director's assessment of the technology. It clearly says and I'll read you that. The language in the report, it says. Facial recognition technology is not in use at the Department of Transportation. Should it be considered in the future? The surveillance ordinance specifies that any material or substantial changes to the current camera technology will be subject to the surveillance ordinance and require another SBIR process. So, I mean, just tell you what that says in the document already, that they're not using it and should they use it, another SAR would be triggered. So when I see that and there are other sections 4.2 in the OCR and page 23 which clearly says exactly what this technology is to be used for. Which is our commitment to use it only for those purposes that says these systems are built strictly for this purpose and no information about the plates that are captured to create travel times is stored or used for other purposes. Now, that language was agreed upon during this first cut, if you will, because we wanted to make it clear that is not to be used. And if it is to be used in another way, another SDR is created. So I'm using number two as an example of it's both redundant and necessary, and there are some other issues embedded in some of these that quite candidly. We've presented to you and negotiated a deal. Okay. So you could go with number. You could either rebut number two or go with number three.
Speaker 7: And I'll just state I don't disagree with anything you said. Council President Harold, the, the the essay itself is quite an extensive document. And my interest in putting this in the the condensed essay are, which is just a six page document is to highlight to make sure that for folks that are trying to track this in the public, they may not be able to find the language that you found. And I think facial recognition software is a critically important piece of what we're doing. Again, I agree with what you said, that this doesn't add it. It was already part of it, but the highlight in the condensed version, so that it is clear that someone who may have time to read a six page document but not a multi 100 page document, would be able to pull that out immediately. So I'll keep moving through this. Number three clarifies it closer to TV, maybe use for traffic, continuing studies images used for social media traffic updates and training materials, which are all current practices at our site. The fourth thing it does, it authorizes longer retention of still images used for training for social media traffic updates. Just to add, again, the intent is we don't take still images from these closed circuit TV cameras, but occasionally they will use still images, take a still image of it to post on, say, a Twitter feed that says there's an accident at this corner and show an image of it. That photo then would live on Twitter for a little longer, so it allows that to happen. Number five, under data minimization retention, which is section 3.2, it clarifies that the line items A through C or the only purposes for which the system can be used, which is live stream stream feed of current traffic conditions, recorded video traffic or for engineering studies or still images. Traffic conditions use and training materials are included in social media updates. It restrict social media updates to the subject of traffic only. It also requires written approval of each incidents of recording and retention, of instance of recording, and that we retain that for ten years, which is the existing city policy . Written approval is required for the for the recording of still images and the potential posting of social media annually. So again, if someone needs to record part of this closed circuit TV for a traffic engineering study, they would need to get written approval to record it. They could give blanket approval to make on an annual basis to take still images for from the closed circuit TV to use for social media so that every time someone wants to snap a picture for a Twitter account, they need to go to a written approval. So that would be a once a year and we give the guidelines for that. But for the other studies we need on a case by case basis, written approval. Let's keep going.
Speaker 0: We're. You're talking about Amendment five, still correct?
Speaker 7: Correct. I'm talking about number seven on Amendment five.
Speaker 0: So it's just let's go. Just stop it. Number go eight, nine for anybody. That would just take that by saying that things catch my breath.
Speaker 7: And so then the last two restricts operation of closed circuit TV to users who have undergone SDI training, including the handling and deletion of data. Again, making sure the folks that are using this have been trained on it and then requires live stream broadcasts to be consistent with the condensed air. I am by no means nearly an expert as either Greg or Lisa, and so it's probably appropriate for my colleagues to confirm with them that what I read was not misinterpreted or misleading at all. Or maybe there's something that we need to be clarified. I want to just make sure we're open to that.
Speaker 0: So as Councilmember O'Brien described all of amendment number five. Did you see something? I'm sure does.
Speaker 8: No, I was answering. Councilmember O'Brien, we don't have any comment. He read it accurately.
Speaker 0: Okay. So this is why I oppose this amendment, and I'll just take a vote in. And since we have other. We have a busy day. Some questions or if clarifying questions. Let me comment on this, since I'm the. Well, one would take your questions. First, I'm fine.
Speaker 4: I wasn't sure what order you wanted to go to, but didn't want to miss the opportunity to ask some questions here as as the the original sponsor of the surveillance technology ordinance. I just want to get some clarification on this proposed amendment. And this answer is probably or this question is probably applicable to all of the proposed amendments that we have here, particularly as it relates to the condensed SARS. But in terms of what is represented on proposed Amendment five to this Council bill, is anything are any of the specific changes that are articulated in the amendment not included in the underlying sir.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Gahanna is okay for council staff. We haven't done a point by point comparison and we expect that there would need to be some amendment, some revisions made just to harmonize it. Okay.
Speaker 4: So my understanding of how this has been described, both in council briefing and on the dais, is that the condensed ACR is intended to be, in effect, an executive summary of the contents of the survey. Did I hear the intent incorrectly, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: No, that's that's my understanding, too.
Speaker 4: So ordinarily, executive summaries would would be completely 100% aligned with whatever the content is in the underlying document. So I'm now hearing from council central staff that that may not be the case and that there may be new requirements in the condensed ACR that are not actually reflected in the ESA.
Speaker 7: Correct in my if I may, my attempt here was that to focus on amending the six page document and then the SLR, which is hundreds of pages, with the understanding that as we make changes to the condensed version, it will require similar changes in the ACR. And again, I think the SARS. So the the and as Council President Harold said, if we do adopt, I think any of my amendments, we would not be able to vote on this to attach to the SARS, because that will require some changes. My understanding is that the departments have been tracking closely the proposed changes in the CCAR and I believe have an awareness of the things that need to be changed in the SARS. And what I've heard is it would just take them a couple of days to make those changes. But I, I am barely have my head around the complexity of the six page document. I definitely cannot personally speak to the complexity in the multi-hundred page document.
Speaker 4: So I mean, I think setting aside the complexities of each document, I think where my line of questioning is coming from is I'm concerned that we're using the condensed SARS, which were not envisioned or imagined or even. Articulated in the underlying surveillance technology audience that were using this additional tool to amend the underlying asset are thereby creating some potential conflict between a condensed SARS and the underlying SARS. And so what I'm hearing now is that that is actually true. We are creating conflict through adoption of these amendments with the underlying SARS.
Speaker 7: I think if we adopt these at the moment, there will be conflict again and won't be passed or adopted yet. My understanding in talking to folks who will be doing that work is they are prepared to reconcile those and have it be resolved within a week so that those conflicts would go away.
Speaker 4: And while I understand that and I appreciate that, I think where my concern is is that we're we're we're. We're effectively creating two different tools and multiple bites at the apple to modify the essay are in the essay are supposed to be the underlying document that is legally binding on the departments. And so I think it's inconsistent that that effect is in my mind appears to be inconsistent with the description of the condensed as they are and the intent, which is that it's for a couple of purposes, one, primarily for readability, so that if somebody from the street wanted to review Assayas, they could easily and identify the information and the obligations and the duties and responsibilities and then and and to to be effectively an executive summary of the underlying ACR, which is hundreds and could be up to hundreds of pages depending on the technology. So I guess I'm not I'm I'm, I'm, I'm having difficulty reconciling how your intent, which as described appears to be sort of. More technical in nature is actually not extremely substantive in nature in terms of actually modifying the NASA's. And I suppose there are lots of ways to meet the stated goals and purposes that you've described, including requiring the departments to make a more readable document of the underlying SSR and post that publicly so that people understand the rules of the game as it relates to whatever technology that they are using, as opposed to making substantive changes via a condensed SLR to as substantive as they are.
Speaker 7: So I think if I hear you correctly, your preference would be or would have been for me to be making amendments to the SARS document at this point, not the CSIR.
Speaker 4: Right. I mean.
Speaker 7: Substantive. I think Council President Harold raised that one. There was simply pulling language from the air, simplifying and putting in the CSIRO. That may have been an appropriate amendment to this and I acknowledge I did not I chose not to go into the as they are and amend it. But if that is in the future, how the Council should be weighing in on amending this technologies to go through that, I think that's something for us to think through and I'm certainly open to that. I'm not sure that I personally will be the one doing that because of my timing here.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I mean, I do think that that again, this is the first two technologies out of a list of dozens of technologies that that a city council perhaps not this city council will have to consider. And we are setting precedent in terms of how we are going to set up our process and how we're going to evaluate these these complex technologies and these complex policy issues. And in my mind and my understanding, the underlying answers are legally binding documents, and they have been incorporated into the ordinance at this point. And I think that the appropriate place to make these types of amendments are in the underlying C.R. and if we are truly interested in making those seers accessible and digestible and understandable to the general public, then we need to impose that requirement upon the agencies utilizing those technologies to do so rather than using, you know, condensed layers which are purported to be executive summaries as the place to do a mandatory work to the underlying science. Which leads me to my last question, which is are the condensed SARS also incorporated into the ordinance, or are these just separate and apart?
Speaker 8: Councilmember The condensed SARS would be attached to the ordinance and incorporated by reference same as the regular SARS.
Speaker 4: So now we have an easier to track compliance with and we have a condensed as are to track compliance with.
Speaker 8: That's correct. And if any of Councilmember O'Brien's amendments passed today, you would not vote on the bill. You would give a week or so to the departments to be able to bring those things into harmony. And then next week you could pass it with all of them being in sync.
Speaker 4: So. So I think I've articulated what my concerns are so far. I mean, I really do think we have an opportunity to set up a process that is clean and crisp here. And I and I don't say that to insult the process that you have undergone. Council President. I just am concerned that we're going to be creating two parallel documents that that in the future could be read in conflict and in thereby inadvertently create a situation where the city will be found liable or out of compliance with a surveillance technology ordinance, even though it had a meaningful, good faith intent to comply with a surveillance technology ordinance. Just based on this virtue that there are now two documents that that may be similar but not exact in terms of the language and the requirements upon upon the agency. So I'm I'm I'm struggling with with that reality if these amendments were to pass today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Gonzales, you've actually described why I don't support these amendments. And in all due respect, Councilman Brian is are raising some some some great issues. These issues were raised and the SBIR was a 141 page document, 141 page document that I didn't describe in my introductory remarks. It has a very significant racial equity tool kit component and engagement and public process component, fiscal impacts, opponent questions to the city about what happens if employees or the departments misuse the technology? What happens to underrepresented communities if they are unfairly targeted or there's a disparate impact that 141 page document. It's a lot for the layperson just to sit there and read unless they ran out of good novels to read or something. And we then said, Well, let's condense it analysis CSIR. And again, as the chair trying to shepherd this legislation through. I want. I asked, are there any inconsistencies? We're talking about if one supersedes the other. There were to date, there were no inconsistencies. Can language be improved? Of course, in 141 page document, that could always be improved. But it's important that with the traffic camera technology, as example, that's why I preface by saying we've been using this for 19 years, we do not record. I mean, that was I think one person test testified about how there is some recording. But if you look at the use of this technology, again, camera views are masked for event viewing documents in in buildings. The staff are trained and as part of their requirements not to zoom in on individuals or license plates, we share the information with another agency. And when it is recorded in certain let's say there's a traffic study as an example, it is permanently deleted within ten days. These are conditions in the air that we must comply with. If we violate those conditions, we're subject to a private right of action, which again is unprecedented. So I see these. Amendments to the CSIR as being unnecessary and again, late for for lack of a better description. Sure. Anyway. So I'm ready to actually take a vote on amendment number five unless Councilmember Bryan wanted to describe it a little more. He went through the nine. But Casper and Bryan, did you want to say any more about an amendment or just talk about amendment number five at this point?
Speaker 7: No, I'll just you know, I'll apologize to colleagues if if I should have been trying to amend the SA instead of the CSIR, my understanding was this was the appropriate process to do it, but it sounds like there are some concerns about the strategy I used and I didn't intend to circumvent the process. I was just trying to get my policy things in there.
Speaker 0: So yeah, and I appreciate the apology, but. You're making an argument, I'm sure, carrying the water for somebody. And those arguments were made months ago in central staff. You can talk about your process. You did. To get us to date ready to vote. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we revisiting issues that were conceded earlier in the process?
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 0: I was just guest to counter such that to respond to.
Speaker 8: That many of them. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great cast member and I do people in queue.
Speaker 7: I do think that some of these things is bringing language from one place to another and we can argue whether that adds any value or not. But there are other things, such as the requirement of written approval for someone recording the CCTV or taking still images from it. And that may have been discussed and it may have been agreed to, but I think that's an important policy decision for us to make as a council. And I feel strongly that if someone is going to deviate from the norm or we're not recording it and do record it, there should be a written record of approval to do that and that should be saved. And so if I should have done that in the essay instead of the CSIR, we should get clarity for how people make that. But I don't think these are meant to come to the council just to be rubber stamped. I think there is an opportunity for us to have a final influence on some policy decisions, and that's a few of the pieces that I'm trying to do in this piece.
Speaker 0: Council member. Herbal? No, I didn't know which one. First cancer herbal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess it is it for me. It's less about. And I appreciate for the council members who have worked really hard on this, Councilmember Gonzalez, as as it relates to the overarching legislation in Councilmember Harrell as it relates to this particular body of work. But I'm in so I'm less concerned about the process piece of this and what order we should do things. And I am a little confused about the intent and what we're accomplishing. I was under the impression last week when we talked about these amendments in principle that the goal was to address a concern that the CSI hours were opening up this technology in ways that the SARS weren't and. Logically, it seems to me that if that was the case, we wouldn't need to go back and amend the stories because we would be these these amendments would simply be restating in a condensed form what the sabers already say.
Speaker 3: So if the goal.
Speaker 4: Is to make sure that the seizures do not broaden the ability to use the CCTV as as that's what I was under. That was what my understanding was. The goal is to make sure that the ability to use those cameras is not broadened beyond what was contemplated in the sale as they are. I'm not sure I understand why, after passing this amendment, we would need to go back and amend the SLR.
Speaker 7: So I think there's a couple different perspectives on this because it's new and we haven't been through the process. And so I think there's a lot of folks, including myself, trying to envision how this will be used and what happens. So I've heard people argue that because the language in the condensed SDR is condensed, and so it summarizes things. If someone were to just read that, it may not have the level of detail that says what you can and can't do. And so there's a fear that, no, you need to add more detail to this. So for instance, as Council President Harrell talked about that you can't use facial recognition software that is spoken of elsewhere in the ACR. But there's a sense, there's a fear that without that it feels like this is too broad or opening it back up to the concern you had. There are other places, like I mentioned, with getting written approval. That is actually a policy shift from what's in the document and we need to get reconciled and that's intentional. I just you know, I'm choosing the path that I thought was what we were going on. But we haven't we haven't laid out like a whole protocol for how we should amend CSA hours and hours of the council. And so we're kind of living through that as we go.
Speaker 0: Gaspar Pacheco.
Speaker 5: I was just going to call the question.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a request to get on with the other 29 items on our agenda sooner or later. Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 6: Well, great. Do I get to speak? Yes. Amazing. Okay. I will go very short. I will go very briefly. Number one, I want to thank the council president for your work, to make sure that all these issues were raised in committee and central staff, really, for putting together sort of the matrix of the various issues that we are considering today and considered at the table. And a lot of work has gone into this. And also for folks at the ACLU, that crosswalk to me was very helpful. One of the things that I did with that on Thursday and Friday last week was to look through what items are sort of legally okay and what items are potentially challenging but not impossible to implement administratively. And I tried to identify where there was harmony between what was legally okay and implementable and support some of those efforts. And I think in this amendment specifically, there are items in there that we discussed that you're at the council presidents committee and I think are important for clarifying the intent here. So I agree that maybe there's some confusion about where it should be clarified and how we harmonize those documents. And my real effort here is to make sure that there's no confusion out there. One of the things that was raised at the table was a good example of how these closed circuit televisions, while tracking traffic issues may be used unintentionally by us, the city, to do things that we would never support. And they're one good example that I gave is escort. And Seattle Police Department had been working to provide safe areas for people to have a one day strike on Broadway a few weeks ago. That's an important effort that workers should have the right to do. I would hate for that information, even though it's never going to be recorded by the city, to be displayed on a monitor and have an employer record that and then use that to intimidate workers, for example, which is also not legal. But we want to make sure that we've protected our city in every way possible. And so there are some areas in there that I think we amended in your committee. I saw this. This amendment here was really elevating those pieces and creating greater harmony. I wanted to support it. And if this is not the right place to do that, perhaps we continue to work on it. But my intention was really to create that clarity while it might not be legally required. I thought it was a nice, helpful way to articulate the true intent of these technologies. So there was no ambiguity in the public. And I appreciate your ongoing entertainment of this conversation, Mr. President, but that's why I was going to be supportive.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. So thanks for the discussion on. We're just voting on amendment number five. Okay. Just to be clear, any more discussion, just amendment number five. So Councilmember O'Brien has made the motion to amendment. I think actually we.
Speaker 7: Haven't moved in such a move amendment. All move Amendment five is described on the salmon sheet, which has the date 923, 2019 and v2 after it.
Speaker 0: Again and councilman risk mitigated second. So I'm going to do a voice vote and just raise your hands so the clerk could get it. All those in favor of amendment number five. Say I and raise your hand, I. One to all those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. Yes. Okay. So that one failed. So we're going to move to amendment number four. I'm sorry. Number four, let's yeah, let's go backwards because we're going to go to is amendment number six six. So that's on salmon colored as well. Correct. Comes from Brown?
Speaker 7: That's correct. And his version, too. Not everyone printed on the same color page. So just want to be clearer. Clear their colleagues. I'll try to streamline this. This is a similar set of amendments, at least a similar theme as to the one we just turned down. Except it's for the other technology, the license plate reader technology. I'll walk through it really quickly, if that's okay. There's only six items to discuss. One is it clarifies the purpose and allowable uses of license plate reader data and the resultant travel time information. It restricts the use of all license plate reader data and not just data that includes license plate numbers. It prohibits the use of a license plate reader system to collect images of vehicles or occupants. It prohibits Ascot from providing data collected by the state of the art transportation license plate reader system to entities other than watchdog. It makes it explicit that Watchdog does not have access to the state license plate reader system, and it also restricts our state sharing of LPR data only to washed out for travel time purposes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. And and I'll just respond, is the one of the proposal based legislation, the reason I'm not supporting this amendment is for pretty much the same reason I talked about earlier in the essay. And what we're trying to accomplish is very important, I think, to understand in the same way that our state is never in position, really possession of the images that first of all, the technology by its very nature doesn't capture all of the license plate, the capture of between 5 to 10%. As they move into view, the images are simply sent to watch Dot and the softer reads the plate number and as a timestamp that compares to time stands to match it on a plate in order for us to get the the reports that are generated and looking at travel time. So the department made it crystal clear the technology cannot be used for enforcement. We don't keep this data and we're trying to get traffic reports from it. And I believe that the proposed amendment by the maker is captured adequately in the ACR and again was thoroughly examined earlier in the process. Any other discussion on the amendment? Any questions? Okay. So I just want to. Councilmember Gonzalez, I.
Speaker 4: Just want to confirm the same sort of line of questioning I had in the first place. Is this effectively attempting to amend the C.R. or is this carbon copy? Nothing new here in terms of requirements, duties and obligations as reflected in the ESA.
Speaker 8: This issue is addressed in the OCR and the ARE and it is an issue where the department has outlined practice about the data that they capture. They have said that they capture raw data to include a timestamp, a station identifier, a camera channel, an alphanumeric plate string and a confidence factor. Most of those things, I don't know what they are, but what the amendment would do is say that Estcourt could capture those things and only those things. So if there was a another piece of data that the LPR wanted to capture, then it would have to be brought before you all in a new C.R.. However, that would be the case anyways because of the underlying surveillance ordinance. If there was any substantive change to any of the hours, they have to come before you again.
Speaker 4: Right. So capturing different kinds of information that go outside of what you just described that would be considered a material change that would require asked to come back to the city council to amend the ACR anyhow.
Speaker 8: That's correct. So that this is this this language is is helpful from a clarification and from a reader standpoint. But the reality of it is that the underlying ordinance protects against this anyway.
Speaker 4: No, no need to amend the C.R. if this passes.
Speaker 8: Well, it uses the language only. And as I've said before, if there were any other data captured besides whatever thoughts already listed, they would have to come ask you. So I would say that this is not legally necessary.
Speaker 0: That's very well.
Speaker 4: Understood that you're saying this is not legally necessary. My question, though, is, is would passage of this amendment require us to go back and amend the C.R.?
Speaker 8: Oh, thank you. I think the agency would still want to bring it into harmony. They would probably would take that only language and put it in the air. Does it require it? I would have to let the I would have to ask the attorneys at.
Speaker 0: Okay. So did you make the motion for Emily Casper and Brian for Amendment number six?
Speaker 7: I will move what's listed as proposed Amendment six with the date 1923, 2019, version two as discussed.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: So moved and second amendment number six has been moved in second. All those in favor say I and raise your hand.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. That's okay. So we're going to go to Amendment number seven on that. What was it, madam? I was asked what the countless in my book. 4 to 5. Okay. Number seven. Councilmember O'Brien, walk us through number seven, please.
Speaker 7: So this amendment and the next amendment are not a suite of amendments, but actually a single amendment, and they do relate to a policy amendment seven. Just for folks following, again, it's also on the salmon record, on the salmon colored paper. But at the top it has today's date, 923, 2019 and a V to buy it. So source version two. This this is about the license plate reader data and the requirement. Oh, sorry. No, that's the one. This is about the license plate reader. And that makes it explicit that that will not be used, made available in response to civil or criminal enforcement purposes, except as provided by a superseding judicial warrant to me. The language you saw earlier today was more broad. And the concern that was raised, which I share, is language that simply says I'm going to pull up my yellow version from this morning. I'm saying give it to someone so I don't have it in front of me. Would be had said except as prohibited by law without the technical reality that this data is being collected by people that for the most part aren't lawyers. And the concern is that if someone like ICE were to approach someone and say, hey, I'm a federal agent, I need you to hand this over, and federal law says you have to give it to me. How are they going to interpret and what do they do? And I'm worried that that language that is vague or broad would allow that to happen in cases that we don't want it to happen. I both want to acknowledge that the potentially hypothetical nature of these scenarios and it's hard to walk down all those hypothetical scenarios. And at the same time, there are enough examples in today's world where these types of transactions are happening and that maybe in the case where there's an employee somewhere who feels strongly that they want to share information and this gives them the cover to do that, or someone that's just not an expert on it. And so, again, this is the the language that I think is narrowly tailored to say the only conditions under which this information can be shared and used for civil or criminal enforcement purposes.
Speaker 0: Fran Gonzalez, thank you.
Speaker 4: I see this amendment as more than just an amendment to the underlying SLR via the condensed, as I actually see this as a potential amendment to the underlying ordinance where this issue around warrants and what kind of warrants would merit or require an agency to share data or information gathered through technologies approved by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and through the searches. We had had a very long conversation in the original drafting of the surveillance technology ordinance around sort of around this burden of proof or requirement of when that information or data should be shared originally. So I'm not going to support this amendment because I see it as frankly not. I see it as going back into the surveillance technology ordinance and actually underlying amending or attempting to amend the underlying warrant requirements around when agencies are intended to share information that may have been captured with law enforcement or for other purposes via this particular language. And that that is very that to me is a different policy conversation. If we want to amend the surveillance technology ordinance to modify that standard or to, you know, change our obligations somehow in terms of how we respond to judicial warrants, then we should have that conversation.
Speaker 0: Okay. So and I opposed it as well. Then I just want to go back to the technology again and I understand the the hypothetical concerns, but in the NCR, we make it very clear we we we don't use it for enforcement. It's never used for enforcement. We don't we're not in possession of the LPR images. We are not in possession of it. We transfer 5 to 10% of the reads with some competency level and we get information back. And the department has stated that as its exclusive use of the document so the of the technology so in there but consumer brands you won't see one closing word on.
Speaker 7: This I concur that we're clear that the city will not be using this enforcement. This language is specifically that we do not hand it over to someone else to use it for civil or criminal enforcement purposes. And that's the distinction.
Speaker 0: Very good distinction. And I don't know when we are obligating that it's not to be used by a third party that we have another kind of control over. We want I don't know if that would be a liability we would want to assume in our ordinance. And so it's been moved and. Yeah. Do you want to say something, sir? I'm sorry, I'm trying to. We're good.
Speaker 4: I'd love to hear what comes from Gonzales has to say about that. This is pretty. If we're if we're setting new policy that was debated in the underlying surveillance ordinance, I really want to defer to the prime sponsor of that bill to hear her concerns. Yeah, if I could just add to that. I mean, I think we again, another another policy discussion and decision point that we made in the underlying ordinance was was the question around whether or not we should require third parties or outside parties to comply with the restrictions and requirements and legal mandates of our surveillance technology ordinance. In the debate around that particular question, this Council decided to not to to to only make sure that those rules are applying to what we control and how we can use the data. Now, there are situations that are reasonable. Largely, we heard from from the Seattle Police Department and some other agencies where we receive legitimate judicial warrants for purposes of public safety reasons. And the question became, are those agencies responsible for handing over that information if we possess it, not what other agencies might be doing with that data or information, but what do we have in our possession and what are our legal obligations under under constitutional law and otherwise to respond to those judicial warrants? Again, I'm happy to have this conversation about changing that threshold or that potential policy. But I fundamentally see this as an attempt to resurrect that conversation, which fundamentally would have the effect, in my mind, of of of modifying the base base ordinance of a surveillance technology which had already decided under which circumstances the city of Seattle would be required to respond to a judicial judicial warrant if we were in possession of data or information that was gathered as a result of surveillance technology that we had been utilizing, and that was appropriately approved through a search process. So I'm just flagging my concern that this is going much further than just amending an SLR, but actually amending the underlying ordinance. That may be something we want to have a conversation about again, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that conversation in the context of of a search that is specific to one type of technology, because I think the implications are much broader.
Speaker 0: Okay. Was Kasper and Brown's amendment? It was not moves. So Kasper and Brian, will you move amendment number seven?
Speaker 7: I will move. I will move amendment number seven dated today 923 2019 version to.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Guess moves and second amendment number seven and moving second and all those in favor say I and raise your hand. All although the polls say no. One, raise your hand. No. Don't fails to. So let's go to number eight.
Speaker 7: So this one also relates to the license plate reader technology and the relationship between start and Wash, not the State Department of Transportation and the city department transportation. This council president Harrell, you described, I think in layman's terms, a bit of how the technology works. What we capture is handed off to another department. My understanding is currently there is not a written requirement for I'm sorry, a written agreement between our stop and wash night. But the underlying language would require that we're sorry. This amendment would require that within six months, there needs to be a written requirement, a written agreement as to how that data is shared and specifically adds language that the watchdog would need to be held to the same requirement and restrictions set forth in our policies. So I'm going to pull up from the language for a second and just try to articulate why I think this is particularly important. We are collecting some data. I believe that the reasons for collecting the data are legitimate reasons to study travel times, and I think they serve the public well. They do have the potential to be misused. You know, we aren't collecting personally identifiable information license plates in certain times of day. And where people.
Speaker 5: Are.
Speaker 7: Our policies are that that data is deleted almost immediately once we've served the purpose of measuring travel times. But when we hand that data off to another party, that's not bound by those same conditions. There's a fear that someone may use that data for other sources for other purposes, or they may hand it over to another agency that requested for other purposes. And I think this is at the heart of the entire surveillance ordinance and the things that I think is appropriate for us as a council to struggle with. There's a number of ways I think this could play out. If this amendment passes there in the next six month, why start in? Our state could come to an agreement of data sharing that basically holds washed out to the same standards we're holding them to. At which point, I would feel very comfortable that the data sharing would continue and we would continue to read the information. It may be that why start or start come back to us and say we were unable to reach agreement washed out, was not willing to be held to the same standards as our state at that point. This amendment would require that they no longer share the data, which means we would no longer have that travel time information . Because as far as I know, with the technology, the only way we can get the travel time information is by sharing the data with Washed. That, I think is a legitimate policy question that this council can struggle with. If, if asked, felt strongly that they wanted that information, they could come back to this council before that and say, hey, we we can only get X, Y and Z in the agreement. And we would like you to amend the the the ACR, the CCAR to give us some more flexibility. Or we can decide, no, it's not worth the risk of collecting that data without the assurances. And we'd rather live without the travel time data because the idea that this might be used against our will for data, for things, you know, such as immigration or ICE, doing it to track down people in cities, Seattle. So I'll stop there. I think that this is the type of thing that is appropriate for us to be doing and laying out the guidelines by which we not just collect information, but the conditions under which we would share it with other parties. And and I don't want to prejudge what a future council may decide as what's the appropriate balance there. But at the moment, I think it's appropriate to say that that watchdog should be held to the same standards and ask them to go work on that data sharing agreement.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman O'Brien. I'll make a comment sort of consistent with my other comments. The reason I don't support this amendment. First, I know that the law department has raised some issues that I won't divulge the issues, but I think they flagged this one. I'll just put it that way. Is that correct, Greg? That's correct. It was flagged. I'll just leave it at that, number one. But number two, I think as a as a city, if we choose not to use LPR. We can start using it. This is we are a recipient of the information we're getting. We've used it since 2007. We are getting good data for traffic management, which is the purpose of the LPR. And I think that the chances of us getting washed out within six months to agree to this kind of surveillance ordinance are slim to none. And I think that would be fooling ourselves if we think within six months we can achieve that. Now there are another there is another route, I think, to get there that could be perhaps in the future, council could set a resolution and negotiate with the wash DOD and have our department work with them to put in the right safeguards. But I think to require it now in this process is. Is burdensome and impractical. I think we should should try to get there another way, though. I would like to have washed out and guarded as much as we are, but I don't think we'll be able to achieve that within six months. And if we don't, either we have to pull the technology or we are in violation of our ordinance. Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just want to go back in my time machine again to when we first had a debate around the surveillance technology ordinance. This was also another policy point that was debated, discussed and ultimately rejected by the city council. When we approved the surveillance technology ordinance, there was a there was a strong interest by the advocates at the time to require, as an overarching principle within the surveillance technology ordinance, that whomever we do business with sign a contract, an agreement agreeing to comply with our ordinance. And we had a very long debate and discussion around whether, as a matter of policy that was practical or appropriate for us to impose our city law in some cases up meaning to the federal government or to the state, and whether we have legal standing to be able to actually make that enforceable setting and that that conversation was separate and apart from whether from whether or not it was even practical to be able to have that kind of contractual relationship with agencies that we deal with. So again, during that debate, we determined that that was not a direction we wanted to head with the understanding that the servers would take care of any potential concerns related to the type of information we were capturing that might be available to third party agencies that would cause a significant privacy concerns and that the servers were the place where we needed to make sure that those restrictions were in place in order to comply fully with our own ordinance. So it's similar to, I think, the way that we look at information, we gather at the city in general as it relates to ICE enforcement, you know, we can only be compelled to hand over what we actually collect. So we need to be very careful about what we are collecting, knowing that federal agencies and state agencies will even under even under this rubric will be, you know, still have FOIA and other public records, request tools to be able to get that information from us. But again, I see this I see this amendment as as opening the door again to that policy question that we had in the underlying surveillance technology ordinance, debate around whether or not we were going to impose upon third parties an obligation to comply with the surveillance technology ordinance before we agreed to do business with them as memorialized in a separate and in an agreement that was separate and apart from the sur, separate and apart from the condenser, and certainly separate and apart from the underlying technology ordinance. So I think that it really creates a very complicated system. I think it's also going to result in a situation where we will never engage in regional efforts with any agency at all, whether it's a legitimate or even if it's a legitimate reason to engage in business with a regional agency. So, again, I'm I'm just we may want to have that conversation from a broader policy perspective, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that that make that policy decision in the context of of an amendment. I guarantee that this amendment will turn up again when we consider other other types of technologies related to other departments. And if if that's going to be the case, then let's reopen the surveillance technology ordinance to have that conversation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez, did you want to make the motion? Did you want to?
Speaker 7: I wanted to just go someplace. Can Councilman Gonzales, my my intent when we passed the original surveillance ordinance was indeed, if we weren't going to have a blanket requirement, because it wasn't clear how that would be enforceable, that the third parties would be bound by this. But for me at least, it didn't preclude saying on a case by case basis, as we gather technology, if it's necessary to share with third parties that we are, it's not it would be appropriate for us to consider what requirements we put on that data when it goes out our door and we essentially lose all control of it. And this is one that I think, you know, what this amendment sets up is the possibility, which I think is real frankly that washed out and asked can reach agreement that watchdogs like. Yeah we delete the data as soon as we process it our vendors do the same thing. It comes back to you. We're happy to sign on to those conditions. It's fine and we get to keep moving forward. And if they're unable to do that, it'd be good to understand. Why they're unable to do it. Is it because. No, we like to keep that in case we want to give it to somebody or is it technically not feasible? And here's the reason we need to do it. And at that point, they could come back to the council, decide on the policy decision, do we even want to be collecting license plate information for the purpose of the traffic? Is a trade off not worth it anymore if we don't have control of what that data is being used for? So I feel strongly that this is an appropriate place to add a third party requirement. This doesn't say I mean, this says that without this agreement after six months, they would have to stop collecting the data. But obviously the parties could come back to the council between now and then and say, we think it's really important that we keep collecting it and here's what we're able to agree to. And we think you should make the case to the to the public. We can make the case publicly that we're collecting it without this. I fear what what I have to tell constituents is we collect this data. We have strict controls on what we can do with the data, but we are giving it to another agency, which we don't have any control over what they do with it. We hope that they will honor our concerns, but we don't have the control over it. And that causes me some concerns.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you want to make the motion concerned, Brian?
Speaker 4: May I ask the question?
Speaker 0: Council member Herbold.
Speaker 4: Does the Lane current language not still require a that third party agreement? It just simply doesn't say that the third party agreement are the same restrictions and requirements in the seizure. So there's still that sorry.
Speaker 7: The underlined part is not the amendment. That was my amendment to the new amendment. But we should ask Central South. I believe this whole language was is new.
Speaker 8: Yes, I think that you're right. Councilmember Harold Herbold. Sorry, the the language that that is in the case now in the seizure state and was state must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing the LPR data. And it's made clear in other areas of the seizure that that data is to be used only for traffic purposes. I think that is already underway. I believe that is the case. If START came back and said that they think that the data might be used for something else, they would be obligated under the surveillance ordinance to come back to the council. The the difficult part about this amendment is how would the city of Seattle enforce any kind of agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation?
Speaker 4: So we would still have the ability to sort of have that analysis of those trade offs if there was either no agreement or the agreement was inconsistent with the sur.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'll.
Speaker 7: Can I can I just.
Speaker 0: Please clarify.
Speaker 7: I believe what the underlying if this if my amendment fails, the language that will be in the seizure will simply say, I start in Washington must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing NPR data. That's correct, but not the conditions under which they are.
Speaker 4: I think that there's more.
Speaker 7: There's more.
Speaker 8: Conversations. Sir?
Speaker 7: Yes, sir.
Speaker 8: Aye, sir. As well.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 8: And I think that the purpose is for traffic collection. For collection of traffic data and calculating travel times.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think it's important to note that we don't know why. Shots. Our retaining requirements are under state law. We know what ours are and what we're willing to live with. And so this amendment again imposes the same requirements that we have in our CSR, but we don't know what all those policies are. And I think we heard this, this discussion was a lively debate at the working group level and this is where we had come out on it, which is inconsistent with this amendment. Okay. It's been moved. Has it been seconded? It has not been moved. So because remember. And can you.
Speaker 7: Move? I will move to ask the clerk. There's a version two and a version three that I think are identical. So I'm just going to stick with. Okay. I don't believe anyone has version three in front of him. Oh, you do? Three. I'm not sure that there's I did a quick look over to maybe moved here based on the last three amendments, but we should probably at least get it accurate.
Speaker 2: We should have more data.
Speaker 1: You can see that.
Speaker 7: I see that I compared the language to try to figure out what changed between version two and version three, because they both say as of 1:15 p.m. at 923.
Speaker 3: I think they're identical, sir.
Speaker 7: Okay. So I'm going to go with version two just because that's the only one everyone has. And if it turns out we missed something, then we'll deal with that later. But it may not turn out. So I'm going to go ahead and move Amendment eight on the Salman sheet that's listed at the top as 923 2019 version two.
Speaker 0: Their second let's imagine amendment number eight has been moved in second and all those in favor say I in raise your hand.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: Always the polls say no and raise your hand no. It is what fails. It failed. Three, six. Do we have a number nine?
Speaker 7: No, I'm not moving nine or ten. So I'm done counting. President Herrell. Okay. Thank you so much. Time and that exercise. Well, I appreciate your indulgence.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Pacheco. You may lead us through the oil heat legislation, so get your Robert's Rules of Order hat on pretty soon here. So what? This thing leaves us with the legislation that passed out of the committee, and I'll describe that as amendment number 11. And that's just the way it's written up. So there are not a eight, nine, ten or 11. So let me just let me clarify what motion I'm making. I am making a motion number 11 that basically incorporates the amendments that unanimously passed at committee table that incorporate the 2 hours and the two CSI hours coming out of that out of the committee. Okay. I hope that's clear. So I'm going to move to pass amendment number 11. Is there a second? Okay. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: Somebody from the Comedy Central States that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any discussion on this amendment? And I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it passes because of all the hard work that everyone's done. All those in favor of the amendment say i. I.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: Opposed. Okay. The amendment passes. So now we have a surveillance ordinance as amended that's ready for vote. Yeah. Let me find my number here. Just one sec.
Speaker 5: Hmm.
Speaker 0: It is number.
Speaker 3: 119519 council member.
Speaker 0: Sorry, sir.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: I'll say a few things after. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119519 as amended.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco I so want to make sure. Gonzalez Bill President Harrell I nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of Senate. Let me just say a few thanks to councilmember Brian for and Shankar thanks for pushing the envelope on all of these issues. I know that some things were not gotten that people did want, but I think it's still one of the the best surveillance ordinances this country has seen. I hope we're setting the bar for other citizens in states to follow. Councilman Gonzales, I want to thank you for your full engagement and your leadership on the surveillance ordinance Saad Bashir, Ginger and Brewster, Jason Cambridge and Adam Emery, Greg and Lisa, thank you very much. Greg Doss, Lisa Kay, Kate Garman, awesome as usual and the Community Surveillance Working Group, thanks you for all of your engagement. So with this, it was a long time coming, but thank you for all your work in Councilman Brian. Thank you again.
Speaker 7: I also want to just personally thank Greg and Lisa and I'm not sure which names of folks that start in the light apartment who are responding to your requests on my behalf over the weekend to get through that. And that was a really Herculean effort. And despite my disappointment in the outcome today, I'm extremely grateful for the time you all put in to this this weekend and the past few weeks to keep you up to speed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So I'm going to stay for item six and seven and I'm going to relinquish share to Councilmember Pacheco. So can you read can you read six and seven in together, please?
Speaker 1: Action Item six and seven Council Bill 119 636 relating to the sale and use of tobacco and marijuana products to and by minors. Council Bill 119 637 really into crimes and offenses concerning animals. The committee recommends both bills pass.
Speaker 0: As I said a couple of weeks ago, these two ordinance or just a reconciliation of state law to our city code, or I should say our city code to state law one is for the sale and use of tobacco and marijuana products to minors. And the other one is for crimes and offenses relating to animals. In particular. As you may recall, the state legislature legislature approved a bill to change the legal age of buying tobacco and vaping products from 18 to 21. And this law will take place in January of 2020. And as recommended by the Attorney General's Office and the State Department of Health and Public Health Advocates in Washington State is the ninth state to set 21 as the minimum age. And so we certainly want to adopt that standard. Hopefully, many states will follow our lead the ordinance relating to animals and crimes and offenses. The ordinance changes the classification maximum penalty of certain animal control crimes and makes these classifications and maximum penalties again consistent with state law. So the crimes for which the maximum penalty were imposed formally from, it's from 180 day days in jail and a $500 fine to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, some 500 to 5000, which includes keeping an exotic animal or using a guard dog without a guard guard dog license, owning a dangerous animal, selling a sick , dangerous or exotic animal. And so the state law goes in a much more depth. And again, we're revising our code to make sure we're consistent with state law. Any questions or comments on this legislation? Okay. Please call the roll on comes Bill 119636.
Speaker 1: Whereas Mosquera O'Brien. Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez. Herbold. President Harrell. I Aden favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: So it comes from check or you're off the hook. So I.
Speaker 5: Do I go there, say.
Speaker 0: Oh, I could I can continue. Cherry. Oh, God.
Speaker 4: And cancel.
Speaker 0: I was I missed a huge opportunity, according to my staff. So I my apologies. So the bill passes and Cheryl signed it. I just lost my rhythm here. Was that number seven or is that number six? Which that was number six. So please call the roll. Uncomfortable. 119637.
Speaker 1: Suarez Misgender. O'Brien. Pacheco Somewhat better. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Adan favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed in show senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 119607 relating to heating oil. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 7: Councilmember O'Brien Thank you, colleagues. It's going to take my surveillance hat on and put my climate change hat on or off and on. The this legislation was originally proposed by the mayor's office, and I am very supportive of it. This legislation essentially has a phase out of the use of underground oil tanks in the current condition by the end of 2028. The intent is to it would also have a tax placed on home heating oil of just under $0.25 a gallon through your reference. I'm told variously, I think the city's analysis shows that a typical homeowner would use about 500 gallons. I've heard from the oil or distribution companies that their number is closer to 400 gallons. So you can get that somewhere between 100 and $125 a year would be the the cost of the tax for someone that's using a petroleum based oil. I mean, committee, we amended the legislation to allow for an exemption for biofuels. It's specific that it's it's it would not the exemption would not apply to biofuels such as palm oil, which are produced in a way that actually is just as carbon intensive and damaging to the planet as petroleum. But other biofuels, such as recycled grease or or biofuels produced more sustainably, locally could be used. And to the extent they're used in the mix in the tank, the tax would be waived on the portion of biofuels that are in the tank. So if you have a mix of 5050 biofuels and petroleum oil, the tax would be half of what it would otherwise be. If you have a mix of 99% biofuels and 1% or less of petroleum, then largely the tax would almost completely be eliminated. The revenues from the tax would go to a number of things. Primarily, I want to highlight that folks that are currently on the I should say, let me back up for a second. Home heating oil is not a regulated utility, the same as folks that heat with gas or heat with electricity. We know that the city of Seattle has programs for low income homeowners that use electricity, whether it's for heating or for just other purposes, which I assume is just about everybody use it. And low income folks can apply to be on the utility discount program, which gives them a significant discount. There are similar programs that Peterson Energy runs for gas customers, but there's no such mechanism to do so for oil heat. And so what this would do is for people that currently with oil that are at the same income level as would qualify them for the utility discount program, they would be eligible for a significant investment from the tax proceeds to convert them completely to a dockless heat pump, which would provide heating at a much more cost effective rate. The analysis I've seen from the department shows that based on the kind of current cost of heating oil, it costs about twice as much to fuel the the heating furnace as a wood for an electric furnace. I think this really we know the electric heat pumps also provide cooling in the summers or any time we need it. And we're seeing more and more instances where high temperatures in Seattle have a health impact on folks. And so the estimated a little over a thousand people that currently qualify for the utility discount program would be eligible for these conversions. In committee, we also amended it to allow folks making up to 80% of area median income to be eligible for some form of discount without raising the additional revenues. Not everyone in that category will be eligible for the full conversion, as we mentioned. But there will be flexibility to continue to provide subsidies for folks who want to convert it at slightly higher income levels. And there's also future opportunities for us to raise additional revenues. I want to appreciate conversations we've had with a number of stakeholders, including folks from Teamsters 174, who represents some of the drivers that deliver oil, talking to the heating oil companies who, you know, I believe the conversations I've had with everyone recognize the climate impacts, but also want to figure out what a transition looks like. And so part of that transition was the amendment to allow biofuels not to be taxed, to allow that as a transition fuel for folks that choose to keep their oil furnace for a number of years, but also and work to to ensure that there are opportunities for workers that may lose their jobs to be retrained and have similar union family wage jobs. I want to if it's okay with you, can't the president turn to my colleague, Councilmember Mesquita, who's been part of a lot of those discussions and really helpful in those discussions and believe has an amendment that she would like to put forward. And I support that.
Speaker 0: Please do. Councilmember Machete, you have the floor.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to move that. We amend Council Bill 119607 by incorporating Amendment one. And then I'll speak to the contents of it.
Speaker 0: Second, to move to Second Amendment. Number one, Casper Mosquito.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the prime sponsor of this legislation for working with us and really echo my appreciation for the Joint Council. Teamsters Joint Council and Teamsters 174, along with some of our colleagues from the labor movement. IBEW is in the House today. Building construction trades were here earlier, folks from U.A. 32, the Plumbers and Pipefitters, Northwest Carpenters and building construction trades as a whole. We have continued to say that folks within industries that will be impacted by a transition away from any industry need to have a just transition into a green new economy . And I think that some of the language that you see in the legislation in front of you incorporates that. And what we've tried to do with the amendment in Amendment One is to really underscore some key components that were brought to us from our partners and friends at the Teamsters and I think correspond and really emphasize the importance of looking at the impact of workers themselves, residents within the city of Seattle, and figuring out how we ensure that there's both a just transition for those who are working in various industries and also for our lowest wage workers and communities of color. So a huge amount of appreciation for the work that's included here. This was there's a few components that I'll underscore in this amendment really brought to us from the Teamsters through an equity perspective and by wanting to make sure that we underscored the risk assessment that's needed. Number one, there's an acknowledgment that we need to fix the underground heating oil tanks and analyze if there's any environmental risk as they when they leak, they pose a threat to soil, surface water, groundwater and property. Number two, there's language included in this amendment that really addresses the financial burden that some folks spoke to when they testified about the potential impact on middle income, low income and fixed income households, including renters and seniors, which I know there's an amendment on later and look forward to supporting that as well. And then as we convert to non oil options that we are looking at, addressing any financial burdens that come up. Number three, we recognize that there is a Washington State Pollution Liability Protection Act which helps those who use oil tanks transition and and provide assistance for any financial hardship that might be related to oil tanks as we move over to electric options and that as those financial incentives are provided to our community, we as a city want to make sure that we're looking to see if there's any additional resources that we may need to support to fulfill any claims that are coming up from this transition. Also, as I mentioned, there is language included that calls for a risk assessment of existing tanks and an equity analysis to be part of the implementation plan. That's critical, and it really came from our friends in the Labor communities who said we would love to see that incorporated in an implementation plan and that this information also be presented to the Green New Deal Oversight Board, which we just voted on recently. Last few items. It calls for an outreach plan to include the perspective and feedback and any concerns from folks within the resident community, from the labor unions and also industry. As we look at moving forward and doing the outreach and as we call for a just transition. It would not be addressed if we didn't include getting feedback on the number of individuals affected by any policy change. So what you see in here is a.
Speaker 3: Report back.
Speaker 6: To the city on. The outcomes on workforce development. Any feedback that we can get early on, the potential impact on jobs, job losses, gains and retention. Making sure that we're looking at jobs and heating, ventilation and air conditioning with a specific focus on workers represented by labor unions and good family wage jobs, and making sure that as we transition, we're looking at the necessary support to make sure that folks have good living wage jobs in that green new economy. So looking forward to working with you all as we get that feedback. And lastly, thanks to Scott Green, the Green New Deal Work Group, Councilmember O'Brien, again, Teamsters for your work on this policy. I think that this helps us move forward with a really robust environmental policy without unintentionally leaving any workers behind. So thanks again to the folks who worked with us and collaborated on this effort, and I'd love to see it incorporated in the legislation.
Speaker 0: So that's just Amendment One that I'll describe as an amendment number one to the Council bill. Any other questions on it? I'll make sure that it has a second.
Speaker 7: I will second it if it's been moved.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So Amendment one has been made and segment by Councilmember Gonzalez, all those in favor of amendment number one. Please say I. I opposed the ayes have it. So we have a an amendment. This passed. Councilmember O'Brien, you want to talk anymore about the Bass legislation?
Speaker 7: I don't even more. Councilmember Herbold has a number of amendments that are before us. So why don't we put it to Councilmember Herbold and let her walk through her?
Speaker 0: And Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Appreciate it very much.
Speaker 3: So I have.
Speaker 4: Three amendments here. Amendments to 304 amendments two, three and four and five. I just want to say for the record that the legislation requires the tax beginning on July 1st, 2020, as written, but it doesn't actually implement the requirements to decommission oil tanks. That's going to be done. Not only is it going to be done in the future, but there are a number of other code amendments that will have to be made in order to to implement that. So I just think it's really important to have some clarity about that for the record, because we've received a lot of questions about what exactly this piece of legislation does. And so, of course, the the requirement in the bill itself is that we're seeking O.C. SFD, that being the Office of Sustainability and Environment, Seattle Fire Department and the State Department of Construction Inspections to develop a plan and recommendation by July 21st, 2020, for purposes of the decommissioning goal that is contained in this legislation. So as far as setting the stage for the amendments that I have, the concern I've heard from seniors and low income residents about the impact of the legislation is really critically important, I think, to all of us. O.C. It estimates that 36% of oil heated households have residents that are seniors. And of the participants in the utility discount program for these homes, 60% are estimated to be seniors. And the funding for the conversion doesn't quite appear to add up yet. But, you know, we have we have time to get that right. The the sort of back of the envelope calculation at this point provides funding for 1100 conversions. And that is based on the number of residents with heating oil who participate in the City Light Utility Discount program. But citywide participation is about 30% of those eligible, so a lot fewer people participate than the number of people that are eligible, according to the report developed by the utilities that the council requested through last year's budget process. So there is, I think, good reason to think that participation in this program will be significantly higher than the this program being the program to fund decommission of oil tanks, that the number will be significantly higher than the number of people who participate in a program that is designed to help them pay their monthly utility bills. The cost associated with decommissioning is significantly higher. And so I think it's reasonable to to anticipate that participation in a in a program that would help pay for that is going to be greater. And so, you know, one of the things that. That that I think where we're looking at here is that the utility discount program is set at 70% of median income for the state, whereas this legislation that's before us now provides assistance for those at 80% of the median Seattle area income so that more people will become eligible based on income. This means if 3000 households participate in the conversion program, it would require potentially an additional $10 million for the for the rebate program. It would require a million or so I'm sorry, the conversion program would require an additional $10 million in the rebate program would potentially require an extra million dollars. And, you know, you may recall when we debated the tax on high incomes a couple of years ago, that's working its way through the courts. One of the items identified as a high priority for funding is the creation of green jobs and meeting a carbon reduction goal as a potential use of those funds. So we have been thinking about this not just in this legislation, but we've been thinking about how to to meet what are going to be costly expenses associated with meeting our our carbon reduction goals. So to address all of this, I have Amendment two that would amend Council Bill 11 9607 to clarify that low income households eligible for the rebate be at or below 80% area median income. This amount is intended to offset the anticipated average increase due to the heating oil tax for households using oil heat. The amendment in committee changed the threshold for conversion assistance to 80% area median income, and this amendment would do the same for the rebate program because currently this section only refers to low income households. It does not define it. So I'm seeking to have consistency for the definition of low income throughout the legislation, both for the rebate program as well as for the funding of the conversion program. O.C. had reached out just a little bit before we moved into full council about this particular amendment, and they have requested that we create some some flexibility around this proposed. This proposed definition so that it instead. Identify as a goal that we have an analysis of the viability to extend the heating oil tax reimbursement to households who in whose income is between 70% state median income and 80% area median income. Again, that would not create the type of consistency that that I'm seeking, and it is not consistent with the amendment in front of us right now. And I am hesitant to request a suspension of the rules in order to consider language that we that we don't have in front of us. But I would like to just sort of open up for what other folks here would like to see done with this amendment, number one. Amendment number two, version one.
Speaker 5: Vote.
Speaker 0: For it to be considered, I'll have to suspend. The rules will go ahead and you can speak to it if you like.
Speaker 7: Are they Councilmember Herbals amendments were in just before the deadline. So those are going to be.
Speaker 4: If I change it to reflect Ozzy's input, we would have to be deliberating language that we actually don't have before.
Speaker 7: And I and I'm going to oppose this this amendment as drafted, and I'll walk through that. I will just say, for the record, I was able to share these with OIC as soon as I got home, which is about noon. So they didn't have time to respond to us.
Speaker 4: It sent them over the weekend with it.
Speaker 7: So I didn't hear documentary that that. But thank you very much. The the concern the concern that they shared with me that I share with them is that we currently do not have any programs at the city where folks are qualified and in 80% of area income threshold. And so.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 3: Well, we will, though, right.
Speaker 7: So there's a distinction between the subsidy program for installing on a case by case basis as folks come forward. And so what I've heard from OAC is they're comfortable setting up a system to verify folks to the standards that they're comfortable with. The rebate program is run through Seattle City Light and it's an on bill rebate. And the requirements, I don't believe I'm not aware that anyone has discussed with City Light. I don't think they're just going to take his word for it because they have their own qualification programs. And I think it would be prudent to have a conversation with City like what would it take to set up a verification program that meets the standards that they want to do for everyone who's qualified in that area to get it on bill rebate? And I think I mean, the point you make, Councilmember Herbold, is we're starting into this already and I agree with that. But that's why I would support the language that see proposed, which is do some further analysis on this. Specifically, it says instead of a Councilmember Herbold put down, add to the reporting requirement that a third bullet item which says analysis of the viability to extend the heating oil tax reimbursement to households whose income is between 70% area state median income and 80% area median income. That assessment would include work with Seattle City Light to understand what a program would take. It would also allow them to better understand how much foregone tax revenue would be there. What that means, are there fewer people that would be eligible? You know, significant enough that we would say we actually cannot fully convert people the same way. We need to rethink that. I think that's all important information to have in front of us before we make this decision. And so something that allowed flexibility for future decision making, I could support, but I can't support this firm requirement without further weighing it. Her.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I think Councilmember O'Brien's correct. I think this is going to qualify a significantly higher number of people because not only are we talking about 80% median income, but we're talking about the area median income and said the state median income. And that's that's actually my goal is to make sure that a significantly higher number of people are qualified for this rebate program. But all of that said, I don't have any objections to sort of putting a pin in the definition of low income as it is currently undefined in the legislation and getting some more information. And under that situation, I would say that that would be a circumstance Council President Herold that we would want to suspend the rules to consider that new text that has not been submitted by the deadline at noon today.
Speaker 7: What I would suggest, if we would go down the path with with others approval, is that I would be happy to email what we have and where it goes to the clerk. We can continue discussing these. And then, thankfully, we have dozens of other items to consider on today's agenda. And so hopefully someone will be able to clean that up and bring us back something for final consideration at the end that works for me.
Speaker 0: Okay, so it sounds like I'd be willing to suspend the rules just because it's almost 5:00. I'm getting a little dizzy. It's important for us to consider. It sounds like you will have some language for us. And so I could move to the next agenda item as at the OR. You had other amendments to those, right on this one. So on that particular amendment, we will table it.
Speaker 4: Would it be easier for the clerk if we waited for the whole bill or.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 4: Keep going through.
Speaker 7: The OR should we vote on the amendment as described and we'll send the paperwork for someone to bring it? Okay. I am emailing it to Yolanda right now. I'm not sure who's responsible to do that or should I say somebody else. To.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. So the First Amendment described by Councilmember Herbold, I am referring that as amendment number two is correct.
Speaker 4: So it has not been moved and has not been second. So we don't need to vote on it. We have a replacement version that I guess we'll be working on in the next couple of minutes.
Speaker 0: So we'll call that amendment number two that's making sort of speak. So we'd like to move number three.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So amendment number three would amend Council Bill 11 9607 to add that the proposed implementation plan should consider exempting residents over the age of 65 from the proposed requirement that all heating oil storage tanks in Seattle be decommissioned or replaced with a modern tank by December 31st, 2028, and a plan to fully fund conversions from oil heating systems to electric systems for households at or below 80% AMI. So o-C has explained that he pumps can certainly provide for lower heating costs over the long run and the those reduced monthly costs can result in the conversion actually paying for itself over over a period of time. But eligible residents may not have the longevity in their homes in order to enjoy those future benefits and are more likely to be on fixed incomes. So I want to ensure that the programs are funded, but I think it's really important that that in participating in the in the programs that we we don't have folks who we are saying on one hand will benefit from the decommissioning over time that don't actually have the opportunity to do so. And so for that reason, the the amendment would again exempt residents over the age of 65.
Speaker 0: That's from Brian.
Speaker 7: So I have some concerns about this because the amendment actually just says we should consider a plan if it doesn't actually exempt them. I'm comfortable with moving forward. My concern is, one, certainly folks over the age of 65 who are high net worth individuals I think should continue to follow this. And I think kind of an income threshold is important. The other point that I want to add, which exists already, we have income thresholds for for pass the this legislation is closely tied to.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 7: State funding through something called the the what is it pollution liability insurance agency. What this agency does, it was created because in the case where all things had leaked were a conversion. A decommissioning of an oil tank typically costs, I believe, around 5 to $700. If folks find that the oil tankers leave, then there's required soil remediation. And I'm told that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. And so someone who budgeted to go in and convert from oil to something else and they get their tank commission and part way through it, they realize they have this massive bill. There were some problems. One for folks that went through with it was really expensive. I believe there were also concerns that people would kind of try to cover up the leak because they just had no way to afford it. And that meant the pollution stayed in the ground. So this agency was created to to insure folks against that. It's an insurance pool. It doesn't actually cost anything to join. You just simply have to register. So it's a unique type of insurance. That agency ends at the end of 12 or the beginning of 2030, and there's a finite number of dollars that are allocated in the state legislature each year. This program, with the deadline of 2028, is designed to get all Seattle residents in to be considering these retrofit or these decommissioning before that insurance pool ceases to exist. And my concern is my one of my concerns is this may have an unintended consequence of allowing some seniors to postpone a decision to decommission a tank until a later date, at which point there may no longer be the insurance fund to help them deal with what could potentially be tens of thousands of dollars of soil remediation if they can. So, again, the amendment because it is it says we should consider it. I am happy to support it just with clarity that I would want the department to look at the complexities around both continuing to have an income threshold for folks, even if they're seniors. Maybe it's a different one. I don't know. And also what that might mean to folks that pushed on beyond the limit of the timeline of the insurance agency.
Speaker 0: So did I hear a an amendment and a second through that discussion?
Speaker 4: I will move Amendment three to Council Bill 1190 6072.
Speaker 0: Moved in second and Caspar O'Brien had expressed his support, but with some Asterix behind it. Councilman, particularly you wanted to make some comments?
Speaker 5: Sure. So I will not be supporting the amendment. And I just wanted to just really quickly give some thoughts about just not just this amendment, but the other amendments in the discussion around the heating oil tax itself. I am very, very sensitive to the issues of job loss that has been discussed and brought forth by Labor. My dad, as I said to folks, my dad had lost his job twice over the last three years. And so I know those worries and those concerns are very much very real and intimate. And so as such, I treat them with the utmost regard. However, I am concerned with creating additional exemptions or with the legislation in itself, because fiscally, with the direction that the bill has gone in, it may have some unintended consequences as we move forward. I thought that and I said to some stakeholders that I think that the tax policy and this is very unfortunate because of the tax structure that by which we operate, I thought the tax might be need to be a little bit bigger to help subsidize the increase and the exemptions that we've created. In addition to recognizing and being cognizant of the fact that we need funds and we need to start establishing funds to retrain workers and those union jobs that may potentially be lost as a result. So that said, ISC also and essential staff stated in committee that no other home investments do we evaluate as needing to have an ROI except for environmental and weatherization upgrades. I heard the the the actions and the voices of the young people who were protesting on Friday and saying, demanding and calling on all of us as leaders to to do what we can to make action on climate change that much more real and move quicker. That said, I cannot support this amendment and nor can I support delaying implementation of this legislation, because I do think that we need to be moving faster and be doing more that we can to both help communities transfer in over their conversion to these new weatherization efforts, as well as electric heating efforts. And so I would like to support the underlying legislation as is.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco. So we have an amendment number three. Would anyone else like to make comments for call on the vote for amendment number three that's been moved in second. Okay. Because we were worse.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Could you just clarify Amendment three one more time? Sure. Between two and the 80%. Ami, that's one we're focusing on, not the actual Amendment three, which is the extent implementation from July to September 2020.
Speaker 4: We're on to Amendment three is the amendment that asks for the implementation plan to consider some things. As we've discussed, it doesn't actually create any exemptions. It asks, and if I was unclear about that, I apologize. It asks that O.C. consider exempting residents over the age of 65, and it asks. It includes that a reference to the implementation plan to come back to us with information on how to fully fund conversions for households at or below 80% area median income.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember O'Brien's asterix should do it.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to vote on amendment number three as described by Councilmember Herbold, all those in favor of amendment number three. Raise your hand and say I. I was opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No, I believe I could see that one passed. Okay. Because remember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Amendment four would amend Council Bill 11 9607 to the delay the effective date of the tax for two months. The bill currently says July 1st, 2020. My amendment would have the effective date be on September 1st, that same year, 2020, just two months later. And the reason is that I'd really like the Council to have a couple months to ensure the numbers add up from the July 1st, 2020 receipt of the implementation report. That's the date we're supposed to be getting that report along with Councilmember Mosquitoes Amendment. This could help address labor concerns and I think it's good public policy to have a little bit of time with the the report that is linked to the need for this particular tax.
Speaker 0: Or get a delay. Councilmember Brian, I'd like to respond.
Speaker 7: I will be opposing this. I understand the concerns. I'm fairly confident we're not going to agree to report back. They were conflicting. Too much money to fund all the things that we would like to fund in here. And by delaying it for a couple of months, that's just less revenue that we will be able to collect. I would be open to an alternative accelerating the reporting date if we wanted to see that sooner. But I'm I believe from all the preliminary data I've seen, is that we will have enough funding to fund those lowest income, the little over 1000 folks that we believe would qualify for UDP. And we have some funding to do some things for that next tranche of folks. And it'd be great to have additional revenue whether it's from this or likely from some other sources to do that. But I don't think I don't think that report is going to do justice. And I think simply stalling, putting on a tax on, you know, on the petroleum products is that and I don't think that makes sense at this point.
Speaker 4: I just want to add that part of what we accomplished in Councilman Mosquitos Amendment is that the the plan would also include risk assessment, racial equity analysis, as well as making sure that our new Green New Deal Oversight Board gets a copy of the plan. And I think that's all about it. I don't think it's proforma information that we're that we're asking for and going to be receiving. And again, I think it's appropriate for us to have a couple of months to consider it.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we heard the lively debate on extending it from 71291. I'll take it in the form of a motion. Do we need to discuss that any more? Any questions of the maker? Catherine Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just really quickly, I think I'd be interested in hearing from Councilmember Herbold her response to Councilmember O'Brien's point that it's right that that a two month delay has. A significant fiscal impact on the amount of the tax revenue collected. Do you have a sense, Councilmember Herbold, of what the fiscal analysis is here? I do not. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Councilmember, will you make a motion so it would be second, please?
Speaker 4: I move amendment for two counts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Moved and seconded all those in favor of amendment number four. Say I and raise your hand. I. Although the polls say no. One, raise your hand now. It passes. So amendment. 622682. It passes amendment number four passes. Council member Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Amendment number five hopefully will be pretty easy. It's just a recital recognizing the potential global warming impacts of hydrofluorocarbons in refrigerants used in consumer appliances such as electric heat pumps, and the council's commitment to advocate for a statewide legislation to expedite the reduction of HFCS with high global warming potential. We know that the state legislature passed and the Governor Governor signed into law. Senate House bill I'm sorry. Substitute House Bill 1122, which adopted regulations to reduce the use of HFCS in refrigerants, particularly those that have the highest global warming potential. This bill did not include heat pumps which prohibit the use of HFCS and heat by January 1st, 2020. And so this amendment would state the council's support for statewide legislation to expedite the reduction of HFCS with high global warming potential, and specifically calling out the need to address the issue as it relates to heat pumps.
Speaker 0: Customer. Brian, is this a friendly one?
Speaker 7: It's a recital, so I'm fine with that. I think that a lot of this has been addressed in the state law. I don't know. I'm not an authority to speak to the points that Councilmember Herbold is, but I know she's always very thorough in the things she does, so I take her to work there.
Speaker 0: Okay. So is there a sec? Did you make the formal motion amendment?
Speaker 4: I move Amendment five related to hydrofluorocarbons.
Speaker 0: Because amendment number five is moved. And second, it all those in favor of amendment number five. Say I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Yes, unanimous. Is. We looping back now to number two.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You just get there. Is. Does that work? Just do you? All right.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That does the trick for the public record. This amendment to version two Amends Council Bill 11 9607 to request that the Office of Sustainability and Environment assess the viability of increasing the number of low income households that use oil heat eligible for the $120 annual reimbursement to all households at or below 80% am I median income.
Speaker 0: Okay. But don't just keep it alive. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. So unless there's objection, I'm going to suspend the rules to consider this. It has been reviewed by law and council member Herbert. Why don't you make that and form a motion? We'll get a second. And just so we could dispense of that part.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I move amendment to version 2.
Speaker 3: Seconds.
Speaker 0: I guess. Minnesotan council member O'Brien.
Speaker 7: I already spoke to supporting this and appreciate your flexibility comes memorable.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other comments? All those in favor of amendment number two, raise your hand and say I, I oppose the ayes have it. And I think we go through all the amendments. Okay. So I'm going to turn it back to Councilmember O'Brien to see if you'd like any closing remarks.
Speaker 7: A couple of comments I want to make. One of this is a important piece of legislation. Appreciate the mayor's leadership on this. I appreciate stakeholder engagement on this. Folks have stuck around here for over 3 hours now just to get to this point. When we talk about making a transition to a clean energy economy that provides opportunities for increase union and family wage jobs in that new clean energy economy. It's an amazing opportunity and it's hard work. And we went through a lot of work on this piece of legislation, which affects the fraction of folks that live in Seattle. And we have a lot more work to do. And I just it's it's work. And we're going to have to keep engaging this work. I really appreciate folks who've engaged in this to get to where we are. I also want to say thank you to Yolanda on central staff. Central staff in general has been doing amazing work for the past few weeks as a number of us have squeezed in a number of extra committee meetings and they haven't even started their budget work, which starts today. And so I'm just extremely grateful for folks, including Yolanda's work to get the amendment back in time for all of us to vote on it today. So, colleagues, appreciate your engagement on this and look forward to more future work in the few months I have left.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Castro and Brian. Councilmember Mosquito, you'd like to see some comments and I.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I said this earlier, but given the sausage making we just went through on making amendments, I want to underscore my appreciation for Councilmember O'Brien's willingness to incorporate numerous stakeholder suggestions and feedback. My intent is to always make sure that we have a conversation directly with folks and make sure that we're getting that feedback. And you've been very, very open to including that feedback. So I want to say thank you and also recognize that this is one of many items on the to do list before the end of the year and a piece of a broader package that we know one item alone is not going to address the climate issues that we see. And so I think this is a great example of how you personally and professionally have been reaching out to try to get some feedback directly from those directly affected. So looking forward to working with you, I really do hope that even though we did some sausage making up here, that the takeaway from today is that when we include the folks at the table, which, you know, in all honesty, I think the mayor's office could have incorporated prior to sending down the legislation so that we had less of that to do on our end, that we do get a better product in the end. So really excited about some of the work that you've done. And my understanding is that with the amendments that we've included today that you and I had the chance to work on over the last week with the feedback and direction from the Teamsters. And there's not opposition, in fact, that I think this is a good model for how we continue to bring folks together. So thank you for those nods of affirmation and and for your ongoing work to make sure that we move forward and don't delay and incorporate that work. Workforce and union perspective in the language. Thanks again for your hard work on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer and misguided customer and Pacheco.
Speaker 5: I just want to they want to quickly highlight, you know, these conversations are not easy and they're just going to get harder. The decisions and the lack of an action on a federal level or even internationally makes every decision that we make moving forward that much harder. And I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge the the emails that I've been receiving all day with the headline. It was only three days ago, and all the young people that marched and protests and everyone that asked us to move forward and move as quickly and expeditiously as possible with regards to this issue. These choices will not be easy. And quite frankly, I want to acknowledge how difficult those choices are, because it means for us as a society to be moving forward. It means so many trade offs. It means, given the fact that we live in the regressive tax structure, those that would be most impacted by any increase in taxes are going to be low income communities of color. And these decisions by the Green New Deal Board will be difficult. It's why I try to make sure that it was as inclusive as possible so that we had as many voices at the table when we when we make these decisions and balance these trade offs so that the council can make the best informed decision and given the variety of perspectives. But I hope. My colleagues will take today's conversation and continue it and keep moving us forward in the direction, as I say to many folks. I not only have a responsibility to you, but I have a responsibility to your kids and your grandkids. And so it is with that responsibility that I take the decisions that I take and the actions that I make. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Katherine Pacheco. You know, the closing comments from many of our colleagues before we vote. Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get to O'Brien Pacheco Swine Bank. John Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed in show. Sign it. Okay. Let's go back to our agenda. Order! Please read the next agenda.
Speaker 1: Item three point of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item two Appointment 1428 Appointment of Emily Alvarado as Director of the Office of Housing. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mesquita. And thank you for your patience.
Speaker 6: Thank you for your patience, Mr. President and council colleagues. And thanks to Emily Alvarado for her patience and her interest in serving as our next Office of Housing Director. Emily Alvarado's appointment came to our committee in the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee from the Mayor's office. And I have to tell you, the testimony that we heard today was just a snippet of the enthusiasm that we heard from community. People are very excited about the work that she has done as interim executive director and the past work that she did at the City of Seattle working on affordable housing and equitable development for over a decade. You can tell that she has a lot of respect in the community from folks who came to testify today. And again, as I mentioned in council briefing this morning, if you listen to her comments in our committee last week, you will hear a compassionate call for equitable investments, especially in the lowest wage workers housing, and to making sure that as we do development in the city, that it is driven and informed by the community most at risk for displacement. So I encourage folks to take a look at that because I was ready to.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 6: Stand up and give her a standing ovation. Honestly, the the process that we've incorporated has much of your fingerprints on it, colleagues. Last year we asked for a really robust process for including stakeholder feedback from the interview process to identifying, finalist and then inner and then getting those community partners to have a role in interviewing folks. And I think you can tell from those conversations the role in which community has in identifying a strong leader really resonated. And I really am thankful to the mayor for nominating Emily Alvarado to be our next Office of Housing Director. She is knowledgeable about Seattle housing needs. She possesses a strong appreciation for the role of permanent and affordable housing and social inclusion, using housing as a tool to reduce poverty and creating healthier and more resilient communities. And she has the expertize, the knowledge and the relationships, importantly to make sure that as we move forward in the city to address our crippling housing crisis, that we really include deeply affordable homes and center our conversations in policy by those experiencing displacement and the lack of affordable housing. So she is still here in the audience with us. And we I think that's a testament to her tenacity and interest in serving in this position. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Alvarado, you learn a lot about surveillance technology and oil heat legislation. So you got a bang for the buck here. Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Emily. It's with great pleasure that I support you in this. And I know I spoke at the committee how much we appreciate you all the work that you have done and my council colleagues who weren't there, maybe you know this, maybe you don't. But Emily is as an attorney, and when she was at the UW Law School, she received one of the most highly competitive and full rides there from the Gates Foundation Public Service Award. So I want to just tell you how how much I appreciated learning about that, didn't know about that scholarship and reward award that you received . And it just speaks volumes. And during that committee meeting, the number of people in our community who stood up and said, you are absolutely the right choice. It's just stunning to know how much support you have. So congratulations. And I'm just excited to be voting for you.
Speaker 0: Cast member O'Brien.
Speaker 7: I similarly am thrilled. I am struggling with all sorts of things in my own head as my last few months wrap up here in the city. And I know there's a lot of amazing folks up here that will hopefully carry on the good work that this council has done. And but I won't. I would be lying if I said I didn't have some concerns about my role and where the city goes when I'm gone. And I know that Emily's appointment is going to make me sleep better at night because I know that the city is in good hands and not that your work isn't cut out for you. But I have the utmost faith that there's not anyone I know of that would do a better job stewarding the amazing work that the Office of Housing has done to date. And that's one of the departments of the city that I'm most impressed with. And I feel just so excited that I get a chance to vote on your apartment before my time runs out here. Thank you for serving.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can spend with Brian. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you. Council president only to commemorate the moment by giving a 20 minute speech. Just kidding. I'm definitely not going to do that really quickly. I've had the pleasure of knowing Emily for quite some time, having come up through the law school ranks kind of around the same time. And I first met Emily when I was working for the mayor's office in 2014 and was always and consistently blown away by her preparedness, her commitment, but more importantly, her vision and her principal and her willingness to give us tough, tough information or news when she knew we wanted to hear otherwise. And so I think that that is an important quality to have as a as a director in the role of Office of Housing Director is a tall and important task, and it's one that I think that Emily has all of the characteristics and skill sets to be able to rise to the occasion. So I'm looking forward to seeing how you grow in this role. And also, it should be noted that Emily Alvarado is a resident of District One and is my neighbor, so that if that's not enough, I don't know what is. So you have to congratulations.
Speaker 0: You have to recuse yourself. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Congratulations, Emily.
Speaker 0: Any other comments? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just want to real quickly say, among the many things I appreciate in value about Emily is where she comes from. And I think it's really important that we have people in decision making roles that come from a place of pushing City Hall to do more. I think that ensures that we have a steward of the Office of Housing that knows how to push us all together forward, but also knows how to work with organizations whose job and mission is to push us forward. And I think that's really incredibly important in trying to ensure that we're all collaborating. You know, really somebody who appreciates that role that folks on the outside have in their expectations for us to do more so rather than seeing it as a as a hassle or, you know, a thorn in our back. I think Emily knows how to. Knows that the voices that are outside of city hall expecting more of us actually help us all do our job. Better if we didn't have done so. I really appreciate that history and that value for those that that's sort of.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 4: Value of that position that Emily holds.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Okay, great comments. I think I counted five, so I think you're looking pretty good here. Any other comments from the dais? Okay. If not. I'm going to call for a vote. Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. Motion carries. The appointment is confirmed and you can hear the self roro is not required. But if you'd love to share a few remarks with us at 530 on a monday, I might add. Please do. And it's absolutely my pleasure in supporting you as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'll be brief. Good afternoon or evening, everybody. Thanks again for your confidence in me and thank you to Mayor Durkin for appointing me. As you've heard from other people I am passionate about housing. Housing is a human right. And when we invest in affordable housing, we improve the lives of so many individuals and families, but we also improve the life of the city as a whole. Because housing is our health care, it is our education. Housing is our economic resilience, and it's our climate resilience. And housing is also essential urban infrastructure. And if we leave it to the market alone, it will be infrastructure for only a few. And I believe together we can build an infrastructure of equity and inclusion for generations to come, for people on a fixed income, for people exiting homelessness, for low wage workers and for middle income households and across the city. And as director, I am really excited and honored to work with the fabulous staff at the Office of Housing, the community partners who we have and with all of you to advance racial equity, to scale up our investments in low income housing, to promote middle income housing, and to address displacement. And again, I thank you for your confidence in.
Speaker 0: The confirmation speeches I've ever heard. Thank you very much. Okay. Please read the next agenda item. I will remind our colleagues that if you do feel the need to take a short break, I could have called for a recess. That's what I was contemplating. But we're going to keep trying to plow through it. But if you have personal needs you have to attend to, we'll work around it. Long as we have a quorum here, we should be. Okay. So please read the next Jan item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item three accountable 119 654 Relating to Hotel Employees Health and Safety Repealing Chapter 14.25 would settle on a spa code. The committee recommends the bill pass customary.
Speaker 6: Mesquita Thank you very much, Mr. President. This will be short. Thanks for all of your past support on the four pieces of legislation that we just passed related to the hotel worker protections. As we celebrate, we also have one technical item we still have to address, which is the fact that the legislation from Initiative 124 is still on the books. And while those protections are not in place pending the ongoing court ruling, we do have to in some places, conflicting sets of policies on the books. And we want to make sure that we strike the original provisions of Initiative 124 so that when the four pieces of the legislation on hotel worker legislation is signed into law, there is no conflict with that. We'd recommend passage of Council Bill 119654 as suggested from my Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. Any questions or comments on this legislation?
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito. You've done a great job.
Speaker 0: All right, there you go. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez, Macheda O'Brien Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell. I seven and they ran unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item forward council bill 119 615 relating to the multifamily housing property tax exemption program. The committee requirements of El Paso as amended.
Speaker 0: Customer Mosquito.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. We're really excited about this piece of legislation. This is the NFT or multifamily tax incentive program that we have the opportunity of updating every four years. We've had three conversations in our committee about this and engage with stakeholders over the last two months. As folks know, the MFT program is a fixture of Seattle's affordable housing portfolio. It's aimed at incentivizing or creating more middle income housing through tax exemptions for new development. However, I want to underscore this is a voluntary program that the city is authorized to administer under the state's provisions. And it's important to note that in exchange for a tax tax exemption, new residential development projects are required to set aside a portion of units at rents affordable to families making between 60 to 80% of the area median income. So as we have the opportunity to look at the legislation in light of the changing demographics and increasing population size in Washington, Seattle, we took the opportunity to ask questions about what we could do to improve the incentives to make it more affordable for folks and to make it truly worth the public benefit of forgoing those tax dollars. Here's something that we did in this legislation based on data, based on feedback from stakeholders. We said we knew that the region had an increase in population, especially in folks who are making high wage incomes. And we know that those high wage incomes have skewed the area median income in the area, meaning that somebody who used to be at, let's say, 65% of the area, median income last year was actually making the exact same amount, but was making 60% of the area median income now. This is a really important element to consider when we think about who we're trying to incentivize the creation of these affordable units for. And we want to make sure that this tool is generating more affordable units for middle income households. And we did go through the robust process of talking with private development and talking with nonprofit developers in the community, working with labor and working with housing advocates to identify a few possible ways to better calibrate the incentive that we are offering in the MFT program with our goals of creating more affordable housing units and different sized units in the market. So there's a few things that we incorporated based on those conversations with labor, housing and nonprofit and market rate developers. Number one is we worked with central staff and found that there is an opportunity to slightly lower the affordable affordability threshold for some unit sizes so that one bedrooms and studios have more incentive to be affordable for our community. Our analysis and thanks again to central staff are working on this over the last few months. A few months indicates that this change that we've proposed in the legislation would not have a significant impact on participation in the MFT program. Number two, we worked with our labor partners on ways to advance labor standards. In this legislation, though, we want to do more. There is some limitations on what we can do at the city level. And so we've included a nod to potential future labor standard changes that may happen at the state level. Here in this legislation, we've directed the Office of Housing to include in their annual reporting any changes, including labor standards at the state level impacting MFT and recommended policy structures, and have directed the executive to collect data related to labor equity goals from participating projects so we can better understand the labor dynamics of the program. How many folks are getting good living wage jobs on these programs and advance labor equity efforts through the MFT program? So we wish our friends look at that in their conversations at the state level, for example, on including prevailing wage in the MFT program. But that is not something that's incorporated in this legislation at this point. And finally, we have updated our annual the annual reporting requirements to make sure that we at City Council get a better understanding and a more frequent information about changes in the market so that we can do a better job of responding not just every four years, but ongoing, actually twice a year. We're going to get an analysis and analysis of the housing market conditions, recommended policy changes, especially if there's a significant downturn or upturn in the market state level. Well changes as we talked about and demographic data of who is living in our MFT units to better understand are we serving our goals of creating more equitable, affordable and inclusive housing throughout the city with this program? If we're going to forego again those tax dollars, we want to make sure it's going to the public good. And that will help us with that. And that concludes my remarks, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Esqueda. Any questions or comments? If. If not, please call the role. On the passage.
Speaker 5: Of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. O'Brien. Pacheco. So on Bagshaw Gonzalez. Purple president hero seven in favor not oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and Sheryll Simon.
Speaker 5: I want to.
Speaker 2: Take a quick break I hope you can revisit five, six and seven.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm sure you too. Please read the next agenda item to.
Speaker 2: My.
Speaker 1: Part of the planning. Why do use and zoning committee gentile may clerk 5314 359 application of Matt Driscoll to rezoning approximately 4320 square foot site located 4730 15th Avenue Northeast. Can we recommend that the application be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Elsewhere in Pacheco?
Speaker 5: So colleagues, this is a contract free zone application for 4730 15th Avenue Northeast on the east side of 15th Avenue in the University District. The reason I would take the parcel from low rise three to neighborhood commercial two with a 65 foot a height limit and would fill in a gap in the block that was left after the rest of the block face was rezone. The reason would facilitate the development of 127 Union apartment building with ground floor retail. The PLUS Committee recommended amended this application to increase the MTA requirements to the correct level, which would require 9% of the units be affordable or the developer pay $20 per square foot. Oh. I moved to a grant while I moved to Grant Clark file 314359 as condition.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any other questions or comments? So those in favor of granting the petition as conditions please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The chair was signed. The findings, conclusions and decision of the Council. Please read the next item.
Speaker 1: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item nine Council Bill 119 651 Relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32% Miss Baker to Page 1661, the committee recommends a steep scuse me no recommendation.
Speaker 0: Because we're in Pacheco.
Speaker 5: So this is the council bill associated with the previous contract reason it just grants the reason and accepts the property use and development agreement.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? I'll move to pass Council Bill 119651. Is there a second, please? Called the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas Mosquera O'Brien Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell high five in favor not.
Speaker 3: Opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show side.
Speaker 5: Three 1010.
Speaker 0: And 11 place.
Speaker 7: Customer base of your vote in.
Speaker 0: Council member back can you call the roll on the can you extend the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed. There we go now filibuster for me can you can you read items ten and 11 into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda items 1011 council vote 119 649 approving confirming the plan of Roman place in portions of the southwest quarter in the southwest quarter, section 22. Can we excuse me, agenda item 11 clear file 314378 for you Unit Lot Subdivision Application of Black Hawk Investment LLC to subdivide one person to 14 unit lots and 5930 636 Avenue South
Speaker 0: . From Pacheco.
Speaker 5: Colleagues, this is the final plat approval ordinance of the 14 unit Raymond Place Subdivision in the Othello neighborhood. Our action today follows CCI permit approvals, preliminary plat approval by the hearing examiner, development of the project and final review by Stsci. As done as I confirm that all conditions have been met and recommend that Council grant final approval. This is the property located at 5936 36th Avenue South in Othello, a half block west of MLK Way. It's approximately 13,329 square feet. Originally zoned for low rise three was rezone under MHRA to neighborhood commercial two with a 75 foot height limit. And it's dividing the two lots into 14 lots for townhouses with vehicular access provided through an alley.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And you describe both the bill and the clerk following your description, correct?
Speaker 5: The clerk bill.
Speaker 0: Yes. So we have the bill and the clerk filed those. Both were read in the right. Okay. So I'll take them individually. So on the council, Bill 119649i will move to pass counts. Bill 119649. I can't move the second act. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas Macheda O'Brien Pacheco so on. By John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and show sign it I will move to accept and file clerk file 314378. Those in favor of accepting and filing the clerk file, please vote i i. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the Clark file has been accepted and filed. Very good. So please read items 12 through 16.
Speaker 1: Agenda items 12 through 16 appointments 1433 1434 Appointment of Twila minor as members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners for a term two September 30th, 2022 appointment. Michael Diaz as members of Housing Authority Board of Commissioners return to March 20th, 2023. A re appointment of Robert de Crutchfield and Paul Purcell as members of a housing authority board for Term two December 1st, 2022, and reappointment of Gerald Smiley as Member Sale Housing Authority Board for Term two March 19th, 2023. The committee recommends that these appointments be confirmed.
Speaker 0: Kathryn Pacheco.
Speaker 5: Colleagues, these are five appointments to the Seattle Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Their appointment packets are in the agenda items and we are hoping to get full approval of the five appointments.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mesquita, would you like to make some comments, too?
Speaker 6: Sure. We have to do. Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco, for your support. These are the five appointments to the Seattle Housing Authority Board that came through the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. The first is appointment of Twila Miner as a member. She is an exemplary saris. She provides an exemplary service to the community as a member of the Denise Harris community. She runs the Feeding Ministry at Greater Mount. Bigger Church, is an active volunteer for emergency feeding programs of Seattle and King County and collects donations to help stock the emergency feeding warehouse for the last five years. She's been a resident of the Seattle Housing Authority since 2001. The appointment of Michael Diaz is coming before us, as well as a new member. Michael was formerly an employee of Plymouth Housing Group, where he oversaw the rental housing office and has been a resident of the Seattle housing authorities in 2006. And then we have three reappointment, the reappointment of Robert Crutchfield as member for his second term, serving on the authority board. He was an adjunct professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Washington and Honorary Professor of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Queensland, Australia. We have the reappointment of Paul Purcell, who would be serving for his second term as well. He is a founder and strategic advisor of the Beacon Development Group, where he has overseen development of over 80 projects totaling about $900 million of investments in affordable housing for clients across Washington. And finally, the reappointment of Gerald Smiley. This would be Gerald's second term. He's a laborer from Local 242 organizes with the Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition and Labors Local 242 and is the owner of Big League Prep Free Mobile App, where he provides training for youth coaches. And he is a Puget Sound State Board member committee. Recommends appointments of 1430 through 1434 be confirmed.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other comments on any of these appoint appointments? 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 reports of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item 17 Casper 119 648 Relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing superintendent to amend the existing ten year lease with the Seattle Children's Play Garden to add a third additional extended term of five years. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, madam clerk. As you stated, this is a parks bill that authorizes superintendent to amend the existing.
Speaker 3: Ten year lease.
Speaker 2: This program opens more recreational opportunities for children with physical challenges essentially located at Coleman PLAYFIELD, which is an ideal place for specialized recreational facility development. Public assets in their communities can be recommends for council passed this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Words. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get out. Hi, O'Brien, Chaco. I so want Major Gonzalez Herbal President Harold Hi. Six in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passenger side please read the next agenda item short title.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 18 Council Bill 119 655 related to the Seattle monorail approving a letter of agreement between the Seattle Monorail Services LLC and the Sale Center Department. Can we recommend the bill passes?
Speaker 0: Amended gets been worse.
Speaker 3: Thank you. If we could all sing the monorail song from The Simpsons as I read this, that would be great. This would approve a letter of agreement between Seattle.
Speaker 2: Monorail Services and Seattle Center. It would authorize the call center director to negotiate to execute an amendment to the monorail concession agreement. The biggest piece of this for me is the implementation of the Oracle program as an option to use on the monorail, which will begin October 2019, I sponsored an amendment that requires Director Dellums to report back.
Speaker 3: To committee to finalize the agreement. If I don't.
Speaker 2: Like the agreement. So Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends full council pass council bill 119655 as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. There's any questions or comments. Councilwoman back quickly.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilmember suarez wonderful job on this. I want to acknowledge robert nelms and and tom al brough. I think at one point we I know this went on for a very long time. And I think at one point we just suggested throw the lawyers out of the room and have a beer summit since 2014. And it worked. So anyway, thank you for your help. Yep. Got it done. Good.
Speaker 0: Those are our comments. Let's call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco. So on Mencia. Gonzalez Herbold. President Herald High seven in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed. And Cheryl Simon, please read the agenda. Item number 19.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 19. Council Bill 119 647 authorizing the general manager, CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a memorandum of agreement between the City of Seattle and the Michael Shute Indian tribe. Can we recommend that the bill passed?
Speaker 0: That's been us.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: And as Madam Clerk stated this an ordinance to execute a memorandum of agreement.
Speaker 3: The city owns.
Speaker 2: A collection of 12,000 artifacts and obtained between 1986 and 1989 as part of the Cultural Resource Mitigation Plan developed for safety improvements to the Cedar Masonry Dam and construction. The collection contains artifacts like projectile points, cause cobblestones, flakes and fire altered rock, representing approximately 10,000 years of human habitation. The Indian tribe desires to.
Speaker 3: Obtain house and maintain nine pieces.
Speaker 2: That hold historic and cultural significance for the Moccasin nation and other tribes in the region. The Committee recommends Council.
Speaker 3: Full Council Pass Council.
Speaker 2: Bill 119647.
Speaker 0: Think you can summarize any questions or comments? Now please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez. Purple President Harrell High seven in favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed in show senate vs religion idea number.
Speaker 1: 2020 appointment 1426 Appointment of Andrea C Akita as member set up Park District Community Oversight Committee for Term two March 31st, 2022. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This appointment is a.
Speaker 2: Role that represents District two Council Council President Harrell's district for the Parks District Oversight.
Speaker 1: Committee.
Speaker 2: The PDC provides advice to the Mayor, City Council and the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation related to Sale Park District's project and programs. Andrea currently serves on the Board of Park Commissioners, so Andrea sees this as an opportunity to bridge the important work between the two entities. Andrea has a rich history in both the nonprofit and private sector to bring to the table her knowledge of social justice issues and affordable housing, and her understanding of how the city works will allow her to be a value added member. To enrich the community. Enrich the Enrich Committee discussions. The Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends full council confirm this appointment.
Speaker 0: Get any questions or comments. Now those in favor of confirming the appointment please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. Most curious appointment is confirmed. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. The short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to heating oil; imposing a tax on heating oil service providers; directing the expenditure of heating oil tax revenues; directing relevant City departments to create a plan for regulating the use of heating oil tanks; adding a new Chapter 5.47 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, 5.55.230, and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09232019_CB 119650 | Speaker 0: Got any questions or comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Please read the next agenda.
Speaker 1: Item three Part of the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee Agenda Item 30 Council Bill 119 650 Relating to violations of and compliance with the sale fire code, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Council Member Gonzalez Thank you.
Speaker 4: Council President Council Bill 119560 would authorize certain Seattle Fire Department personnel to issue citations for additional requirements and compliance with the requirements of the existing Seattle Fire Code. This legislation would create a civil penalty of $373 per violation. This is equal to the fee for inspections, and it will allow for the use of a more moderate tool to enforce compliance with the fire code and help protect lives and property from the risk of fine. This excuse me for the risk of fire. This less punitive approach to enforcement has the potential benefit of incentivizing compliance with the fire code. And again, I want to express my gratitude to the fire department for the thoughtful approach to this. This strategy, which includes included a plan for extensive engagement of property owners, including language appropriate outreach when and if necessary. With that being said, the committee recommends that the city council pass this council bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gosar. Any questions or comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez, Macheda O'Brien. Pacheco. I want Major Gonzalez I Herbold President Harrell seven in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed bill passes and Cher will sign it. Just want the record to reflect the fact that this room was full when we started. And you all can really clear out of room. I see. Is there any further business to come for the council? If, notwithstanding the journey, they want to have a great rest of the evening. Thank you very.
Speaker 4: Much, Mr..
Speaker 7: Powers. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to violations of and compliance with the Seattle Fire Code; establishing citation authority for the Seattle Fire Department; amending Sections 108, 109, 202, 901, and 902 and Appendix A of the 2015 Seattle Fire Code as adopted by Section 22.600.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code and as regulated and allowed by the State Building Code Act, Chapter 19.27 of the Revised Code of Washington; and amending Sections 3.02.125 and 3.16.320 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119554 | Speaker 1: Bill passed in show senate. Please read agenda item number one the short title and I think we'll take these individually councilmember mosquito so let's just call it that. I'll work with you, I assume. Take them individually.
Speaker 8: Council President I wonder if we could read all four into the record so we can all speak to them and then maybe take individual votes. I do have a one amendment on health care that I'd love to consider individually when we get to the voting process. But if it pleases the president, maybe then we can speak to all four.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. So read all four in the short titles, then we'll we'll vote on them separately.
Speaker 3: Every part of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee, Gender and one Council vote 119554 related to employment in Seattle, requiring certain employers to limit room cleaning workloads for certain employees. Committee recommends will pass Agenda Item two Constable 119556 willing to implement in at any Chapter 14.29 to the sounds of a code, the committee recommended the bill pass agenda item three Council Bill 119557 relating to employment in Seattle requires certain employees to take certain actions to prevent, to protect and respond to violent or harassing conduct by guests. Committee recommends a bill passes amended and agenda agenda item four Cancel 119555 relating to employment in Seattle, requiring certain employers to make required health care expenditures to or on behalf of certain employees for the purpose of improving access to medical care. Can we recommend the bill passes amended?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam Clerk comes from ROSQUETA.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. It's been a long road to get here. It's been about nine months of engagement with community partners that we've heard from today. And over the last nine months, we've had nine committee meetings directly talking about specific legislation. Well, it feels like a long road for us in the midst of these policy debates, in the midst of media soundbites, in the midst of policy amendments that we've heard that we've brought forward to our committee, it can be easy to forget what this legislation is all about. And this legislation is mostly about the women. And I say women intentionally, who you've heard from today and over the last nine months, actually, over the last few years, women who've experienced harassment, injury and fear in the workplace, women who are mostly people of color, mostly immigrant workers. We've drafted legislation and put it in front of you to think about what it means to walk in the shoes of a hotel worker, somebody who's been waiting on tables in hotels and serving guests of those hotels. And for decades, many of these workers have been waiting for this legislation to pass. Well, it's been a long road for us. It's been a much longer road for those individuals who've been asking for these type of protections over the years. This worker, she's probably been harassed potentially in a hotel behind a closed door, in a room or in public, like we heard about at the last committee meeting where an individual came forward and said that as a server in a restaurant connected to a hotel, she had to get out of an unwanted hug and run away and then was reprimanded by her employer for getting out of that hug. She's probably felt trapped and didn't know what to do, and she maybe felt uncomfortable about reporting it. As we know, 50% of housekeepers have experienced harassment and haven't reported it because of fear or discomfort, not knowing what the outcome would be. She probably got injured on the job. As we know that hotel workers have higher rates of back injury than construction workers and coal miners let that sink in. Then construction workers and coal miners, we're talking about basic protections that we want to make sure every worker has in every industry. You heard today about the individual who mentioned four surgeries. Think about that individual now being able to potentially access health care. When we were first talking about this legislation last December and January, I heard testimony of worker after worker who had experienced miscarriage after miscarriage because of the high rates are high number of square footage that they had to clean. She may not have wanted to ask for protections because she was fearful of retaliation and maybe was fearful because of what she had heard about coworkers speaking up. But then guess what happened? 77% of voters voted to have her back. She felt protected by this very city. She felt protected by the voters who stood up and said that, yes, they want people to have access to health care. Panic buttons in case they go into a hotel room like we've talked about the ability to know how much square footage they will be asked to clean every day. And today we are moving forward with some of those basic protections that many of us voted for and that many of us have actually had the chance to learn from since the implementation of 124. So thank you to all of the workers and the industry who have come forward and worked with us over the last nine months . I know that nobody needs an overview and I'm trying not to get into the policy weeds, but I can't help it. I just want to remind folks that these four components are incredibly important. Protection from harassment and intimidation, access to health care, and the ability to purchase that health care, job retention and protection against unsafe workloads. Our Officers Council member Gonzalez and I, as co-sponsors of this legislation, have been working diligently with the Office of Labor Standards Central Staff, the Executive Office, the Attorneys Office, all of you on council, and the stakeholders, the multiple stakeholders that we've heard from today who have helped us craft the legislation in front of you and over these nine committee meetings, and I would say hundreds of calls and emails that we have received, we have tried to pull forward the common ground that we see between what stakeholders want and the very protections that we know voters wanted. The process in and of itself was very inclusive. We tried to make sure to have weekly meetings, to hear both feedback and amendment ideas. And of course, not everybody is satisfied with every aspect of the legislation. That's what happens. There are some incredibly important protections, though, that we have been able to maintain in the initiative. And as you've heard from folks who testified as workers, this is a really important step forward in carrying out the will of the voters and making sure that the legislation in front of us truly does improve safety, protect folks from harassment and intimidation, improve access to health care and the ability to purchase it, and make sure that this industry moves forward with what we know some good employers already include in their policies, but makes it a public policy of this city to make sure that every worker has those same protections. We've included some really important language, and I want to thank all the council members for engaging with us, especially the folks who are on our committee. Councilmember Bagshaw has been working with our office as we thought about how do we include the feedback that we heard on ancillary business. And what's really important to know is that the definition of ancillary business has been very much scoped to make sure that there's a specific and direct connection to the hotel purpose, that something that we heard was really important, as well as making sure that food and beverage establishment had a direct entrance for guests into that business. This is a direct element of the feedback that we've received from community stakeholders, and there's also some Faizon provisions. It's really important to note that the load safety protections, the retention and health care bills, they only cover businesses with 50 or more employees. And if there is a business that has between 50 and 250 employees, they have five years to work to get into compliance to make it workable or renegotiate leases. This is directly based on feedback from especially some of the smallest businesses that we've worked with to make sure that the legislation is implementable and that there's time to make these administrative changes to get into compliance on the safety legislation. You may recall that we had initial protections included to look at excluding guests who were accused of harassment and intimidation. And I think that this is something that all of the voters really wanted to make sure that no worker is put in the position where they are, again, intimidated, harassed or assaulted in their workplace. And that includes whether or not you're working in the restaurant that's connected to the hotel or if you're in that closed door with the hotel guests. And what you have in front of you today really represents an amended version of the concept that we had brought forward because of the feedback that we got from the ACLU, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, King County Prosecutor's Office, Refugee Immigrant Alliance, The Rewire folks and folks from One America and More. We have had very important conversations about how we include some of the feedback from legal voice and the Sexual Violence Law Center. And we look forward to making sure that there are protections that aren't just words on a piece of paper or aren't just a panic button that looks like the Staples button, but that when you push a panic button, you truly have somebody that's calm so that they can come and free you from that situation and that people know where to go when that panic button is hit. This is really important, as we've learned from past legislation, that we need to make sure that this is workable, that it's meaningful, and that results and behavior in norms changes. So thank you to the folks who have worked with us on that. Councilmember Pacheco, you brought forward an amendment. That helped to make sure that when workers do access the time that we've proposed, that they can have off to access as an advocate to pursue the situation that they've claimed has happened to them. They'll be able to use that time within a two week period. We know sometimes it takes people a while to process what's happened to them, and that was an important amendment. We also made sure that the violent or harassing conduct is something that will never get a pass and that we have opportunities to lift up what we know some good employers have implemented and apply these good policies across the board. So some have talked about what they already have in place. We appreciate that. But public policy is significant. Public policy means that every worker gets protected and public policy is what we're carrying out today. On the injury legislation, this legislative process, we've learned a lot about what housekeepers need in order to be safe. The 2010 American Journal of Industrial Medicine study found that occupational injury disparities in the US hotel industry found that employees have higher rates of occupational industry and seen more severe injuries than most other service workers. And there's a disproportionate aspect, right, especially when you think about this, applying to more women and women of color. We have an equity call to action here. They are sounding the alarm bell for us to act on these injury rates. And that's exactly what we've done here. In 2006 in the Puget Sound Stage survey found that we had three times the percentage of back pain and injury than the general population. This is calling on us again to make sure that we act so that these workers, again, mostly women, people of color and immigrants, don't experience higher rates of trouble sleeping, chronic pain and interruption with daily activities. And again, I'll mention miscarriages because that often doesn't get reported as a public health aspect. We are very excited about what we've been able to put in front of us today, and many in many respects we see the legislation in front of you as a carefully crafted term of art, because many of you have wanted different things and we have tried to come together to include those. But what's most important is that we don't forget the stories that we've heard today, the workers who have come forward time and time again to talk about why it is so important to have safety protections in terms of workload safety protections, in terms of protection from harassment and intimidation, the ability to access or purchase health care, and to make sure that all of us have retention and the ability to stay at our jobs. We have one of the most thriving industries in the hotel hospitality industry, and your work on a daily basis makes the work of this city function. So for us on city council it is about moving forward in ensuring that there's stability and security for these workers and helping and in doing that, that will help us be one of the more attractive places to come to because people will continue to point at Seattle for being the place that lifts up workers. And I applaud all of you for making this legislation today possible. Mr. President, I'll have a few more thank you's, but I know the cosponsor and other committee members probably have a lot to contribute to this. And so before I get into the thank you's for all of the incredible work that went into making this legislation possible, I'd love to hold that for until right before we vote.
Speaker 1: Okay. Sounds good. We are. We can speak on all four pieces of the legislation. It's all been written and recorded.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. We just got.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh, go ahead. You can say it loudly. Councilmember Gonzalez, would you like to have some comments?
Speaker 9: Sure. I think that council was going to do a good job of outlining the various components from a policy perspective in terms of how these four bills have evolved since they were first introduced for council consideration. So what I think council members get for that heavy dose of the wonk sauce, appreciate it. I do think it's important to, in this forum and venue, really highlight the the key policy points that have changed and that have evolved in large part in response to much of the public testimony that we've heard and a lot of the ongoing engagement that occurred over the last several months. And so, you know, I just I just think it's really important for us today to really acknowledge that what we are about to vote on now is a follow up on a historic moment that occurred in 2016, when the voters first initially passed initiative 1 to 4 with 77% of the vote. And in today's city council, it is my belief through the passage of these of these four bills is going to fulfill the intent of the voter to ultimately provide protections to this part of our workforce. That, unfortunately, is subjected to much more to two issues in the in the labor workforce that are quite problematic. And so I'm really honored to be able to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. I'm I'm really honored to be able to continue to struggle with a lot of these issues in a way that I think is responsive to the people who need the help most, which are the workers in our in our city, who really do need these protections to continue to be able to thrive and to succeed in our city. Last week at committee, I spoke a little bit about what my motivation is and what my motivation has been in terms of of of wanting to pursue this suite of labor standards. And I just wanted to reiterate that a little bit today by saying that, you know, for me, I think even when we were first considering initiative one, two, four, I came out very strongly in support of the initiative when we were first considering a resolution to support it on the ballot. And I continue to support the concepts and the principles that are included in all four of these bills. And it's very simple for me. As Councilman Mosqueda mentioned, the large majority of people who work in this industry are women. Many of them are women of color in particular, and many of them are immigrants and refugees. And so for me, as a woman, as a woman of color and the daughter of immigrant parents, it is incredibly important for me to come here every day to city hall and live those values out in the way that I shape and think about policy and make policy. I don't believe that's a conflict of interest. I believe that that's why the voters of Seattle elected me as the first Latin X person to be elected to Seattle City Council in 2015 by mandate, by the way. So I think that for me it isn't a conflict of interest. It is incredibly important for me to bring my perspective as a working class person, as somebody who relied on social services growing up, as somebody who comes from a union household and is someone who is a person of color and a woman of color and the daughter of Mexican immigrants, to make sure that every day I'm here, I am living those values through this policymaking process. And that means centering my policy work and my priorities on helping those who need the most help. And for me, those are workers. And many of you in this audience are in that category as people, as people who are going to directly benefit from this policy. So I want to thank you and do this for you today, but also do it for all of the women who are not in this room today and for all of the women across the state who I know work day in and day out to serve their families and to do it with dignity and respect. My father, who's no longer with me. Used to oftentimes say, you know, were migrant farm workers, were poor and humble people, but there is dignity in all work and there is respect in all work. And just because you change somebody's bed sheets, it doesn't mean that you deserve to not be seen. So today we see you, we respect you, we respect your work. And we acknowledge that every day you in a small and big way, serve the people who visit our city and serve the people who live here. And I thank you for that service.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Council Swan.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Herrell. I am happily voting yes on the next four pieces of legislation. As a rank and file union member, a member of the teachers union and an elected representative of Seattle's working people as a socialist and as a woman. The protections in this legislation started with union members organizing to write Initiative 124 and organizing to win 77% support in the election. And when the court struck down, I won 24 on a technicality, not on the political basis. Workers organized to bring the legislator in to City Hall. And I am so happy to join Councilmembers Mesquita and Gonzalez in supporting this legislation. And I thank both your officers for the work and also your staff. Unfortunately, though, not surprisingly, and this needs to be noted, Mayor Durkan and some others attempted to reduce the scope of the worker protection by playing esoteric games with the definition of ancillary business and trying to discuss know who deserves health care and protections from sexual harassment. As we have said very clearly. All workers deserve these protections. And I'm really glad we were able to stop efforts to water down the bills and that the most damaging amendments are not being included in this legislation. I also would add that for the hotel and restaurant industry who are upset about the cost of providing health care, I would first echo my sister, Katie Guerra's point that when the system is rigged in your favor, when occasionally workers win some benefits, you may think that it is tipping the scales in the wrong direction, but it's not. This is a small measure of justice that workers are going to win. And if you don't like providing health care to your workers, then join us in the movement for single payer, Medicare for All, universal health care. But no business has the right to exploit workers. Oh. But ultimately what the labor movement is able to win depends, as it always does, on the unity of our workers movement, on the activism of union members themselves. And that is why the passage of these bills will be a testament to the tenacity of the members of Unite Here Local eight who are not only of you know, who not only fought for this initiative, but who are now fighting for their rights every day. Just this past Saturday, I joined Unite Here members like Sharing, who spoke today at the Edgewater Hotel who are in a difficult contract fight with the hotel owner. They have shared moving stories of overwork and abuse by their managers, but they are determined to fight back. And as I said, I and I'm delighted to share the news that the Edgewater workers have voted by an overwhelming 93% to authorize a strike. And we all need to stand with these brave workers. And last but not least, since our Teamster brothers and sisters are also in the house, I wanted to applaud Teamsters and other unions in California for their tremendous victory last week with the legislative bill. Ab5. This is a landmark legislation which will expand employment rights for tens of thousands of workers Uber and Lyft drivers for truck drivers, and many, many other gig economy workers who are currently misclassified by their employers as independent contractors. This is not only a vital step against exploitation of the workers in California. This is setting the trend for gig economy workers throughout the nation and throughout the world. And it's a strong message to exploiting corporations like Uber and Lyft that workers will continue to organize. And I'll end by saying that Seattle and Washington State need our own ab5 not half measures by the political establishment. And I am fully committed to be working with all unions in our community and our community allies to bring something like Ab5 to Seattle in Washington.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Katherine, for. Comes from Chicco.
Speaker 6: First, I just want to begin by thanking Councilmember Mosquito and Councilmember Gonzales for introducing these four ordinances. Not everyone received what they wanted interpreting i 124 and through it all, Councilman Mosquito chaired a very open and inclusive process and four that I think are through this process. And in my conversations I kept voter intent a top of mind. And for me it was my mother. Maria delivered this. Watkins My mother for nearly two decades, clean hotels. And as a kid, I sometimes go to my mom's job after school or after a morning at the doctor's office to help to help her. I'd often back in the hallways and for the towels and sheets. My mother over the years has shared stories of guests who made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe. It was with my mother in mind when I voted for AIDS 124 and who I kept in my mind through this process. Councilmember Gonzalez said during committee that she didn't have a crystal ball during the discussion regarding health care and the well-being of hotel workers. Neither do I. I just have my mother in mind. She's now had had multiple surgeries on her shoulders, in her hands. I know how hard your job is and I know how important your well-being is. This council did its best to interpret voter intent, as I did with keeping my mother in mind. I may no longer be going to visit my mother at work, but today at work I get to keep my mother in mind. And urged this Council to affirm the will of the voters and support the four pieces of legislation. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So I want to continue with the thank. And first, I want to say thank you to the hotel owners and managers who have been here coming week after week. And I have reached out to you. I have spent time with many of you. And I want to acknowledge Anna Boon, thank you for your continuing responses and working to help us reach resolution. And I do want to acknowledge and recognize that not everybody in this room is happy. That said, I think we've made some real progress on this, that the legislation is a far cry from when I first read it a number of months ago and to the hotel workers, I want to acknowledge and say thank you to you for all of the beds that you've changed, all of the towels you've brought in, all of the toilets and showers that you clean on a regular basis. That is no job that anybody would decide or or decry as being easy. I think it's one of the most difficult jobs, as we've heard, that people are have a higher rate of injury and think in no small part, if you're trying to change a king sized bed by yourself and you weigh £100, there's nothing easy about that. So please know that I appreciate all the work that you have done and also for the small businesses that have said, no, this is a family owned business. We can't afford this. For businesses that have fewer than 50 employees, this this legislation isn't going to impact you. And if you have a business that has less than 250 employees, you've got a five year phased in. That strikes me as a very reasonable approach. I also want to say thank you to Stephane a number of years ago. I don't know whether it was five, seven years ago. I offered to come and work a shift at one of the hotels with the people that are cleaning the rooms just because I was willing to do it and to see how hard it actually was. So I want to say thank you for the times that you've spent with me talking about that and for all of the people that you have represented. Also, we had a woman today earlier that said, why don't you do something about health care legislation going to the state? Believe me, if that's something you want to go with me hand in hand to go down to our legislature and to get a better health care coverage that is paid for by the state. With the state, whether it's universal health care, no matter what it's going to take, I believe we're going to have to start in the state of Washington. I'd be more than glad to go with you and support that. I think that's what's needed. Lastly, I do want to say about the ancillary business. This has been something with which I have struggled and we started off having every business that had anything to do or anywhere close to the hotel. And we're now at a point where I think that we have so heard from so many people that it's limited to businesses that routinely contract with a hotel for services in conjunction with the hotels purpose. It does not cover routine maintenance. It also covers an office or a company or a business that leases or sublease leases space at the side of the hotel for services in conjunction with the hotels purpose. And that is a definition that excludes routine maintenance. And also lastly, if it is a restaurant that provides food or beverages to hotels and to the public, there must be a public entrance into the hotel that has scope the definition in such a way that I feel that we have reached a compromise that I can live with. Finally, big thank you. Councilmember Mosquito, you've been leading this charge nine meetings. And for those of you who have come to all nine meetings, you know that Councilmember Mosquito listens to people. We have routinely had 3 hours, three and a half hour meetings because it's important to her that we have heard from everyone here. Councilmember Gonzales, thank you for your leadership also, Danny here. I don't know if you're out here somewhere, but Dan and Corina Bull, thank you for the million drafts that you have done for all of the evening and weekend work that you have done to help this. And I also want to acknowledge our law department, particularly Carolyn Beaux, who once again has spent many of her weekends redrafting. So that's thanks. I'm going to be supporting you in this, and I appreciate your leadership.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comes from a back channel. Yeah. There you have the comments before councilmembers get those four things we did. I'll just say before you give your thanks, can one of the sponsors describe the. There was a sort of a last minute change from 5000 square foot to 4500 square foot that I left the committee table. And that was passed at the table. But I've gotten a lot of calls as early as today on that issue. And perhaps one of you could explain the wisdom behind that change and the impetus behind that. What would justify that? Because I thought the 5000 square foot standard was when I won 24.
Speaker 9: I'm happy to address this. Councilman, town council president. Thank you. So in committee, we in both council rooms, Kate and I introduced an amendment that would lower further lower the the the threshold as it relates to when penalty pay would be triggered. So that's what the question is for those colleagues who didn't have the benefit of attending committee. So there is a provision within this suite of legislation that would require employers who request or require housekeepers to clean more than a certain amount of square footage to pay a certain level of penalty pay. Or, as councilman was going to refer to it, is in the injury protection pay to workers who work for those hours above and beyond what it takes the worker to work that square footage. So the original amendment had the level set at 5000 square feet. So for every hour that it took a worker to clean more than 5000 square feet, they would receive three times the amount of pay, hourly pay for for that extra work done above and above that limit. We had a discussion in committee about lowering that by 500 square feet to 4500 square feet while still leaving the penalty pay rate at the same rate of three times the hourly rate that it would take a worker to work the additional square footage. And the motivation behind that, and I talked about this at committee was a couple of a couple of different things. And it was based on some math that I didn't bring with me today. But essentially there has been some work done in California, as we have been discussing in committee. There are two jurisdictions in California that already have these laws in place that were passed, but also by voter initiative. And in both of those instances, the square footage in the legislation that those cities considered is at 4000 square feet, in large part because it takes there is a number out there that is cited in public sources that says that on average, a housekeeper cleans approximately 14 rooms, 14 rooms a day. And the average times the average square footage of a room sort of yields to about 4650 in terms of a square footage to clean 14 rooms a day, which would then which then led us as being councilmembers late at night to believe that if we were truly serious about creating disincentives to assign excessive workloads in, to really address the issue of what is an excessive workload, we felt more comfortable supporting a 4500 workload, which seemed to be a greater disincentive to assign excessive workloads to housekeepers based on that math.
Speaker 1: Thanks for that explanation, Councilmember Gonzales. I'll make a comment that I think what's behind the legislation and it's going to pass is the great work that organized labor and workers are standing together and saying in our struggle, we need to be heard and changes need to be made. And for those reasons, this kind of legislation comes into being, and that's a good thing. I'm not into the demonizing of hoteliers or employers in my efforts to reach good legislation because I believe they also care about employer safety as well, some more than others. Of course, I think the history would prove that. But I also believe that a definition of an ancillary business I voted for I 124 I don't even remember the term ancillary business quite candidly. I'm not sure how much of that I read, but I was certainly compelled to support employee safety and employee health and the conditions that the healthy conditions that are needed. So in this process, you know there's customer back so said there were some compromises some concessions made. I'm sure everyone doesn't get everything. If they want. But at the end of the day, I hope it works for the employees and for our business community. So for that, I'll support it. And. Councilmember Mosqueda, will you sort of close us out and then we'll vote will vote on the first three and then we'll pause an item for and take an amendment.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you all again for your robust engagement on this issue. I know some folks who didn't speak today were also a part of the committee meeting, so thank you to every single council colleague I have appreciated working with, especially our stakeholders who you've heard from, from today and from really every council meeting that we had, we made sure that we had public testimony included at every committee meeting, and there has been robust discussion with folks outside of that. So I do want to first acknowledge, again, the workers who came forward and shared your stories. It is not easy to tell those stories half the time. And we know, as the council president said, not every individual in the industry experiences those stories, but those stories illuminate why we need public policy change to truly make sure that every worker has the same safety protections. And like your sure says, that one job should be enough. So thank you for continuing to show up and make sure that folks can hear that message loud and clear. Again, I want to thank the folks from the industry that I'll get to at the very end. But you two have brought out a tremendous expertize and feedback that I have and will try to incorporate in many iterations that it has. You saw and really appreciate your continued engagement with us, but I'll get to that in a second to say thank you to everybody who's been part of the stakeholder process. I do want to start first with Councilmember Gonzalez as the co-sponsor of this legislation. Thank you for your ongoing work with us as we've come forward and brought these four amendments forward. And we could not have done it without our team. So a huge amount of appreciation to C.J. Perry, who is not out here, but her fingerprints are all over this legislation many hours late at night working on this legislation. And we could not do it without her research and her feedback and her thoughtful engagement with all of you who've testified and called in to our office also . We couldn't do this without Brianna Thomas, thank you. Oh, there they are in.
Speaker 0: Her.
Speaker 8: Honor just in time. Thank you for all of your work, Sejal. And Brianna, from our offices, a huge amount of appreciation for your work. We talk about how we get to be up here bringing together these public policy pieces, but the paper in front of us would not be possible without your ongoing engagement. So thank you very much to Sage and Brianna and making those ideas come to fruition. Thank you. Dan Etre and Carina Bull. Dan's back there and Cory and I hope she can hear us. Oh, she's over there. Thank you for sent from central staff for working with us on these various iterations. As folks saw in the last few committee meetings, we really tried to be responsive to some committee amendment ideas, and you all were very flexible in working with us. So our central staff team get a huge amount of appreciation and applause for their work on this. Let's give it up for them. And every single office has engaged with us on this legislation. Allison from Councilmember Bagshaw, Susie from Councilmember O'Brien, Brendel from Councilmember Juarez, Alissa from Councilman Robert Pacheco, Ted from Councilmember Solomon's office, Alex from Councilmember Herbals office, then from the council, president's office and our communications team. Dana, Stephanie and Joseph have been working tremendously hard to help get us the information and then push out information about this legislation. So a huge amount of appreciation for your teams as well. We have really been able to move the ball forward. On getting some legal analysis from our city attorney's office. I believe Councilmember Bagshaw mentioned Erika Franklin, but they have been engaged with us as we've run through various iterations and also tried to get feedback on stakeholder ideas as well. So thank you to the city attorney's office, Jenny, for a grant from the Office of Labor Standards has been incredibly engaged with us, along with the executive. So we appreciate all of their work. And also to the Office of Civil Rights. We have Cadman, Cahill and Tamar Azari from the Office of Civil Rights. In terms of stakeholder engagement, we don't do anything without folks who actually are on the ground experiencing this. As you've heard our appreciation for the industry and workers. This is also true when it comes to the advocates for preventing folks from getting in, from experiencing sexual harassment and assault, and also to making sure that folks constitutional rights are respected. So thanks to the folks at the ACLU, Allison Holcomb and Eric Gonzalez, thanks to Rich Stoltz and Eli Goss from One America and Mona's absolute, absolute from the Refugee Women's Alliance, who really brought forward the voices and perspective of immigrant and refugee workers and all of their input on especially the protection from assault and harassment. Rebecca Johnson Andrea Piper Wetland. Mary Ellen Stone Benson. Those from the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center and the King County Prosecutor's Office. There are so many folks that we have received feedback from. But again, I want to end by thanking Stephane and Anna. Stephane from the Unite Here Workers perspective. Thank you for meeting with us and for bringing in voices of workers constantly to try to test the language that we saw. We really appreciate being able to work with you and Abby Lawler from Unite here as well for her work prior to her departure. So thank you to unite here and for all of your members for raising your voices and bringing those ideas forward to Anna Boone, John Lane, Leah and Teddy from the Seattle Restaurant Alliance and Seattle Hospitality Association. The managers who've been coming in to give us feedback and suggestions right up until the very end, which is where we will get to the amendment on health care here soon. We know that there's some points of disagreement on policy deviations from what folks wanted, but I do really appreciate you engaging with us. And I think that with that council president, I just a huge amount of appreciation for the flexibility from the central staff, from the clerk's office . And Friday. Cuevas also was generous to share our committee or to host our committees for 4 hours, sometimes as we had flexible agendas. So thanks to all of you for engaging and for making this a piece of public policy we can be proud of. Really appreciate all of you and look forward to having the final vote.
Speaker 1: Please call a role on the passage of the Bill Herbold II.
Speaker 3: Whereas Misgender O'Brien Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez, High President Harrell. Native Favorite Unopposed.
Speaker 1: To a pastoral Senate. We have council bill number two that's already been read in the record. Please call the roll on the passage of a united number to council bill 119556.
Speaker 3: Herbold whereas Macheda I O'Brien the Chaco. So what I beg John Gonzalez I President.
Speaker 0: Harrell I.
Speaker 3: Am favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill Pass was chair senate please call the roll on passage of agenda item number three Council Bill 119557.
Speaker 3: Herbold I whereas macheda I O'Brien Pacheco I want beg John Gonzalez President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Nine in favor not.
Speaker 1: Oppose bill passes and sure Senate agenda item number four we do have an amendment councilmember mosquito.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I'd like to move Amendment one to provide clarification on the bill to improve access to medical.
Speaker 9: Care, second.
Speaker 1: To moved and second. Would like to elaborate on the amendment, I'm sure.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council colleagues. As you see in front of you, we have a council amend a bill to amend council bill 119555 to make sure that we're offering clarification to employers and to employees. The language that you see in front of you, make sure that there is a requirement that the employer obtains a sign waiver for the employees and that the waiver is offered in the employee's primary language. Prior to offering the waiver, the employer must provide the employee with written disclosure of the rights being waived and make sure that that information is of being described or prescribed by the Director from Office of Labor Standards. So there will be a chance to engage with all this as we talk about what that form looks like. And importantly, we have added a section here to make sure that there's clarification that if an employee receives a waiver and written disclosure described in the law under subsection 0602 and the employee refuses to sign the waiver, then the employee I'm sorry, then the employer has been deemed to have satisfied the required health care expenditure rate for that employee. I thought this was a helpful suggestion and we really appreciate working with law to make sure that this clarification could get in here. I would encourage our council colleagues to support.
Speaker 1: Any other comments on the amendment only? I can't recall. Was it second? It was. Okay. So we're going to vote just on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment as articulated by comes from a skater. Please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So we have an amended agenda item number four. The any of the comments, councilman skate. Are we ready to vote?
Speaker 8: I think we're ready.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other comments from any of my colleagues? Please call the role of the passage of the amended Bill Herbal.
Speaker 3: Hi, Suarez. Macheda O'Brien. Pacheco. So what? I beg John Gonzalez. President Harrell nine in favor nine.
Speaker 1: Oppose the bill passed and show Senate. Okay. We amended our agenda to address formally former agenda item number 33. So let's take it now. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; requiring certain employers to limit room cleaning workloads for certain employees; adding a new Chapter 14.27 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and amending Sections 3.15.000 and 6.208.020 of the SMC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119604 | Speaker 1: Oppose the bill passed and show Senate. Okay. We amended our agenda to address formally former agenda item number 33. So let's take it now.
Speaker 3: Agenda from the report of the Sustainable Transportation Agenda, Item 33 Accountable 119604 relating to the Green New Deal for Seattle establishing a Green New Deal Oversight Board. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much and thank you for moving this up on the agenda. We have a number of amendments to work through and appreciate having a little more time in case we needed some flexibility to get the language exactly right. So really briefly, the the legislation would establish a Green New Deal oversight board. We heard in public comment from a lot of folks who feel strongly that this board is designed and should be designed. And I agree to be a place to represent folks most impacted by climate change to date and make sure that their voices are centered and uplifted as we design policies consistent with the Green New Deal resolution that we passed last month. This has been an amazing body of work and there's a lot of work going forward for us to hopefully see that board by the end of this year. And then, of course, all the work that will follow out of that that needs to happen across the whole city. But the members of this board will be making really important decisions and recommendations to us on how to proceed to address the Green New Deal, which is how do we simultaneously solve the climate crisis and the economic crisis that has impacted our frontline communities, communities of color, low income communities, immigrant refugee communities for too long, for generations in our city. And recognizing that if we simply address the climate crisis without addressing the economic crisis, we will inevitably be back right here where we are in the same spot. This is an opportunity also to re as we reshift our economy, to be a fossil fuel economy, to make sure it shifts in a way that is much more equitable and gives more opportunity. People throughout our community. We have a number of amendments and so Council President, my proposal would be to work through them in order. Amendment number one is mine. Amendment number two, as Councilmember Herbold and Amendment three. Councilman Pacheco.
Speaker 1: That's fine. Let's do it.
Speaker 2: Right. And I believe that as we get into it, we may need to suspend the rules because some of these, at least some language was provided afternoon, but the First Amendment was provided in a timely manner. So I'd go ahead and move Amendment One, which would make some some adjustments to how this board would play out. I'll touch on the the main aspects. One is remove language that requires the manager, the mayor, to notify the board of changes to city policies related to the Green New Deal. Two It would remove references to climate action plans and instead of focus efforts of the board on the proposed inter-departmental team in implementing climate actions. Three It would specify what would be included in the board, what should be included in the board's workplan. Four It would reduce the frequency of reporting requirements and meetings between the inter-departmental team and board from four times a year to two times a year, and finally would correct a number of typographical errors. Sort a second on that.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. We have in front of us amendment number one. I'm sorry. Casper and Brant, can you point out the four you're moving it from four times a year to two times a year? A reduction of meetings, is it correct? What's the thought behind.
Speaker 2: The what we heard from the department was quarterly meetings of the departmental team would be significantly time consuming to the department. There's also a question is to, you know, if this board is meeting once a month, how much new information they would have, how much of the capacity they have? What I've told the folks from the community who've been working on this who would like to see they'd like to have access to a lot of information, that there are other ways that we can get that. For instance, instead of the whole inter-departmental team, if they're really interested in transportation policy, would work hard to make sure we get the transportation experts to report to them.
Speaker 1: Any questions on amendment number one from the dais? Okay, let's vote on amendment number one. All those in favor of amendment. Amendment number one, say I. I opposed the ayes have it. So I'm going to suspend the rules to take amendment number two, which is from Councilmember Herbold, unless there's some objection. So the rules are suspended and we'll look at Councilmember Herbold proposal. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I'd like to move amendment number two. I think this amendment does three separate things.
Speaker 0: The first is to in addition to authorizing the Green New Deal.
Speaker 9: Oversight Board to provide recommendations on. What the priority budget actions are. It also clarifies that we want this entity to prioritize the policy actions that are contained in the Green New Deal resolution. The second item in this amendment adds two more Labor representatives to a total of four. There are about 90 different building and construction, trades.
Speaker 0: Council unions and several of them at least.
Speaker 9: Four, if not more.
Speaker 0: Actually work.
Speaker 9: On on.
Speaker 0: Projects that would be.
Speaker 9: Impacted by the implementation of the recommendations found in the Green New Deal legislation. I also think it's really important to have Labor at the table as part of the necessary collaboration to try to get us to where we need to be on the on on the front end. And so that we can strengthen that blue green collaboration that we need to get us to the finish line. Then thirdly, the amendment requests that the Office of Sustainability in the Environment analyzes the impacts of the potential actions that are identified in the Green New Deal resolution and and how much each of those actions will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the sources identified in the 2016 Seattle Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory. And then from that analysis, estimate measurable progress that each action would provide towards making Seattle free of climate pollutants by 2030. The goal of the amendment is to make sure that you have the information as members of the oversight board, to ensure that the decisions about which items to emphasize and prioritize are grounded in data, and that we as policymakers have a clear sense of where the potential actions fit in the overall goal. This version that before us now is a little bit updated from the versions shared earlier this morning with additions suggested by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment to note that the request is to the extent possible with the budget and staff resources that they have available. And it is specifically for actions that require council approval, which is definitely in line with my intent.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thanks for clarifying that.
Speaker 2: And so can I just ask, is that amendment to version three.
Speaker 9: That is amendment to version.
Speaker 0: Three, and.
Speaker 2: I'll second that if it hasn't been seconded yet.
Speaker 1: It's been second twice. That's okay. So we have.
Speaker 0: Proper.
Speaker 9: Version.
Speaker 1: Amendment number two, which has been moved in second. And any further comments just on amendment number two? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold, I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I think the points you made about the the impacts of the Green New Deal and will be significant across workers and the ability to have four representatives of labor, which represents a diverse group of workers, is a great addition, and I appreciate their thoughtfulness. I also appreciate the other changes you made her, too. Thanks for your comment.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. We're going to take the amendment only. So all those in favor of amendment number two, as stated by councilman or herbal, please say I opposed. The ayes have it. Okay. I believe amendment number three will be proposed by Councilmember Pacheco, but I believe I don't have to suspend the rule, so I believe . I don't. Well, I'm going to suspend them anyway, just in case I'm. So I'll tell you, our our confidential whisper here is that some of the contents on Council on Amendment number three are somewhat contained amendment number two. But I will defer to Councilmember Pacheco as to whether I need to suspend the rules. And he still would like to propose an amendment number three.
Speaker 6: I don't think we do, because I actually I accept the councilmember hurdled the First Amendment that she provided this morning, which was the priority city actions. So we've already accepted it. So I don't think we need to suspend the rules because this is the same amendment that I spoke of this morning.
Speaker 1: Okay. And the concept of philanthropy in high tech is that.
Speaker 6: It. I did also, actually, you know what? I do need to spend the rules because I did make an amendment, take a friendly amendment from councilmember mosquito. Regarding councilmember mosquitoes off as a bonafide collective bargaining agreement for the business.
Speaker 1: So. Okay. So do we. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: I really. I would say yes.
Speaker 1: So do we have a document that describes this concept? Do I have a document? If not, I may have to consider it out of order. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: I'd recommend that we be considered for this amendment to.
Speaker 1: Take the time to do that. So so let me let's just be open and transparent in this discussion. So if we are to consider any additions to the board as already amended, it's been suggested that we would then do that within Councilmember Herbold amendments. But we have to do that. On the fly, as they say so. And Councilmember Pacheco, you know, I've been doing this for a while. You know, everything's nothing's really etched in stone. If you really want to push it. We could have some conversation, see if there's an appetite. If not, I think we've amended it consistent with Councilman Herbold proposal. So I'll defer to you on this issue.
Speaker 6: Sure. I would like to have a discussion on my proposed amendment.
Speaker 1: If you have the floor, sir.
Speaker 6: So first, let me just acknowledge that I'm I'm glad as a city we're having a conversation about what we can do to make a more sustainable future. And the Green New Deal isn't just on a local level what we're doing as a result of federal inaction for multiple decades. And so I just want to first acknowledge that because it's that's where the intent of my amendment comes from. The amendment that I am proposing is to align the Workforce Development Representative to be connected to the Career Connect Washington Initiative, which is an initiative that was passed this past legislative session. So that as a state goes, which was an initiative launched by Governor Jay Inslee, the city aligns with the priorities and as well it takes leverages the expertize of the state so that we can maximize our investments with regards to workforce training. Additionally, wanted to outline who the four representatives within Labor are going to be. As we've seen over the last couple of weeks, the four industries that are going to be most impacted by the decisions that this council makes as well as the city continues to move forward with with regards to construction, energy, transportation and building trades, wanting to make sure that we were explicit with regards to their their involvement in the in the conversation. And then lastly, I wanted to outline the three additional seats that I had mentioned this morning, one representative for a philanthropic organization that funds programs and services in the Seattle area. We are very fortunate to have the sixth largest community based foundation in the world's largest philanthropic organization in our region. A number of organizations, the Bullet Foundation, the Satyr Bird Foundation, who focus on a lot of environmental causes. And so acknowledging that as as a city, while we often want to pilot programs, we unfortunately sometimes don't have all the resources to be able to pilot and fund pilots that can most impact and benefit communities in need. And so we wanted to provide an opportunity for them to be representative as well and representative of a technology based company here in Seattle. I have this was not too contrary to what I think some people want to be identified as Amazon. But I have been a big, strong proponent of scooters, the e-bike programs, companies that have operated here in Seattle, because it's allowed me to get out of a car and wanted to ensure that as we consider those conversations and as these new technologies continue to be developed, that we embrace the innovation and acknowledge the trade offs that are a result of it. In my district, the students at the University of Washington have a laboratory called Commotion, which tries to leverage the innovations that students are trying to take and take it to market. But understanding how that continued innovation keeps driving that conversation forward. And then lastly, a representative of green business operate in Seattle, and I was very fortunate to have a conversation with between offices with Councilman Muscat, his office. And it's the language that I mentioned this morning. And I'll just reiterate for the public, which is a business that preserves or enhances environmental health, as well as the economic and social well-being of people and communities. Prioritizing communities most negatively impacted by climate change provides living wages and career pathways to its employees and whose employees are covered by a bonafide collective bargaining agreement. And so ensuring that the company that we, the green business that we include in this conversation is doing well and doing just by its workers , as well as helping us embrace the new technologies and again, the new industries that are going to be created as a result of the green economy.
Speaker 1: So just to clarify the concept, is it. Philanthropic and.
Speaker 6: Philanthropic. Hi tech. Tech. A green business. Three three additional had additional seat for labor and a defined the better defined workforce development position.
Speaker 1: Now just thinking aloud before we do a pro and con, I'll just sort of take from the chair's perspective, trying to manage the legislative process a little bit is it's it's a little difficult to do it because I don't think I have the concepts in writing or embedded in the legislation. And it's a dangerous precedent to try to wordsmith anything at this point in time and even to have a quote unquote committee discussion. So I'm not comfortable with with legislating the amendment. However, Councilmember O'Brien just passed me something. What is this?
Speaker 6: If I think.
Speaker 2: We do have it.
Speaker 1: So we do have it in writing. So. Okay. I stand corrected there. Oh, so we do have it in writing. So does everyone. I have it in writing, yes. Okay. So, I mean.
Speaker 0: I think the I think the only confusion is we all have it in writing, but it includes the stuff that we just voted.
Speaker 9: On in my amendment.
Speaker 1: Oh. Oh, okay. So it's so somewhat muted because of the.
Speaker 9: It doesn't include.
Speaker 4: Not all.
Speaker 0: Of it includes two of the three.
Speaker 1: Elements. It includes two of the three elements. So it includes the green business and the tech. And the philanthropic. That's from Brian, if.
Speaker 2: I can.
Speaker 1: Lay it on the.
Speaker 2: So I believe Councilmember Pacheco has proposed and we have before us adding one Labor position and then the philanthropic position and then the tech positions for a total of four. But we already added two labor positions that are Councilmember Herbold. So I believe that one position that Councilmember Chico spoke to would be moot in. It's just the three additional positions that you're asking for. Is that accurate?
Speaker 6: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 2: And so.
Speaker 4: But the other part of it, which echoes.
Speaker 0: Amendment amendment are.
Speaker 4: Still in play.
Speaker 2: Well, everything's and we're having a second yet, but. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I apologize. I'm not doing a good job here. So the Councilwoman Pacheco, will you describe to me the. Board seats that are not in play that you're trying to put in play, even though we passed Councilmember Herbert's amendment. And I may ask the clerk or councilman or Brian to do that.
Speaker 6: Sure. So the three additional seats would be for philanthropy for a Seattle based tech company, as well as for a green business. Okay.
Speaker 1: So those three are not embedded in Councilmember Herbert's amendment, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct. They're not in the underlying legislation at the moment that's been amended already.
Speaker 1: Okay. So in order to see if there's any appetite for that and I'm keenly aware we did hear some public testimony, some community testimony expressing concerns and objection to some of this. I'm not ignoring that. I will ask any councilmembers if they'd like to express an opinion on Councilmember Pacheco's proposal of the three positions philanthropic, high tech and a green business. I saw some hands, councilmember. I'll go mesquite and then Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilmember Pacheco for checking in with our office. And just I wasn't actually planning to speak to this, but just because our office was mentioned twice, I do want to offer a little bit of clarification. I appreciate the author's intent to try to bring this forward, but I am supportive of Councilmember Herbert's amendment. I think in our conversation between offices, the discussion was if we were going to include this, there should be some clarification around what green businesses we're talking about, including making sure that as we do in every situation, we want to lift up high road employers who respect the collective bargaining process and engage with communities, especially communities on the front line here. So I appreciate the engagement in our office. I just wanted to provide that clarification, though. If we were going to have this, we wanted to make sure that there was the collective bargaining respect included there . At this point, since Councilmember Herbold has her amendment, I am supportive of that one. And so just wanted to offer that clarification for council colleagues. And unfortunately, I'm not supportive of this, but do appreciate the inclusion of additional labor voices that both Councilmember Pacheco and Councilmember Herbold had in common and will be supporting the bill with that amendment that's already been included.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember said it comes from issue one.
Speaker 4: Thank you. President Harrell. Again, just because this amendment amendment contained two components and one of those was about labor. And we have already unanimously voted on Councilmember Hobo's amendment of adding two additional Labor representatives. And I think that was an important amendment because it is essential for the labor movement to play a leading role in the movement for a Green New Deal and for a sustainable future. Because without workers we will not be able to win that. But the rest of this amendment, let's be clear, focuses on adding big business representatives, including representatives from corporations like Amazon. Big corporations do not need more power in society. They already run the economy. And actually and this is this is the most important point here. This is about the Green New Deal. If the corporations that would end up having a seat at the table through this, if this amendment passed, they not only already run the economy, they are actually responsible for the structures of our society that generate the overwhelming majority of climate change in different forms, whether it's carbon emissions, fracking or you name it. And so to me, that's akin to, you know, the White House appointing coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler to head the Environmental Protection Agency. We cannot we cannot have the fox guarding the hen house. And I think the same point applied to philanthropy. Philanthropy is just a thinly veiled disguise for big corporations to weigh in on social issues. And therefore, for all those reasons, I will be voting no on the amendment to put representatives of big business and neoliberalism onto the Green New Deal Oversight Board.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. So one thing. As Baron Pacheco.
Speaker 6: Well, I appreciate councilmember silence. You know, passion. You know, I want to clarify. Tech business is not an oil business and a green business is not a natural gas company. So I want I'm I want to clarify and make sure that my position or the organizations that I have identified are not being presented the way that you are describing. Secondly, with regards to philanthropy, I outlined a number of organizations that I think do good work. And for example, as I referenced, the bullet center was funded by the The Bullet Foundation. And it's the Bullet Foundation that the bullet center, I should say, that has led to a lot of innovation with regards to new products come in operationally online with regards to either local land use code changes or weatherization of commercial development. And so I want to be clear about the organizations that you're referencing. None of them have anything to do with the natural gas or oil companies that you have referenced.
Speaker 1: PACHECO I'll chime in. And would you like to go before me?
Speaker 9: I would defer to you. Council president, whatever.
Speaker 1: I'm never going to order.
Speaker 9: Whatever order you would care to call.
Speaker 1: I'll stick with my usual precedent of trying to go toward the last council member. GONZALEZ Yes.
Speaker 9: Well, thank you. So in considering or just having the discussion, because I don't think that this amendment has actually received a second it or and I don't think it's been moved either. So I think we're just having a discussion here on this. Right. I am sort of setting setting aside which bodies are actually going to fill these seats. I think I think I get I begin to get a little concerned when we get oversight commissions that get to this proposed size of 22 people. It was already large at 17. We then expanded it in a moment's notice to 19. And now the proposal is to go to 22 individuals of the positions that are being proposed by Councilmember Pacheco. Position 20 would be appointed by the City Council. That's the philanthropic position. Position 21 would be appointed by the oversight board itself. That's the representative of the technology company. And then the last proposed position is position 22, which would be the green business operating in Seattle, would be appointed by the council. So I'm I'm just a little concerned about the the size of the Oversight Committee as as expanded to 22. I also do share concerns that the at least two of the three new positions being proposed by Councilmember Pacheco. I'm having a hard time seeing the nexus between the philanthropic organization and the technology based company to the underlying work that is being proposed to be accomplished in the Green New Deal. Although I think that Councilman Pacheco has orally described his intent behind the tech company addition. I notice that there is not any language in this particular ordinance that clarifies that it needs to be a technology company that is working on and is committed to climate adaptation and resilience, prioritizing frontline communities who stand to lose the most if we don't get serious about climate change. All right. You know, I think, you know, I might be able to be persuaded to go for the green business model. But unfortunately, this is all presented as a package and I'm not able to support this amendment as is structured for those reasons.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Customers want you want to make another point.
Speaker 4: Just to clarify that the the the majority of ordinary people understand at this point. I mean, if we were here 20, 30 years ago, the question might be different. But at this point, I think the majority of us are very clear that the idea of while there may be businesses, especially smaller businesses, that are genuinely in good faith, participating in the community effort towards a Green New Deal, and I know that there are many small businesses supported strongly. That is not the same as promoting the idea of green business because by now most of us are very clear. The idea of green business or green corporations is just a thinly veiled sort of way of for corporations to go out the discussion and and the actual efforts around the Green New Deal. And I would also just say, going from a year ago, maybe you didn't intend this, but I don't think it is a it is a good thing to. Woman that you appreciate our passion. Thank you. So I think it's patronizing.
Speaker 1: So and Brian may make a another point on the amendment itself. I was actually prepared to support it. And I'll tell you why. And I hear the community saying that I think, first and foremost, we should have communities that are either traditionally underrepresented or those most disparately impacted at the table for this very. Which should be a powerful oversight board. I get that. What I do like about your proposal is bringing I don't assume that those sitting on this board are coming without positive intent. I assume that whether it's intellectual capital resources, personal commitments, that they would come to the Green Deal Oversight Board for the right reasons not to watered down its power, not but to assist those on the board. And I like having resources and intellectual capital at the table to come up with great ideas on what's out there. I don't. And while I supported the labor positions, when we get down to the nitty gritty, there could be opposition from Labor on some of the efforts we're doing and that's a good thing. You're going to get that rich, diverse discussion to come up with a good idea and product. So I liked where you were heading with this. I don't even know what high tech company, a green business or philanthropic organization we have in mind. But that doesn't offend me when I look at what we're trying to achieve in the bigger picture. And I also believe that even I believe that people should meet their own needs. And by that I mean that the great representatives we will have on the Green Deal Oversight Board will be able to advocate for themselves strongly and passionately, and no one's going to steamroll them over. And these additional members would help. Again, with the the research and the resources that can make for a richer product down the road. So I was prepared to support it probably might be the only one. I don't know. But but but that's where I was going to stand. And Councilmember O'Brien, you are and. Q So you have the floor, sir.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to say that I will not support the amendment, but for the reasons that other colleagues who were not supportive articulated.
Speaker 1: Okay. Would anyone else like to opine, which is just an amendment and it's not the base legislation? Any other comments from listen, we get everybody to get everyone nowheres. They're going to vote. Yes, you can. Councilmember Gonzales, parliamentarian question.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been moved in second. And so I was going to go through that.
Speaker 9: Oh, okay. Yeah.
Speaker 6: So I thought you were I don't have a lot of I.
Speaker 9: Started getting.
Speaker 6: Nervous.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not going to call for a vote yet, so I'm going to just make sure everyone express their opinion first. Okay. So, Councilmember Pacheco, you you've gotten some feedback from many your colleagues. You haven't made a formal amendment. Would you like to withdraw an amendment or. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: We don't have a formal amendment.
Speaker 1: That is the point that we don't have a formal amendment. So I'm going to see if he would like to make one or if he just like.
Speaker 6: And I could read the writing on the wall.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I don't hear a formal amendment so we don't have a vote, but we do have two passed amendments. And so with that, are there any discussion on the two past amendment or the base legislation that has been amended twice anymore? Closing pass. Why don't someone make some closing remarks and take us put us in a good mood?
Speaker 2: I will just say eternally grateful for the work that the community members have done on this. As you can see, this is not easy work and this is the easiest of the hard work that is left to do. And I look forward with working with you all. Let's say let's start tomorrow and maybe we can get some action on legislation about home heating oil and talk about natural gas hookups. There's a lot of work to do, but I'm really excited to get this board up and running a.S.A.P.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Casper and Brian. That's right. That's a that's a good mood. Okay. So please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold. I was macheda. Oh, prime.
Speaker 6: Hi. Pacheco I.
Speaker 0: Want I thank John.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez president.
Speaker 0: Harry.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Nine in favor not opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes. The bill passes and the bill, as amended, is not quite ready to sign. So I'll make an announcement once the bill is. The bill, as amended, is presented for signature. But it's it's it's warm and almost baked and we'll have it ready by the end of this meeting. So let's move to the next agenda item. Please read it into the record.
Speaker 3: Every part of the City Council Agenda Item five, Resolution 31907 in support of Youth led September 20th, 2018 Global Climate Strike urging Seattle Public Schools to support its students rights to assemble and participate in the global climate strike and affirming the city employees may request unpaid leave for a day of conscience on September 20th, 2019. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Green New Deal for Seattle; establishing the Green New Deal Oversight Board; providing compensation for those who incur a financial hardship by their participation on the Board; requesting that the Office of Sustainability and Environment create an interdepartmental team to advance the Green New Deal for Seattle; amending Section 3.14.970 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Section 3.14.979 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119623 | Speaker 3: 60 Total Agenda Item six Constable 119 623 relating to city employment authorizes an execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local number 77.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is the first of 13 items I'll be talking to today. None as exciting as the first five, but this one is a council bill that will authorize the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the city of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local number 77. And then a companion piece, which we will get to an item number seven, which will deal with information technology, professional discretionary pay. So the fiscal impacts on this will have estimated aggregate costs of wages for local 77 contract and for similarly classified non-representative employees, which will have approximately a $9 million increase between 2018 and 2022 to 74.7 million. That's 65.2 to 74.7. And this did not go through a committee. It was directed to the full council, which is typical of this kind of legislation that authorizes the execution of collective bargaining agreements directly to full council. And we recommend that the full council pass this legislation.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments? I'll move to pass counts bill 119623. Is there a second? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Purple. I. Suarez. Macheda O'Brien. Pacheco.
Speaker 0: So what makes John.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez president hero.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 3: 9 a.m. favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and show was senate. Let's go to agenda item number seven.
Speaker 3: Agenda item seven council bill 119 624. Relating to city employment, adjusting the pays and structures for the city's information technology profession, discretionary pay program and ratifying confirm research in prior acts. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 77 Information Technology Professionals Unit; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119624 | Speaker 3: Agenda item seven council bill 119 624. Relating to city employment, adjusting the pays and structures for the city's information technology profession, discretionary pay program and ratifying confirm research in prior acts.
Speaker 1: Has been a.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So this companion legislation to the one we just passed and is related would adjust the pay zone structures for the city's information technology professional non-representative employees that hold the same job titles as the local 77 employees. Financial impact is unknown because the executive would submit future legislation for department budget appropriation to cover any wage increases. Recommend same situation. It did not go through a committee, but we recommend passage of this bill.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments? I'll move to pass Council Bill 119624, then moved in a second place called the rule on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold II Suarez. Macheda O'Brien. Chico Swan.
Speaker 0: I Beg Sean.
Speaker 3: Gonzales. President Harrell II nine in favor none opposed.
Speaker 1: To bill passes and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Items eight and nine of Reappointment of Dorothy Hallman and Rosita I Romero's Members Museum Development Authority Governing Council four Turn to July 31st, 2020 to the Committee for Clemency Appointments be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; adjusting the pay zone structures for the City’s Information Technology Professional discretionary pay program; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119626 | Speaker 3: And Neighborhoods Committee Jan 16 counts about 119 626 relating to city employment, commonly referred to the second quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Has been back show.
Speaker 5: Thank you this emergency or it's not an emergency it's the second quarter 2019 employment ordinance. The next one's the emergency. It designates a number of positions exempt from civil service system as 11 positions will be exempted. The nature of the work to be performed by the positions consistent with the exemption criteria that set forth in municipal code . We also reached out to the labor unions to make sure that all applicable and interested unions had been involved in the conversations. And it returns one position to the civil service system and adjusts the salary ranges for the work training employee tier to pay title. That's it and we recommend passage.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comes back to any questions or comments now please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold i Juarez, Macheda O'Brien, Pacheco, so on.
Speaker 0: I beg your I.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez President Herrell. All right. Nine in favor.
Speaker 1: Nine Oppose the Bill Parsons. Excuse me. In the chair. I'll sign it. Please read agenda item number 17 the short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119 642 Relating to city emergency purchases of goods and services. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Second Quarter 2019 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from the civil service system; returning a position to the civil service system; and adjusting salary ranges for certain pay titles; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119642 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119 642 Relating to city emergency purchases of goods and services. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Because of my objection.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And had a last minute meeting. Barb Graff came our excellent emergency manager. And I want to first of all say thank you to her. She's going to be with us for another four months, has done stellar work. And it's her recommendation that this ordinance align emergent emergency management code with the purchasing and contracting code in the event of emergencies. And the example that she used at the table was last last February when we had snow, that nobody expected that late in February and we ran out of salt and she was able to obtain that . But based upon low bid, using the regular process that requires competitive solicitations, we will still do that whenever possible. But if there is something that is as an emergency needs, such as that, this legislation would allow her office to move forward, get what we need, and have us in line with federal FEMA requirements. So that's what this bill does. And we recommend passage.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill HERBOLD Whereas.
Speaker 3: Mr. O'Brien.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Pacheco.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Want.
Speaker 0: I beg Sean.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Go fast and show sign it please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 119 629 Relating to appropriations for the Human Services Department in many ordinance 125 724, which adopt the 2019 Budget, the committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City emergency purchases of goods and services; emergency consultant contracts; and emergency public works contracting; amending Section 10.02.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code to align with current practices and the procedures in subsections 3.39.020.M and 20.50.090.A and Section 20.60.114. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119641 | Speaker 1: Bill passed and show was senate. Let's go to agenda item number seven.
Speaker 3: Agenda item seven council bill 119 624. Relating to city employment, adjusting the pays and structures for the city's information technology profession, discretionary pay program and ratifying confirm research in prior acts.
Speaker 1: Has been a.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So this companion legislation to the one we just passed and is related would adjust the pay zone structures for the city's information technology professional non-representative employees that hold the same job titles as the local 77 employees. Financial impact is unknown because the executive would submit future legislation for department budget appropriation to cover any wage increases. Recommend same situation. It did not go through a committee, but we recommend passage of this bill.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments? I'll move to pass Council Bill 119624, then moved in a second place called the rule on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold II Suarez. Macheda O'Brien. Chico Swan.
Speaker 0: I Beg Sean.
Speaker 3: Gonzales. President Harrell II nine in favor none opposed.
Speaker 1: To bill passes and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Items eight and nine of Reappointment of Dorothy Hallman and Rosita I Romero's Members Museum Development Authority Governing Council four Turn to July 31st, 2020 to the Committee for Clemency Appointments be confirmed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herb Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you so. Dorothy Mahon is appointed to the Museum Development Authority Governing Council. Dorothy is a founding member of the Washington Women's Foundation, as well as a member of the Seattle Art Museum Development Authority Council. And then Rosita Romero is appointed by the mayor. Rosita is on the board of our distrust and was a Washington State Arts Commissioner, as well as owner and director of an art gallery in Seattle for 15 years.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Customer I Herbold any questions on these appointments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. I'd also like to announce that Council Bill 11906 as amended the the Green New Deal Board has been presented to me and is ready for me to sign. I will now sign Constable 11906 as amended. That's been signed last week. AUDIENCE Okay, please read. Agenda items number. Ten through 13 their.
Speaker 3: Genomes, ten through 13 appointments, 1383 through 13, 86 through appointments. A diary for Farivar Rekia Jones came in piece. Jamaal Williams as a member of Seattle Woman's Commission for Term two, July 1st, 2021.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 9: Daria Farivar is a council reappointment. Daria has background in advocacy.
Speaker 0: For people with disabilities and multicultural.
Speaker 9: Families. Rukia Jones is also a re-appointment of the City Council. Rukia has a diverse background in behavioral health, youth education and is a graduate of the Puget Sound Sage Community Leadership Institute. Came in Peace is also a reappointment by the Seattle City Council. Kaye currently works to connect engaging social entrepreneurs to investment resources.
Speaker 0: And Jamila Williams.
Speaker 9: Is also a reappointment by the Seattle City Council. Jamila has a background of advocating for reproductive rights and gender justice. Currently works in communications with Planned Parenthood, votes Northwest and serves as a woman of color. Advisory. Serves on a Women of Color Advisory Group.
Speaker 0: For the YWCA for.
Speaker 9: Seattle King County, Snohomish Counties.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Customer herbal. Any questions or comments on these appointments? Okay. Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i i those polls vote no. The most of Kerry's appointments are confirmed. Please read items 14 and 15.
Speaker 3: Agenda items 14 and 15 re appointments are Tyrone Grandison and Aaron G. RVO as members of Human Rights Commission for Term two July 22nd, 2021. The Committee for Clemency Appointments be confirmed as member.
Speaker 1: Herbold Thank.
Speaker 9: You. Tyrone Grandison is a reappointment of the Seattle City Council. Tyrone works with the Institute of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation on the technology team from a diverse background in using its systems to connect.
Speaker 0: People with public efforts.
Speaker 9: Aaron RVO is a reappointment of the Seattle City Council. Aaron works at Neo Tarot, an organization committed to supporting Indigenous communities in their efforts to reclaim the rights to their lands, and also volunteers with a social justice fund. Increased grassroots funding efforts in the Pacific Northwest.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments on these appointments? All those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries appointments are confirmed. Please read reports of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.
Speaker 3: And Neighborhoods Committee Jan 16 counts about 119 626 relating to city employment, commonly referred to the second quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Has been back show.
Speaker 5: Thank you this emergency or it's not an emergency it's the second quarter 2019 employment ordinance. The next one's the emergency. It designates a number of positions exempt from civil service system as 11 positions will be exempted. The nature of the work to be performed by the positions consistent with the exemption criteria that set forth in municipal code . We also reached out to the labor unions to make sure that all applicable and interested unions had been involved in the conversations. And it returns one position to the civil service system and adjusts the salary ranges for the work training employee tier to pay title. That's it and we recommend passage.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comes back to any questions or comments now please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold i Juarez, Macheda O'Brien, Pacheco, so on.
Speaker 0: I beg your I.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez President Herrell. All right. Nine in favor.
Speaker 1: Nine Oppose the Bill Parsons. Excuse me. In the chair. I'll sign it. Please read agenda item number 17 the short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119 642 Relating to city emergency purchases of goods and services. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Because of my objection.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And had a last minute meeting. Barb Graff came our excellent emergency manager. And I want to first of all say thank you to her. She's going to be with us for another four months, has done stellar work. And it's her recommendation that this ordinance align emergent emergency management code with the purchasing and contracting code in the event of emergencies. And the example that she used at the table was last last February when we had snow, that nobody expected that late in February and we ran out of salt and she was able to obtain that . But based upon low bid, using the regular process that requires competitive solicitations, we will still do that whenever possible. But if there is something that is as an emergency needs, such as that, this legislation would allow her office to move forward, get what we need, and have us in line with federal FEMA requirements. So that's what this bill does. And we recommend passage.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill HERBOLD Whereas.
Speaker 3: Mr. O'Brien.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Pacheco.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Want.
Speaker 0: I beg Sean.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Go fast and show sign it please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 119 629 Relating to appropriations for the Human Services Department in many ordinance 125 724, which adopt the 2019 Budget, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Spirit back show.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So last year you will recall during our budget we placed a proviso on the piece of our sweetened beverage tax public awareness campaign with a concern that we have the department come back and tell us more about what they were doing, what they would spend that money on, and what results they were expecting. So we're allowing our Human Services Department to move forward with a $1.7 million appropriation and the proviso will be lifted. And the report submitted in August will outline specifically, as we had asked for the activities to be funded, the qualify the qualifications expected of a communication firm, further collaboration with our CAB and a project timeline for the media awareness campaign. So we were we recognized that what we'd ask for has been accomplished and we move to pass this council bill lifting the proviso.
Speaker 1: Any questions or comments, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold Juarez. Macheda O'Brien Pacheco Sarwan Bagshaw High Gonzalez President Harrell High eight in favor none oppose.
Speaker 1: Bill Parsons Cheryl Senate. Please read the next agenda in the short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 119 641 Relating to Property Standpoint. Can we recommend Scott pass.
Speaker 1: This round back.
Speaker 5: Show? Thank you. This legislation will authorize our Office of Housing to enter into a 30 year lease and renewable for an additional 30 years if needed. With our low income Housing Institute for Property at Sandpoint, at Magnuson Park and Lehigh will develop 2225 Studio A, one bedroom cottages for people who are formerly home homeless. And I mentioned this morning how pleased I am with this. And I want to give thanks again to our former speaker of the House, Frank Chopp, working with Councilmember Mesquita. Really great idea to move forward. These cottages will be a step up from the tiny homes that we have authorized around the city. They have toilets. They have running water. They have small kitchenette in each. They will cost roughly $150,000. So they're substantially more than our tiny homes. But I believe that we really want to have a continuum available housing. And this is a good first step. And we recommend that we pass this ordinance to allow these cottages to be built.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Becky Shaw. Any questions or comments? Customer Mosquito.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilmember Bagshaw for including this item in her committee and for the generous time and table discussion that was had on the piece of legislation. We're talking about $3 million that the state provided for innovative housing models that can help us reduce the cost of building affordable housing. And we know that we can reduce the cost of building when we do it on public lands. The Sandpoint Community Cottage Project is a result of us being smart with public land, engaging the community out there who's very supportive of this, partnering with Lehigh to make sure that these community cottages are really built and that our community colleges also have a role in helping to be a component of this project. I wanted to call out specifically that the project is going to bring in worker and worker rights by including apprenticeship opportunities with the trades to help fabricate and construct the housing units and providing learning opportunities so that folks can get a good living wage job and access to a union. This is exactly the model that we hope for will continue to be replicated as we create more affordable housing across the city. So thanks to Councilwoman Bagshaw, to the Speaker of the House, will former Speaker Frank Chopp, and to the House members who've continued to give us more tools in our toolkit to try to build more affordable housing, especially on publicly owned lands. And as we build the housing, it's not just homes and units. We're talking about a common building, community garden, outdoor, outdoor, recreational space and walking paths. So it's truly a community asset. So thank you.
Speaker 5: Well done. And just and just a final note on that. This is coming fully funded from the state and the state's innovative methods to address homelessness in King County grants. So Seattle city taxpayers are not paying for this, but we're going to have a great pilot project and I'm very excited to move forward with this and urge passage.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any other questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: Herbold suarez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Macheda. I o'brien.
Speaker 0: Pacheco all right. So on big sean gonzalez.
Speaker 3: President harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 3: Eight and favorite.
Speaker 1: Unopposed bill passed and cheryl senate and i switched the agenda item order. So go ahead and read the next urgent item as amended. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to property at Sand Point; authorizing an amendment to the Amended and Restated Lease between Sand Point Community Connections LLC and the City authorized by Ordinance 122459, as amended by Ordinance 123195 and Ordinance 125366; removing one parcel from that lease; authorizing the Director of Housing to grant a new lease of the removed parcel; and authorizing related agreements and actions to support the development of cottages for the homeless on that parcel. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119643 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 20 cancel bill 119 643 Relating to real property located at Mercer Street and Second Avenue North, the committee recommends the bill pass customer back.
Speaker 5: I think this one, if it's at Mercer Street, it's Councilmember Bryant.
Speaker 6: Oh.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, Keysight. Okay. My mistake. Thank you, Keysight.
Speaker 2: Nice try, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 5: Just trying to pass it back to you. Keysight is one of my favorites. It is right next door to the north side of the Seattle center. And it it is a wonderful opportunity for us to be partnering with Plymouth Housing for a 99 year lease. It is again city owned property. Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito, for pointing this out yet again. Want to say thank you to Plymouth Housing, to our Office of Housing, to the Arts Commission, and to the various stakeholders at the Uptown Alliance who have done terrific work for us to make this happen. It's also going to be a great art and culture overlay, just providing 91 units of housing for low income households and formerly homeless households. But to have an.
Speaker 0: Art.
Speaker 5: Place and emphasis on the ground for so many thanks. And we urge passage.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any other questions or comments?
Speaker 0: I just have one customer.
Speaker 1: I'm a.
Speaker 0: Skater.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'm really excited about this. I'll keep it very short. But Councilmember Bagshaw knows that I spoke in her committee about how this is a great opportunity for us to highlight what we know works. And that's when you pay workers a good living wage, when you ensure that they have access to things like prevailing wage and the union, it helps to improve the quality of life and livability of our city and to improve access to good living wage jobs for workers across the board. So I'm really excited about this project moving forward. The initial conversation that we had last year on this piece of legislation was directly involved or directly included folks from the Seattle Building and Construction Trades and community workforce, folks who have wanted to see US pilot efforts to include strong labor protections in building affordable housing. And the case site has continued to be the area where we look forward to working with partners like Plymouth Office of Housing and Building Trades for this joint effort to show that strong public benefits equal a greater social good and greater equity for not just those who are going to be able to live in those buildings, but also for those who are building the building. So we're excited about this key site effort and will continue to look towards it to be a model for other areas.
Speaker 1: If you can get up to no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold I was Macheda High. O'Brien High.
Speaker 6: Pacheco High.
Speaker 3: So on Bagshaw High. Gonzalez President.
Speaker 1: Harrell High.
Speaker 3: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Passes and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number 22.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 22 Resolution 31902 Declaring the City Council and the Mayor's intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle's tree canopy cover. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to real property located at Mercer Street and Second Avenue North; authorizing the Director of Housing to grant a lease of the real property to Plymouth Housing Group or its affiliate or designee; and authorizing related agreements and actions to support the development of affordable housing and ground floor cultural uses at the Mercer Street and Second Avenue North property. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_Res 31902 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 22 Resolution 31902 Declaring the City Council and the Mayor's intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle's tree canopy cover. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. And I'm very excited to bring this resolution forward. I want to thank all from the Urban Forestry Commission who have been part of this, and also Councilmember O'Brien and others for keeping this part of our Green New Deal. So the best part about this tree resolution is that we have been working on it for almost ten years, and this resolution will set out a work plan. Some of us who care deeply about it will not be here to vote it through next year. But the ordinance will that will come out of this will be developed by the Mayor's Office in conjunction with our Office of Environmental Sustainability, Office of Sustainability and the Environment. And I am excited about completing these last steps. And we have urged the Urban Forestry Commission to work with the Office of Sustainability and the Environment and do public outreach in a way. And Councilmember Gonzales has been super about focusing on ways that we can have culturally relevant outreach to communities, emphasizing some of the communities of color and lower income that may not have gotten the trees in the past that they deserve and should have. So I'm really encouraging not only the amendment that Councilmember Gonzalez will be bringing forward here in the second, but also that we do more of the cafe style outreach. So it's not just 2 minutes of public testimony, but we're actually going out into the community and asking for people's opinions on this, but for our department and neighborhoods to be involved as well, to help reach people that may not have been reached in the past to include those voices and to move forward. So, again, I want to thank all of the community members and the volunteers who helped us put this together and to acknowledge Ali, Poochie and Yolanda, who have worked with this resolution with me and also have. Indicated that when we say we want to do what the Portland model has done. It took Portland three years to get there. So I hope that we can build on the many years that we've been working on this in the past. Learn from Portland and move forward with this. At the end of this year and getting started in the next. So the resolution is an important and concrete step and I urge its adoption.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Brown, I just said thank you to you.
Speaker 1: And thank you very much for describing the best legislation. I believe Councilmember Gonzalez has an amendment.
Speaker 9: I do thank you, council president. As Chair Bagshaw mentioned, I do have a small amendment to reflect the need to do community engagement with a prioritization for those communities that are low income and who also live in low canopy neighborhoods. So the resolution is quite that simple. I was concerned that that particular language that I just referenced was included in the recitals, but was not included in the action items. Part of the resolution. So worked with council central staff to make sure that that language was threaded throughout the resolution to ensure that communities, again, that are low income and living low cannot be neighborhoods are prioritized, prioritized as part of the community engagement by the executive, and also to ensure that that the community engagement plan was going to be done in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. So I want to thank L.A. Petrucci and and Yolanda HOA for their work and quick turnaround on drafting this amenity language. And I want to thank Chair Bagshaw for her support both in committee and now at full council of this amendment to Resolution 31902, and so would move for the adoption of Amendment one to Resolution 31902 as described.
Speaker 1: And then moving second to excuse me, amendment number one has been moved and seconded by proposed by Councilmember Ghazal as any questions on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment please vote. I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Any other comments on the Bass resolution? The legislation? Are we good to go? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it. Please read items 23 through 26.
Speaker 3: Agenda Items 23 through 26 appointments 1405 three 1408 appointments of Neftali Mari Gonzalez to Nani Hasan for Russa Harvey Kevin Jackson, who as members Seattle Youth Commission for Term two August 31st, 2021. The Committee recommends your plans be confirmed as member. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council’s and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle’s tree canopy cover. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119608 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 29 Council 119608 Billing to the city owned property located at 702 Roy Street, the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So this is the piece of legislation that I'm going to propose we hold. I'll speak to just briefly. This was a bill that passed out of committee that would have converted some of the Mercer block. I did maybe a couple square feet back to public right away. I believe it was a bit of a cleanup that they found later. My understanding is the department or the executive and the real estate company prefer instead of doing this, doing a permanent easement. And so that will be a different way that they will deal with that. So I'm going to go ahead and move. I'm sorry. Let me get my thing here. I mean, a move that we indefinitely hold. Council Bill 11960 8 seconds.
Speaker 1: It's been moved and seconded that we hold the bill indefinitely. If the rules require any other questions or comments. Those in favor of the motion please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. That. That. Item is held this please read agenda item number 30 into the record. The short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 30 cancel 119609 link to certain city owned properties located in the South Lake Union neighborhood and declaring them as surplus to the city's needs. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. | Council Bill (CB) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City-owned property located at 702 Roy Street in a portion of Lot 4, Block 2, Eden Addition to the City of Seattle; laying off, opening, widening, extending, and establishing a portion of Roy Street; and placing the property under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119610 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 32 Constable 1196 ten vacating portion of the armory waiting as condemned by ordinance 67125. The committee recommends the bill pass this member.
Speaker 1: O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is a sliver of land that is just west of the Pike Place Market. It appears to be almost under, though, I believe I haven't been down there in a few days. Maybe council members are the former Alaskan Way Viaduct that was standing there. It was discovered partway through the process that it was actually still in right away and was not Pike Place Market Land. So they have this is the street vacation to transfer that land to the market. They've done the installations of other benefit, public benefits that were required as part of this conceptual plan.
Speaker 1: O'BRIEN Any other comments or questions? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold, Suarez, Macheda O'Brien. Pacheco, Swan Lake. John Gonzalez. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 34 Resolution 31903 relating to the procurement and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, affirming city sales commitment to avoid procuring goods and services from corporations that purchase leases or edible oil fields in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plan. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE vacating a portion of Armory Way as condemned by Ordinance 67125, lying between Western Avenue and Elliott Avenue and vacated Pine Street and Virginia Street, adjacent to the PC-1 North Site within the Pike Place Market Historical District, on the petition of the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority (Clerk File 313716). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_Res 31899 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 35 Resolution 318 89. Granting conceptual approval to construct maintain operated below grade private thermal energy exchange system. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: That's from O'Brien.
Speaker 2: This relates to the property where the Seattle Times building has been near where the Seattle Times Park is. The the developer up there owns two large parcels of land on either side of John and Bourne Street. And I believe one is a commercial space. So office building and the other is a residential space. And they would like to connect the to to share heat back and forth across the two buildings. This would be the way we typically do this work to allow this construction to move forward in there, be at least from the city. We could revoke that in the future if necessary, like we have elsewhere. But actually from an energy efficiency and cost perspective, I think it's a really great idea to allow this to move forward and applaud the folks building those buildings to think of this creative way to share energy across sites.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And any questions or comments. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries resolution is adopt and share with Senate. Okay. Is there any further business going for the council? Yes, there is. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 9: I am going to be asked to be excused on Monday, September 30th and Monday, October 7th.
Speaker 1: Second son moved in second and third.
Speaker 9: From the get me out of here.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gonzalez be excused September 30th and October 7th. Any questions or comments? All those in favor of the motion. Please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. She is properly excused. Any other further business giving for the council customer in Pacheco?
Speaker 6: I move to be excused November 4th.
Speaker 1: I then moved and seconded that Councilmember Pacheco be excused on November 4th. Any questions or comments? All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Any other business? Okay. If not everyone, have a great rest of the day and thank you for being here. And thanks for all your hard work.
Speaker 5: Thank you for sticking around. 3 hours and 17 minutes. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, and operate a below-grade private thermal energy exchange system under and across John Street, east of Boren Avenue North and west of Fairview Avenue North; as proposed by Onni DEU (John Street) LLC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09092019_CB 119616 | Speaker 7: Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item two Council 1196 16 billion to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing acquisition of real property commonly known as 1902 Northeast 19th Street authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park and recreation purposes and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Whereas thank you. Council President. This ordinance allows for the acquisition of the 1902 Northeast 98th Street Parcel in the South Fork of Thorn Creek up in District five for open space and recreation purposes. The Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends Council Full Council pass this ordinance.
Speaker 1: Thank you, customers. Any questions, comments or concerns? That those in favor of adopting the resolution. It's a bill. It's a bill. Council president, pay attention. Okay. I was excited about the next person. Okay. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez, I Herbold.
Speaker 3: Hi for us. I Mesquita. I O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Pacheco, I so want.
Speaker 3: I thank President Harrell high nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and chair will sign it. Now read the resolution. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 1902 NE 98th Street; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119584 | Speaker 5: The report Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Agenda Item one Capital 11958 4,000,000,002 residential rental properties conforming to Zell Miller code with changes in state law. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Just remember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Fantastic. Thank you. So back in February of 2019, I sponsored Resolution 31861 that proposed certain legislative changes originating from recommendations from the Women's Commission in the Housing Justice Project Report Losing Home. The recommendations in the report identified specific harms in our eviction system, impacting tenants in marginalized communities, particularly women, the African-American community, seniors and transpeople. Following up on Resolution 31861, passed unanimously by the Council in the 2019 state legislative session, advocates at the state level and housing champions were in were successful in passing changes to the Residential Landlord Tenant Act Senate Bill 5600 was sponsored by Senators Patty Couteur and Mona Das and House Bill 1440, sponsored by Representatives Jordan Robertson and Nicole Macri. These bills have been in effect since the end of July and SDI, the Department of Construction Inspections, is already conducting outreach and education on the changes in this bill. They've been working to notify landlords who are currently registered with the rental registration and inspection database, about 19,000 landlords, and they've been incorporating into future landlord trainings and curriculum the new requirements under state law. This harmonization bill that is before us today makes consistent with our own unique city laws the new rights granted to tenants by state law. It passed unanimously out of the August 13th Civil Rights Utility's Economic Development and Arts Committee. What the legislation does is three primary things. First, it extends what was a mere three days that tenants had to pay rent or face eviction, for which they a reason for not paying the rent would not be accepted by a judge is only looks at whether or not the rent was paid within three days. The new law gives tenants 14 days for nonpayment of rent. This extends the amount of time a tenant has to access services, support or the next pay period in order to potentially get up, get caught up and avoid eviction proceedings. Secondly, the bill redefines rent as, quote, recurring and periodic charges identified in the rental agreement. The reason why this is so important is it allows a requirement that rent be applied past due, rent be applied before other costs like lease late payments damages, legal costs or other fees. And so that makes sure that when a tenant is behind in rent and also has other costs owing like late fees, that when the tenant pays the past due rent, it gets applied to the rent that is showing to be owed and ensures that the reinstatement of tenancy is based on on that rent and not the other costs. And then finally, the bill extends the minimum notice of all rent increases in the city of Seattle to 60 days. And under current law, most rent increases can only go into effect after 30 days notice. With the exception in Seattle for rent increases greater than 10%, they previously required a 60 day notice. Under this new law, all rent increases, regardless of their size, will only be effective with a full 60 days notice. And those are the main points of the bill. We're going to have another couple of pieces of legislation that we're going to be continuing to work through, through our committee. Also coming out of the Women's Commission Housing Justice Project, Losing Home Report. But we'll talk about that another time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Any questions or comments on the legislation? Okay. Looks like we're good. So please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thanks. John Gonzalez. Purple. Hi, Suarez. Let's get to O'Brien Pacheco. So what? President Harrell.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor.
Speaker 1: Nine opposed the bill passed in show senate. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; conforming the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law; amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 22.202.080, 22.206.160, 22.206.180, 22.210.030, and 22.902.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119601 | Speaker 1: Please read the agenda. Item number three.
Speaker 5: Agenda item three cancel 119601 relating to the construction of protected bicycle lanes requiring major paving projects to include protected bicycle lanes as identified in the City of Sails Bicycle Master Plan and adding a new Chapter 15.80 to the The Code. The Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you, colleagues. This this ordinance is really directed towards safety, specifically safety for bicyclists in our city. And the ordinance is really intended to ensure that we uphold the commitments we made to the motor plans, in this case, the bicycle master plan to build the facilities, the protected bicycle lanes that have been laid out in that project . What the ordinance would do would require that in repaving projects, on arterials, major repaving projects, these are projects identified as being more than $1,000,000. If that arterial is slated in the bicycle master plan is having a protected bike lane that the the expectation is that when they do that project, they need to include that protected bicycling. A couple of things I want to speak to here. One is one is the safety issue. A lot of work goes into making and updating the motor plans and a lot of factors into how to building a network of of bike lanes in this case that allow people to safely get around the city. Not so much folks like myself who may have been bicycling most days for the last 20 years. But for the vast majority of people who are interested in cycling but don't feel safe today, we want to make sure there's a network for that. Heard Councilmember Gonzalez this morning speaks to her experience in Copenhagen, which is vastly different than ours and where, you know, depending on the day, a majority of people might be commuting via bicycle. And it's a place where from a climate perspective and human health perspective we'd like to get to, but it requires the commitment to making those safe points. If you're going to build the infrastructure, the most cost effective time to do that is when you're already tearing up the street and redoing it. And so by requiring that folks, when they're doing a repaving project requiring the department installs a facility at the point at which they're already doing the work, the marginal cost for that is minimal to make that happen. And so it's the most cost effective way to achieve the safety net where we're trying to achieve what I, I want to be clear, we're going to talk a little bit about community engagement, I imagine, in the discussion. And it's critically important that there is community engagement throughout this process. We've heard in public comment today the desire for that to be early and the expectation is that folks have those engagements. My intent with this legislation, this is a community engagement process to say, should we do this or not? Because the implementation plan, the bike master plan, has already decided that this is a place where we need this facility, but rather how do we do it? Does it make sense for the facility to on the east side of the street or the west side of the street? How do we deal with the intersections? You know, how do we make sure that in the case of business districts that they're proper loadout zones so they continue to have access. Those are there lots of very neighborhood specific questions that need to be addressed. And frankly, the city has a really great track record of doing that really well. There's a few exceptions, but in general really well. And this this the intent of this legislation is to just make sure we stick to that moving forward. So I'll pause there and I think there's some other discussions and potentially amendments.
Speaker 1: Okay. I know that Customer Herbold has mentioned and drafted an amendment. For Section one and gave us the language because for how long would you like to speak to that?
Speaker 5: I'm going to speak to that. I'm not going to move it because Councilmember O'Brien has a substitute. But I do want to speak to my intent. I in the amendment itself, I refer to the need for continued community engagement and input in the project development. And then I speak specifically, I speak generally first about community engagement, and then I speak specifically about the need for business district stakeholder engagement. The intent is not to suggest that one set of stakeholders is more important than any other. The intent is to to reflect a reality that that we see and that I have actually worked with business district stakeholders in in district one with bike lane and bus lane implementation and Avalon of how important it is to project completion, to have these stakeholders at the table because of what happens when you don't and you're at 90% design and the engagement has not been has not been deep about what those impacts are. I chair the Council Committee with Oversight on Economic Development Issues, the Office of Economic Development. I think feels really strongly as well that as it relates to Department of Transportation construction impacts, that they're the relationships that they develop in these business districts are really important to have, you know, when you're at 10%, 30%, 60% and 10% of the design phases. I mean, so that was my intent. It was if you want to get the project done. The reality is, is that if if folks who actually own property on the bike route and are doing business out of the property are on the bike route, aren't in engaged early on in throughout, it's going to inevitably delay and sometimes derail the project itself. All that said, if people feel more comfortable removing the reference to the business district, I'm okay with doing that. And you know, this this amendment is about accountability or our desire or the council's desire to have accountability as it relates to both those instances when a project when it decides that a project is not moving forward as well as those instances, and when it is moving forward and it's out of our desire, I think, to be good stewards of the council's intense in plans. And so I will if the will of the Council is to move forward with an amendment that doesn't call out business districts. I'm just going to have faith that community engagement writ large does include.
Speaker 4: Those business districts.
Speaker 1: Thank you, guys. Very well. Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 4: I'm actually disappointed that Councilmember Herbold is pulling her amendment. I did not. I saw your intent. And those of us that have dealt with this bike lane issue understand that having the business district stakeholders in there doesn't mean that one group of stakeholders is more important or more hurt than the other. However, what we've learned and lessons learned in bike lanes and communities in what we've watched and I've learned since 2000, 2007 with the bike master plan that has gone through five iterations, that each time we have paused when we looked at safety, ridership, equity, infrastructure, race and social justice issues when we first passed the bike master plan . Customer Brian, please correct me if I'm wrong. The first two ideals were in 2007 were safety and ridership, and from that five more important values became integrated. They became integrated because community came together and said, You passed a law. It's working now. There's some other ideas that need to be folded in. In this other council's agreed and passed it. One of the ones that was most important to me, besides safety and ridership, was the whole equity race and social justice issue and that we needed more bike lanes south, the ship canal in districts one in District two. So when I read Councilmember Herbold amendment, which I would have supported, it made complete sense to me that if you have and we cannot pretend that the business community is not impacted and Casper O'Brian, please correct me if I'm wrong again, but my understanding, too, is that bike lanes are also exempted from from the Environmental Impact Statement Review from ISS. And somebody made that decision somewhere. And that's not neither here nor there, good or bad. But my point is we make these decisions all the time, and that doesn't mean that one stakeholder group isn't more important, but it's recognizing that community is also includes and should have teed up the issues that business districts are concerned about in. A lot of them go beyond just parking. And I think we heard that loud and clear. So. So that's what I wanted to add.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Customer awareness. Any other comments? You think Council Member Brands can address some of the pending comments?
Speaker 4: Sarah One quick one. Bree, if you're still here, I want to say thank you and acknowledge what you had said about genuine community engagement early on. And that's something I know Cascade Bicycle Club has been advocating for, as have all of us up here. So I want to support this. I really believe that that real community input also will result in what we've heard from Copenhagen and what we know that the Bloomberg studies found in New York City is that getting community stakeholders involved and local businesses involved is that their businesses do do better when they're there giving a thumbs up . They've got places where people can come and park their bikes. That just based upon what we have seen in New York City and Copenhagen alone, we know that economically this this work. So I'm going to be supportive of this. Frankly, if you want to keep the language in that identifies business districts, I'm fine with that. Councilmember O'Brien, if you prefer your amendment, I'm going to support it either way. So thank you for the good work. And and again, I just want to acknowledge what you're saying is that the community engagements got to be early, often and real.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Katherine Bagshaw. Before we proceed, if I to consider Councilmember O'Brien's amendment, we don't have any amendments on the table right now. We're going to have to suspend the rules because of the time deadline a little bit, because of the lateness of the amendments. So Lester's objection, I'm going to suspend the rules to be able to consider any potential amendments made by Councilmember O'Brien. So, Councilman Brian, you want to take it from there?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you. Council president and colleagues, I I'll just send to the public. I want to just acknowledge we're back from two weeks in recess. And so I apologize that we're we're playing a little catch up here after our deadlines. And so I appreciate the flexibility. Councilmember Herbold, I appreciate your work on the language, and I agree with everything you said. I know that the intent is absolutely there to ensure that that we do a stakeholder process, including the business districts. One of the challenges I think we heard from folks in the community in public comment today is the language chose to single out business districts as an area to do it because those are critical areas. They said business districts, not businesses. So anyone that's along those lines would be included. And I also hear from community members that we want to make sure everyone's included, including folks that are historically left behind. And I think that's important. At some point, we start to get into a series of not to exclude, but including these types of folks. And the list gets really long. And so what I'm proposing here is kind of broader, higher level language that as Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Wise said, it's absolutely critical that businesses in business districts are consulted along with other folks. And what the amendment would do is in under the requirements where it currently says under a whenever the Seattle Department of Transportation constructs a major paving project along a segment of the Protected Bicycle Lane Network, a protected bicycle lane with adequate directionality shall be installed along that segment. And the amendment would add, just extend that sentence to add with an expectation that the final scope and design of the project reflect continued community engagement and input in the project development on how to implement the protected bicycle lane. It doesn't specifically mention businesses, underrepresented communities, residents, but the intent is this. This inclusion and stakeholder engagement should be broad and inclusive. So I will propose that amendment. You have a copy in front of us. I think there's a few copies on the podium if folks want to see in the audience. Again, I apologize for making this up in response to real time. I know this is not the ideal way we do business in full council, but I appreciate your indulgence. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Castro and brian for what appears to be inclusive and expansive language to meet the needs of meaningful community engagement. Are there any comments? I'm going to need a second. A second on the amendments because of I will the second and any other comments or questions. Councilmember Gonzalez, you have the floor.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. I appreciate the attempt to reconcile. What. Seems to be conflicting language, but not necessarily actually conflicting in the sense that I think the intent is the same here. But how will this is an ordinance, not a resolution? So this is actual law that the agency will presumably referred to in the course of its work in implementing the intent and the actual letter of the law. How will the intent that we've been discussing for the last few moments be articulated to Sudan in terms of the characterization from the dias that the intent here is to do community engagement in the broadest, most inclusive sense, which would include those business owners and residents within our business districts.
Speaker 6: So in in my recent conversations, I say conversations over the last six months with staff at Ascot on what community engagement should look like around implementation of the bike master plan. I would say that what I have heard is their intent is completely aligned with what we've all discussed here today, that they want to do engagement early . They want to do it at a point where there's still opportunities to influence the actual design. They want to be broad and inclusive. That includes the obvious stakeholders that that may own businesses or live right along a corridor, but also folks from the broader community who may want to have access to that corridor, whether it's they want to access the businesses or other facilities along that corridor or they commute through that corridor, and that's the route they go to. So I, I feel very confident in the folks at Ascot that their intent is to implement this. And I think they have examples where they do this well. And like anything of the city, there's also examples where they're falling short. And so I'm not sure what other language to put in at this point. But I think what it will require is a conversation, probably multiple conversations to ensure that we understand what this looks like . And the good news is that there are projects that meet this criteria that will be happening in the near future, that we can start working on this together and say, let's come back with a model of what your engagement will look like on a project, say like the Rapid Ride Corridor on Eastlake as an example. And how do you plan to engage stakeholders along that community on how to implement the bike master plan?
Speaker 5: I just I think that I appreciate that and I don't you know, I'd like to believe that all of the agency employees and leaders are watching us on the dais now and have a full, robust understanding of our legislative intent as we are having these debates. But I know that that is not necessarily a reality. I think there's an opportunity to potentially communicate in a more formal way to Ascot and the mayor's office about the intent around this community engagement piece. I do think it's an opportunity of improvement for how we implement many of our infrastructure projects, including bicycle infrastructure. And I think that's where we can lose the most in terms of credibility and trust in advocating for ongoing development of a bicycle network and infrastructure that works for everyone, primarily for those who are using them, of course. But I do worry that excluding excluding a call out of stakeholders in this area can be interpreted as us wanting to exclude engagement of those very individuals. And one of the things that was really impressive to me on my learning trip in Copenhagen is having a mentality and a culture around these infrastructure projects that really is centering the concept of going somewhere as opposed to passing through a place. And and that is really sort of essential to creating true public space and livability within our city. And so I want to challenge us all urbanists, to really think about how we are creating infrastructure, not just to pass through something safely, but to get to that place as well. And that, I think to me includes our main street businesses within our neighborhoods that are essential to the vibrancy of the city. So I, I accepted Councilmember Herbals language with that intent in mind and hope that we can find a way to effectively communicate that to the department and the mayor's office. My preference would be to leave it in the ordinance because it is an ordinance and not a resolution. But if that is not something that we can find agreement to at this moment, then I hope there will be an alternative way for us to make that communication and that intent clear to the agency.
Speaker 6: So, colleagues, I don't have I believe what we're discussing here, the distinction our intent distinction is is doesn't exist. I think we're trying to go the same way. And I'm flexible to go either route. I have my agenda before me. But if colleagues want to do something else, what I would suggest, because of your comments come from Gonzales, which I really appreciate, would be a committee sometime before the end of the year to, you know, work with the director of START and the team that's leading the outreach and have them come do have a discussion with us about what what their interpretation of this is, what our intent is in a public forum where we can actually talk through that and hear how they plan to do that.
Speaker 5: And include also economic development as well.
Speaker 6: To do that. That sounds great. So. And that probably won't happen before budget, but we can do it shortly after budget and be my guess on the timing on that that may my amendments out there and it has a second but if folks feel strongly about going in a different direction, I'm happy to consider that too. So I don't think we're actually arguing.
Speaker 1: What I'm hearing is we can proceed with the amendment. It has been seconded, but there is a need legislatively perhaps to clarify and strengthen the intent of our language. And we have some opportunities this year to still do that. So that's what I'm hearing at this point. I don't know where the votes will fall, but I don't think one excludes the other. So I think we could at least I could support the amendment knowing that we may take further action to legislatively articulate our our intent. So we haven't a live amendment on the table we're going to vote for. Is everyone ready to vote on the amendment? Okay. It's been moved in. Second it an amendment number one is proposed by councilmember and then the number two as proposed by Councilmember O'Brien. You have it in front of you. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So that amendment passes. They were ready to vote on the amended legislation. Is there any further need to talk about the Bass legislation as amended now? Councilman Brand, do you have any closing words you wanted to say? We're good. Okay. We're going to vote on the amended legislation.
Speaker 2: Make sure.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Major Gonzalez Herbal, Juarez Mosquito. Hi. O'BRIEN All right. PACHECO So on President Herrell.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor not opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed. And Cheryl, sign it. Please read the item. All right. Please read agenda item number four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the construction of protected bicycle lanes; requiring major paving projects to include protected bicycle lanes as identified in The City of Seattle Bicycle Master Plan; and adding a new Chapter 15.80 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_Res 31898 | Speaker 1: The bill passed. And Cheryl, sign it. Please read the item. All right. Please read agenda item number four.
Speaker 5: Resolution 318 and 88 requesting that the State Department transportation develop a budget proposal for creating on street, bike and e-scooter parking. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'll just speak briefly to this and give a chance to my colleague, Councilmember Pacheco, to speak to it as he has done a lot of work on this. We heard in public comment today from a lot of folks, and I really appreciate everyone here finding public comment both to the need to have more mobility options for everyone and for the need to ensure that we provide the infrastructure and the enforcement to ensure that people using the various mobility options do it appropriately. This specific piece of legislation is a step in getting the infrastructure built so that there are places for folks to park their bicycle scooters or whatever comes along next in the mobility world. There's continued work to do enforcement, and I really appreciate the comments. Marci, your comments in particular you helped share with me over the over the last week in another jurisdiction where I believe one of the one of the E-Scooter share companies had created penalties for folks that are parking those that are their customers, who are parking the scooters inappropriately. And I think that is an enforcement step that we need to do. We don't have e-scooters, but we do have bikes. And I think we should step up our enforcement and work with the companies that are on our streets to hold their customers accountable and make sure that they have a place to do it. I also appreciate your comments, Marci, about making sure that we're simply not penalizing low income folks and making it so that they no longer can afford to have access to the type of mobility ability options that some communities may be in most need of happening. So it's complex. And the thing that gives me hope is there's an amazing group of advocates that represent a broad swath of our community that are thoughtfully engaged in finding solutions. And we will work through that complexity as a city if we're going to be successful. And having folks engaged is is an amazing thing. And so sorry I spoke too long, but I want to hand it over to Councilman Pacheco to speak specifically to this legislation.
Speaker 1: Councilman Pacheco.
Speaker 3: Well, first, I want to thank the community advocates with the mass coalition for doing so much work, as well as advocacy here today as well as prior in my council colleagues, Councilmember O'Brien and Mosquito, who have come with some recommendations and some amendments in committee. So the budget proposal, it's the resolutions is to start to come back to us with a budget proposal to double buy the number of bikeshare and scooter parking spaces by next year, as well as include provisions for financial penalties to enforce proper parking of the bike share and scooters. As we've heard today during public comment, the need for us to have better enforcement of these mobility options and so I'm excited to get to have post have voted this out of committee as well as hopefully be able to get this out of council today so that we can have our assignment before us before we get to the budget later this month.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Katherine Pacheco. Any more comments on the resolution? Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to take a quick second to thank council members Pacheco and Councilmember O'Brien for taking the first steps on this legislation to really help us get scooters into Seattle in a safe and responsible way. I think we've been able to hear from a number of transit advocates or multi-modal transit transportation advocates that there is a desire to help promote environmentally friendly transit options that create equity and also build healthy communities. And I really want to thank Mary and others who testified today about the need to make sure that as we roll out any program or pilot, that we're doing so in direct conversation with communities that could potentially benefit from the creation of scooters, for example, but also that we're taking into consideration all the unintended consequences. And I think creating corrals and making those available for bikes and for scooters in the future help us to proactively respond to the concerns that we've seen in other cities. We can do that in a way that learns from other cities and how they've been able to move those scooters off the sidewalk and out of the ramps that allow for people to have easy and safe access to our protected sidewalks. And I think that's a critically important for us to create these corrals now so that when we potentially roll out policy in the future, we have a place for these bikes and scooters to go in the future. The other two things that I think are really exciting about us having this conversation, as one Glen mentioned, which dovetails with, you know, we want there to be more access to bikes and scooters in the future, not to necessarily penalize people for not putting them in the right place by having us not have as much access to those scooters. But we have or sorry to those bikes, but we have to have a place to put those bikes. So creating the the corrals is incredibly important. And then the last thing I'll mention that I'm looking forward to is I think as we create more sound policies like this, it behooves us to take a look at what other cities have done, especially around labor protections. What we saw in the city of Chicago, for example, is that they do not use independent contractors there. They require the companies to have actual workers and employees. So that can help us create more accountability and responsibility in terms of how these companies are both interacting with the built environment and with the higher labor standards that we'd like to see in our city. So I'm excited about these higher standards that we're putting into place now. I think that it sets us up well to implement best practices from across the country. And I think overall really excited about making sure that we don't just have a point in time check in with key stakeholders, including from disability rights community, but also that we've built into future legislation how we're going to have the stakeholder engagement all along the process to make sure that these corrals and future legislation on transit options really do meet everybody's needs. So thank you so much for taking this up. And let's get scooting. I had to say something like that.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Skinner. Any further questions before we vote on the resolution? We're good. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution. Adopt and show. Sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION requesting that the Seattle Department of Transportation develop a budget proposal for creating on-street bike and e-scooter parking. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119516 | Speaker 5: Report on Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Joint Item six Constable 11956 In relation to the satellite department authorizing a large solar program for customers with solar photovoltaic systems sized larger than 100 kilowatts and not greater than two megawatts, and adding a new section 21.40 9.0 83 to the September code. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Council Member Mosquito and take your time.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will filibuster. So I am excited about the next two pieces of legislation, which I think are in line with the city's commitment to reducing our carbon footprint and to promoting green energy and a greener economy. The first piece of legislation that we have is related to the solar program for customers in larger buildings. This will help to expand the production of renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels. I want to underscore that this legislation in front of us is a new program at Seattle City Light for large scale producers of solar energy. So you can imagine some of our larger midsize and larger buildings that have flat roofs, that don't have the ability to currently engage in generating solar energy at this point. Now, they would be able to be part of a program that allows for them to be large producers of solar energy and would establish a large commercial solar export rate in Seattle Municipal Code. And this can be updated over time. I think this is an important first step, and I'll just reiterate the point that I made earlier. None of these policies, whether we're talking about the solar program today or in the second, we'll be talking about the new energy market. These are not the end all be all to creating a greener economy. These are policies that help us strive towards our commitment to creating more options for entering into a greener economy and creating more green options. So along with transportation, we know from the reports that have been generated right here in Seattle that building emissions is one of the largest sources of climate warming carbon emissions in Seattle. And as stated in our Green New Deal resolution that passed just last month in this city council chamber, thanks again to Councilmember O'Brien for your leadership on that. We know that energy for heating, cooling and powering buildings accounted for more than one third of Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 alone. Currently, we have a handful of large scale commercial solar producers that contract individually with Seattle City Light. But we haven't had a program that creates standards, rates and rules on the books as of yet. That is what this legislation aims to do. The lack of predictability of benefits from installing solar installations on roofs can be a barrier right now for more buildings and more entities to enter into the current program that Seattle City Light has. So we need to create a project that creates true standards for onsite solar energy generation. This will create consistency, predictability and will help to make sure that onsite solar production is actually being encouraged and that this electricity that's being generated on site can not only be used for those businesses that are generating it, but any excess energy that's generated on site can also be conveyed into city lights system for use elsewhere and help set up export rates for customers to be credits. That excess energy is accounted for. So with that, I just want to also note that Aaron House for my office has done a ton of.
Speaker 5: Work.
Speaker 7: On this legislation before we brought it to full council and before we brought it to our committee to make sure that the labor advocates, affordable housing advocates, energy and environmental advocates were at the table to provide additional input before we brought the legislation forward. And that includes folks from IBEW, Emerald City's Northwest Energy Coalition and SPARC Northwest to make sure that as we move forward, we were encouraging higher labor standards, energy efficiency and including in affordable housing and to making sure that we were striving for high performing energy efficiency standards in all building. This is, I think, a good first step as we look at trying to expand solar production to new buildings of various sizes. And we'll continue to be meeting with affordable housing advocates. I also understand that Seattle City, LA, has been working with the affordable housing developers on creating a virtual net metering program that makes sure that the energy savings are passed along to the low income residents who are more likely to be renters in these buildings. And that's a critical element of this component as well. I think Councilmember Brown, we've talked about that before. When we look at green energy standards and buildings, we have to make sure that renters are beneficiaries of these policies as well. So thanks to everybody involved. Thanks to Aaron for your quick work with all of these stakeholders and to City Light for being willing to work with us on this legislation and the amendments. I think that with these amendments, the policy has really been strengthened and helps us strive towards that commitment of affordability, equity and climate priorities as we put forward this solar program. We do have a substitute bill. You all have it in your materials, so there's no need to pass out materials here. Thank you, Amelia, for including that in the council materials that were sent out on Friday. And this is a substitute bill that really includes some technical language. So I'll just run through those two components, which we really quickly included in the substitute bill is clarifying language on how the size of these systems are measured. So, for example, this amendment explicitly states that the practice of measuring will be in terms of alternating current or AC and also is clarifying the effective date for the export rate of the solar bill. This amendment makes it clear that regardless of when an interconnection agreement is signed. So, for example, if you signed up in 2019 and it's now 2020, you actually are receiving the 2020 rate. So all customers in the program are on the same updated export rate each year. And with that, Mr. President, if I may, I would like to move to a man council bill 119516 by substituting version six for version one A to include these technical amendments.
Speaker 1: Very good. Is there a second? So it's been moved in second and choose substitute version six for version one. I think Consumer said it described it very well. So any questions or comments after that description, can we're just going to vote on the amendment now? All those in favor of the amendment, please vote I. I opposed the ayes have it. The version is substituted. Consumers get reject. Say, Lamar, we're ready to vote. Okay. Any other questions or comments on the bill? If not, please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Big John Gonzalez Herbold II. Suarez, Mashaba I O'Brien. Pacheco, so on. President Harrell Hi 9 a.m. Favorite Unopposed Bill passed.
Speaker 1: Cheryl Simon Please read Agenda Item Number seven.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 571 relating to the satellite department authorizing department to enter and participate in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, including the ability to execute additional agreements necessary or convenient to participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing a large solar program for customers with solar photovoltaic systems sized larger than 100 kilowatts and not greater than two megawatts; and adding a new Section 21.49.083 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119571 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 571 relating to the satellite department authorizing department to enter and participate in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, including the ability to execute additional agreements necessary or convenient to participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market. The Committee recommends Bill Pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Casper Mosquito.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. So this is the second of the green energy legislation that's before us related to Seattle City Light, allowing for us to participate in the Western energy imbalance market. Again, I'll reiterate the comment I just made that, you know, in order for us to truly address the climate change and global warming, we need some radical policy changes that will absolutely take on how we have business as normal. This is a component of a much larger conversation that we must be having around how we create greener energy options. This is not the end all, be all again policy solution to creating green energy. But I think it's an important step that many of you have been working on for a long time to make sure that we could get into the Western energy imbalance market. This creates this helps us, I should say, create more options for greener energy in the market as we look at many of the western many of the Western states, which create higher, I should say, more equitable access to green energy, meeting our environmental standards, our carbon reduction goals, and creates final financial benefits for our region as well. We are very excited that Seattle City Light is going to be leading as the first public entity to join the Western Energy Imbalance Market. The market increases the reliability of renewable power and provides access to renewable power during peak demand periods. And with the amendments that we have included in the legislation in front of you, we have been able to work with a number of folks to get support from the environmental advocacy community and organizations that have been strongly supportive of the participation in the IM as the first public power utility in the Northwest to join. I want to thank Renewables Northwest, which is an early and strong supporter of the I am participation by all Northwest utilities. I want to support I want to thank NRDC, who has supported the expansion of Western energy markets to facilitate the transition of the energy sector to a less carbon intensive portfolio and to Northwest Energy Coalition, of which Seattle City has also been a member for many years. Very support. They are very supportive of our efforts to try to enter into this market as well. This is an innovative regional partnership that supports our climate goals and will increase revenues for our utility and together with the solar bill that was just voted on. These policies represent, I think, a critical component in us adapting greener energy, more efficient energy systems, and help move us away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources. As we work to address climate change with that, thanks again to Seattle City Light for working with us and to Aaron House, who's been working on this piece of legislation over the last few months as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Customer. Any other questions or comments on the bill? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilman ROSQUETA, thanks for your ongoing work on this. I'm excited to be at this point in supporting this. I want to just comment that there is some risk to this. The and I think that it's absolutely the right thing for us to be doing right now. We've heard from a lot of community members, including some of the folks that work from an environmental perspective on the energy market and believe that being part of this energy market will give us opportunities to sell our 100% clean electricity to other markets beyond just Seattle and to also take advantage of the the potential market advantages we have in that in the western in the Western energy market. But with that also comes some risk. And I think it's going to require ongoing diligence from the city council in the years to come to both ensure that the market is performing as as we hope. Again, there will be days where we're winners in days and we're losers as as a market. But we want to ensure that overall it is working to our benefit and to ensure that the folks at City Light are participating in that market in appropriate ways. I don't say that to to denigrate anyone in City Light, just that this is a complex structure and it's going to require that they have the resources and the expertize to be participating in that market in a way that is beneficial. Special to the the ratepayers of Seattle City Light the and also hopefully to the broader environmental goals of the city of Seattle. I think that the council has expressed concerns in the past citywide has been very responsive to that in designing a system. And, you know, there's some questions about how it will play out. I, I have the faith that people are doing their best, and I feel optimistic that it'll work out. And I think we'll have to just continue to provide oversight going forward, too.
Speaker 1: Brian, any other comments or questions before we vote on the bill? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thanks John I Gonzalez purple whereas mosqueda O'Brien I Pacheco want president hero.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Eight and favorite unopposed.
Speaker 4: A.
Speaker 1: Of Senate. Please read the reports of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Department to enter and participate in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, including the ability to execute additional agreements necessary or convenient to participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119591 | Speaker 1: Will pass in show senate. Please read the short title for agenda item number ten.
Speaker 5: Agenda item ten. Constable 119 591 relating to the city light to parent satellite department declaring certain real property rights surplus to the needs of the city department. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Just Mayor Mosquito.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Again, I want to thank Council Member Bagshaw for allowing five of the bills that we're considering today to be heard in her committee and for graciously hosting these discussions in the Finance and Neighborhood Committee. These bills as a whole that I'll speak to represent routine real estate transactions that are part of regular business at Seattle City Life. These are not large policy, programmatic or land disposition changes, but instead are routine business items that Seattle City Hall is required to gain authorization from from the Seattle City Council. So this first ordinance, item number ten, allows City Light to sell a small portion of property on each side of 35th Avenue Southeast into how much county but reserve an easement for electric transmission line purposes in order to allow the county for road to have road widening purposes. The sale would be fair market value of $41,000. And I want to reiterate, this is not big enough property to build housing on. So we are just it's a small sliver of land that we are talking about here.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Katherine Ross. Any questions or comments? Now please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: By John Gonzalez Herbal Juarez Macheda I O'Brien, Pacheco, so on. President Harrell. Hi 9 a.m. favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and said please read agenda item number 12 the short title.
Speaker 5: I've seen that agenda item 11 Council Bill 119603 relating to the transfer of city real property for housing developments. Can we recommend the bill pass? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring certain real property rights surplus to the needs of the City Light Department and authorizing the sale of a portion of the property to Snohomish County for road purposes; reserving an easement for electric transmission line purposes; and accepting the payment of fair market value for the property rights sold. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119603 | Speaker 5: I've seen that agenda item 11 Council Bill 119603 relating to the transfer of city real property for housing developments. Can we recommend the bill pass?
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 4: Picture it. Good. Thank you. This bill will authorize the disposition of a parcel of property on Yakama Avenue, South and South Irving Street, its property that will be developed for permanently affordable homeownership. The transfer of jurisdiction will be to be between our fast finance and administrative services to the Office of Housing and authorizes our Office of Housing Director to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with the developer. And there are two developers, our Homestead Community Land Trust and Edge Developers Inc where were 16, three bedroom, two bath townhomes, ten of which will be permanently affordable homes for homebuyers at or below 60 80% AMI and six market rate homes. And all of the net sales proceeds will subsidize the affordable homes. We recommend the Council bill 119673 pass as recommended.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Casper. And any other questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez purple. Whereas Musgrave I O'Brien Pacheco Swan I President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Will pass into the Senate. Please read. Agenda item number 12 the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the transfer of City real property for housing development; declaring the property located at 1314, 1326, and 1336 Yakima Avenue South (“PMA 1594”) surplus to the City’s needs; transferring the jurisdiction of this property from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to the Office of Housing; authorizing its transfer to Homestead Community Land Trust or its designee; and authorizing the Director of the Office of Housing to execute and deliver the contract for transfer of land, deed, and related documents. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119498 | Speaker 1: Will pass into the Senate. Please read. Agenda item number 12 the short title.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 12 Cancel 119498. Relating to the City Department accepting statutory warranty orders to the Masonic and Eleven's Property Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Just wear a mosquito.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This item item number 12 is an ordinance that allows Seattle City life to accept the deeds for two separate properties in Ponderay County. Both properties were purchased in compliance with boundary license requirements to manage project habitat lands under the authority of ordinance 1250721 property is 24.7 acres and the other one is 40 acres . The funding for this was already budgeted and does not require a new appropriation under.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. Customers? Can any questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Bexar I. Gonzales Herbal. Juarez, I.
Speaker 7: Macheda I.
Speaker 2: O'Brien, Pacheco, i. So what President Harrell i. I am favoring unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed in Cheryl Senate for and oral county high conferences. Okay, please read agenda item number 13. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting statutory warranty deeds to the Massnick and Levins properties in Pend Oreille County, Washington, both to be managed as Project Habitat Lands as required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) License Order for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project; and placing said lands under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119592 | Speaker 5: Agenda item 15 cancel bill 119592 billing to the city department. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Cast Member Skater.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is the last of the five that Councilmember Bagshaw had graciously considered in her committee. This ordinance allows city late to negotiate for the purpose or lease up to two houses in Ponderay County in order to provide temporary housing for city light personnel and contractors working at Boundary Hydroelectric Project in Metal Line Falls , Washington. One one house would be in support of numerous projects required by the licensing of hydro facility, and another would be in support of the overhaul of projects over of the project's large generators.
Speaker 1: Thank you very.
Speaker 3: Much.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any questions or comments?
Speaker 5: We just do things a little differently in Central one. I understand why you're struggling.
Speaker 7: I'm getting sweaty.
Speaker 5: Palms over here. Can we vote the French?
Speaker 1: Okay, here we go. There's no further comments, please. Got a roll on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw High.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez Purple. Whereas Muscatel High O'Brien High Pacheco. I somewhat like President Herald.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: 9 a.m. favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate that will conclude our John is there any further business come for the council? Okay. If not, we stand adjourned and want to have a great rest of the day. Thank you for being here. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to negotiate for and purchase or lease up to two parcels of land and acquire other real property rights as necessary or desirable for the purpose of providing temporary housing for City Light personnel and contractors at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project in Pend Oreille County, Washington, and for other municipal utility purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08052019_CB 119582 | Speaker 4: The Report of the Civic Development to Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. Jan Item one Council. Bill one 1 to 582 related to the Department of Parks Recreation authorizing acquisition of real property property commonly known as 70/910 Avenue South. Authorizing acceptance of a recording of the deed for open space, park and recreation purposes. And ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: That's was.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Today I think we have three items up and I'm really happy to say and thank Councilmember Gonzalez and Cashmere Bagshaw that the city actually can grow some property every now and then. And they the dual brush park requisition and I've been wanting to say this for a long time, what I've done speaking, I believe the good lady from District One, Councilmember Herbold, would like to say a few words. This ordinance authorizes the purchase of a parcel of land located within the Duwamish Waterway Park is currently owned by King County. The purchase price is about $1,000,000. The park will serve the South Park community. City staff performed due diligence, which included obtaining soil samples that revealed low level arsenic and soil below the grass and some discrete hotspots with higher concentrations in soil below the grass at the north end. The city will promptly perform a remedial action upon acquisition of the parcel to remove the contamination, even though the locations and concentrations currently do not present excuse me, do not present an immediate public hazard. King County was notified and they agreed to reduce the purchase price by $100,000 and sufficient funds. These are sufficient funds for the city to perform the remediation. This is compliant with the requirement to pay fair market value for the property. While the city remains responsible for any park remediation costs exceeding $100,000, the results of the due diligence investigation indicate that exceeding the cost estimate is very unlikely. In addition, city staff with the assistance of the law department, negotiated that King County retained all liability associated with contaminant releases from the property. They're being remediated through EPA's Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Sentiment Cleanup, The Civic Development, Public Asset and Native Communities Committee recommends full council pass this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Whereas, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I want to thank.
Speaker 4: King County for its consideration of.
Speaker 1: Reducing the.
Speaker 4: Price of the the property in consideration for the needs around site.
Speaker 1: Remediation. I also want to thank the Seattle Parks Foundation because of their effort.
Speaker 4: In leading a fundraising campaign.
Speaker 1: For future improvements at the park. I want to take this opportunity to flag a couple of.
Speaker 4: Issues.
Speaker 1: That we learned about at a recent South Park.
Speaker 4: Community safety walk and.
Speaker 1: Talk with the executive.
Speaker 4: Departments.
Speaker 1: Those two items that have been flagged is a request from the Danish Rowing Club to add some sand.
Speaker 4: And or rocks to the beachfront.
Speaker 1: Area. So it's easier for them to take the rowing equipment in and out of the park.
Speaker 4: And the.
Speaker 1: Executive.
Speaker 4: Is looking at use working with the Army Corps of Engineers to get a permit to do so. And it looks like we're making.
Speaker 1: Some good, good progress there. The other item that was flagged in the the executive walking talk in South Park in July.
Speaker 4: Relates.
Speaker 1: Specifically to.
Speaker 4: Ongoing graffiti tagging in the park and looking.
Speaker 1: For the fact that in the past, using murals to dissuade.
Speaker 4: Graffiti tagging has been very.
Speaker 1: Effective.
Speaker 4: In in South Park.
Speaker 1: So we're.
Speaker 4: Looking at more opportunities to work with youth and.
Speaker 1: Create art.
Speaker 4: On the surfaces around the park in order to discourage future graffiti. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herbold, any other comments or questions? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I so on i Bexar Gonzalez Herbold. I was Macheda O'Brien High Harrell. Hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number two. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 7900 10th Avenue South; authorizing acceptance of a recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08052019_CF 314417 | Speaker 0: Passed and chair of Senate please read agenda item number six.
Speaker 4: Agenda item six Clerk File 3144170 Police Chief 2018 Annual Report Concerning Activities Regulated by Ordinance 108333 Committee recommends that the file be placed on file.
Speaker 0: Concerning Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Clerk File 314417 is a 2018 annual report from the Seattle police chief reporting a report concerning activities regulated by Ordinance 108333, which is commonly referred to as the investigations ordinance. If you look at the underlying bill, it's very simple. There's, I think, two pages worth of reports. This is in order to comply with Seattle Municipal Code 14.12 .380. That requires that the chief of the Seattle Police Department submit an annual report on the implementation of that chapter to the mayor, the city council and the city clerk for filing as a public record. And so really what this annual report does is that it lays out the type of information that the Seattle Police Department may have collected in the prior year for law enforcement purposes. There are requirements under the Seattle Municipal Code that that require destruction of that certain types of information, if it is gathered. And this is the chief's obligation to report to us and the general public as to the agency's compliance with those those retention and or destruction provisions within the ordinance and consistent with Council Central Staff's Report and the chief of police report, it appears that the ordinance has been complied with. So this is our due diligence in filing this report publicly consistent with the muni code. So the committee recommends that the clerk be that the clerk file be filed.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? If not those in favor of filing the clerk file please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the clerk file is placed on file. Please read agenda item number seven. | Clerk File (CF) | Seattle Police Chief 2018 Annual report concerning activities regulated by Ordinance 108333 (Seattle Municipal Code 14.12). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08052019_CF 314423 | Speaker 4: Ten dead in seven. Clark five, three, one, four, four, two, three. Chief of Police Audit Report of Select Files obtained through the Police Department's membership in the Law Enforcement Diligence Unit and the Western States Information Network maintained exclusively for confidential information dated February 27, 2018. Accordance with Ordinance 108333. The committee recommends that the file be placed on file.
Speaker 0: That's from Gonzales.
Speaker 4: Thank you, counsel. Present. This is the last of my very heavy law enforcement public safety items on the agenda. So this is also related to the previous agenda. Agenda item six Clark file 314, four, two, two, two. Excuse me, three, one, four, four, two, three is also a report that seeks to ensure compliance with ordinance 108333, which is the investigations ordinance. That ordinance requires that the chief police audit select police files maintained exclusively for confidential information. This information would have been obtained through the Police Department's membership in the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit and the Western States Information Network. The chief of Police Best has submitted her latest audit report as required by the ordinance, and that report indicates that she found no violations during the audit process, which she is required to do under the ordinance. So she has now filed a certification through this Clark file for the public record to certify the fact that the audit report was prepared by the chief and that she is certifying it as final. And and for those of you that didn't have time to go through the report, it appears that there were 30 administrative documents that were audited in the law enforcement section, and there were a lot more audited, about 230, 240 audited in the Western states information network files. And and only 176 audited items are currently being retained consistent with the ordinance under the confidentiality provisions. So with that being said, the committee considered this and was able to ask questions and received a briefing from council central staff and and voted to recommend that the city council file the Clark file.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: I was trying to prolong it because you were gone. And so I can add a little bit more detail than I probably would have otherwise done.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments? Okay. Those in favor of filing the Clark file please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the Kirk file is placed on file. Please read the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. | Clerk File (CF) | Chief of Police Audit Report of select files obtained through the Police Department’s membership in the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU) and the Western States Information Network (WSIN) maintained exclusively for confidential information; dated February 27, 2019, in accordance with Ordinance 108333 (Seattle Municipal Code 14.12). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08052019_CB 119471 | Speaker 4: Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Limit Constable 119471 relating to land use and zoning, clarifying the definition of vessel and consistently using the term vessel in the shoreline master program and amending sections 23.60 8.204. 916 and point 942. Sea out on a speaker. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Pacheco So this legislation clarifies the city's definition of a vessel to address a ruling from the hearing examiner in December of 2016.
Speaker 2: The clarification will.
Speaker 0: Return the vessel definition to its original.
Speaker 2: Intention and will close a loophole that has allowed non.
Speaker 0: Operable formerly recreational vessels to be verified by the.
Speaker 2: City as floating on water.
Speaker 0: Residences. This loophole has led to an uptick.
Speaker 2: In on honorable.
Speaker 0: Vessels being verified.
Speaker 2: And could lead to many more if we do.
Speaker 0: Not act today. As part of the.
Speaker 2: Consideration of this legislation, my.
Speaker 0: Office and others met with stakeholders, including the Lake Union Liveaboard Association, to better understand their concerns. The proposed.
Speaker 2: Changes do not affect any existing floating on water.
Speaker 0: Residences. I'd like to I'd like to thank Councilmember Herbal for bringing an amendment in committee which reaffirmed this fact. And so with that said.
Speaker 2: We also want to.
Speaker 0: Thank thank Central Staff Keo specifically for his assistance on this bill. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco. I want a big shot. Gonzalez, i. Herbold, i. Whereas mosquera i. O'Brien Hi. President Harrell, i. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and Cheryl of it. Agenda items nine and ten. If there's no objection, I'd like to do by unanimous consent, I'd like to reverse the order of session. We can here agenda item number ten. Before nine, I've been told by the chair of the committee comes from Brian. It flows a little better that way. So if I don't hear any objection, I'm going to ask and direct the clerk to read agenda item number 10/1 and then we'll come back to nine after that. Okay? Okay. Please read it. You're not number ten. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; clarifying the definition of vessel and consistently using the term vessel in the Shoreline Master Program; and amending Sections 23.60A.204, 23.60A.916, and 23.60A.942 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08052019_CB 119581 | Speaker 4: Constable 119521 really into Seattle commute troop reduction program adopting an updated strategic plan adopting a local designation of Seattle City Center, Center, City as a growth and transportation efficiency center. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Cast Member O'Brien Thank you.
Speaker 2: This is an update to the troop reduction program in the city of Seattle. That's a program that's authorized by state legislature requires businesses with more than 100 employees to participate in a creative reduction program. Seattle is a partner with the county and downtown Seattle Association. Through the commute, Seattle does a lot of great work with that. This legislation does a lot of updating and setting some new targets. Some of the transportation modes that were in place just a few years ago were during the last update to the commuter troop reduction program, are in place today, I should say, didn't exist then specifically tenses. And so there's a number of clean up things to make that work better. I want to just applaud and commend the staff staff who continue to do great work on commuter production and also the team at commute Seattle. This legislation will help them continue to do their great work and I believe we need those teams to be doing even greater work in light of the climate crisis we're facing.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Pacheco I.
Speaker 1: So want I SRA Gonzalez Herbold Suarez Mosquera.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: O'Brien.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 1: President Harrell nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed. Sure was. Sign it. Please read the 12th agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program; adopting an updated Strategic Plan; adopting a local designation of Seattle’s Center City as a “Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center” as defined by RCW 70.94.528; and amending Sections 25.02.030, 25.02.035, 25.02.040, 25.02.050, 25.02.055, 25.02.070, 25.02.080, and 25.02.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119402 | Speaker 1: The bill passed in show Senate. Please read the report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Finance and Neighborhoods coverage and Item one Council Vote 119402 relating to funding for the Equitable Development Initiative and Affordable Housing. Creating a fund for short term rental tax revenue. The committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 4: Passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilman Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Good. I'm going to pass this quickly over to Councilmember O'Brien, but just to let all know that this passed out of our committee unanimously last week, actually ten days ago, we had many meetings to discuss this opportunities for public comment. I want to say thank you to all of you who have been so steadfast and working with us and letting us know what your priorities are. Councilmember O'Brien has led this charge, and I would like to pass this over to you. If you would like to speak to it, just know that I appreciate so much the work that you're doing. It's incredibly critical to our community that we are funding all of these things, both the ones that the sweetened beverage tax is funding now and what we intended to fund and what we will fund going forward. So. Councilmember Brian.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Brian.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And Councilwoman, based on think for working with me on this. Colleagues, we've talked about this a lot, so I'll try to be brief. The short term rental tax, as originally intended, was dedicated to support at least the first $5 million a year Equitable Development Initiative during last year's budget cycle. About a million of that was in the proposed budget by the mayor, was diverted to fund staff resources for the EDA as opposed to grants reducing the grant amount to 4 million. We found a way to increase that to 5 million in the budget by using CDBG money. But I understand that that money is really challenging for these organizations to actually use. And so it was a noble effort in really tight circumstances last year, but it's not something that can be repeated and it's not clear that that money will be able to be used as intended. What this legislation would do would dedicate in this order the revenues of this the short term rental taxes. The first $5 million would go to grants for EDA projects. We know that there are dozens of applicants, qualified applicants each year for these programs and only a small handful get funded. There is no shortage of really good programs that could be funded if there were money available. The second tier would be 2200 of the proceeds, or 2.2 million of the proceeds would be directed to pay off debt for affordable housing projects. Bonds that were issued a few years ago. The next $3.3 million would be directed to support permanent supportive housing. The next $1,069,000 would be directed to support staffing and consultants for EDA program and then any money on top of that cumulative amount, which is about $11 million a little over that would go back to additional grant funds for the I.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Bryan, any other comments or questions?
Speaker 3: Councilman Beckstrom Just one comment. I want to appreciate the fact that you were willing to amend the document as you went forward. Councilmember O'Brien I think we've reached a good compromise, and I'm certainly going to continue to support this.
Speaker 1: You know the comments before we take the road, Councilwoman Pacheco.
Speaker 9: I have an amendment.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize it. I do apologize for that. I think that's for the sweetened beverage tax amendment. Do we have a bottom? Okay. Councilmember Checker, you have an amendment and and I have a hard copy of it. And I believe it was timely to have to suspend any rules. It was timely. Councilmember Pacheco, give the floor. Sure.
Speaker 9: So I move to amend Council Bill 11940 to ask for an Amendment one.
Speaker 3: I'll second it.
Speaker 1: Okay. Catherine Pacheco, it's been it's it's been moved in second. Can you explain what we have here? Sure.
Speaker 9: The amendment establishes that the surplus funds in 2020 would be directed towards EDA grants in 2021 and beyond. The financial policies would prioritize paying the debt service on bonds issued for affordable housing projects by directing the first 2.2 million for this purpose. The next 6 million in revenues to the Eli would go to Eli, including 5 million for 88 grants and 1 million for staffing and consultant services, and then direct the next 3.3 million to permanent supportive housing and direct any excess short term revenue taxes, revenues to ELI Grants. The proposal is consistent with the 2020 endorsed budget and would not result in any budget shortfalls unless revenues come in below what is projected for 2020. Just to provide additional thoughts. First, I'm supportive of the programs that this grant funds and the mission of this underlying legislation. This amendment just clearly states that any surplus funds in 2020 would be directed to support EDA grants in 2021. The full 5 million would go to the grants, which is what the desire of the communities that the community desire and any surplus funds would also increase that dollar amount. My intent on introducing this amendment is to follow through with the plans made last year to fund the support required to carry out these grants. Given that this is my first budget session in my approach to the budget is to give us the flexibility we need to the important services we all care about and know that our community needs. I have inherited an endorsed budget and a series of decisions that have resulted in the complicated situation we're in. This amendment is about making communities whole in a manner that balances our fiduciary responsibility, our endorsed budget, and puts us on a path councilmember compliant intent in the underlying legislation. This amendment is about giving us the time to make sure that the program is whole for 2020, while still supporting the underlying financial policies beginning in 2021.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco. I'm going to ask the speaker of the Bass legislation to speak on it. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco and Council President Harrell. I oppose this amendment. What this would do would be to defer the restoration of the full $5 million for an additional year, and I don't think that's acceptable. The demand for actual development investments right now is significant and will almost certainly continue to grow. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we found a what we hoped would be a workaround in last year's budget. But I know that the community organizations have struggled to take advantage of that. And I think the most appropriate thing to do is to be responsive to the I grant applicants who have been here today and in past meetings who want to see us stand up to the original commitment of $5 million a year, granted. So I'll be opposing this amendment.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we have. Councilmember Becerra.
Speaker 3: I want to say thank you. Councilmember Pacheco, as your budget chair, I am delighted to have the support of keeping things going in the direction that we endorsed last year. That said, I'm not going to be supporting this amendment in large part because of what we talked about at my committee ten days ago. Councilmember O'Brien, I really respect the fact that you were willing to work with me on a compromise, and I'm going to follow through with that agreement.
Speaker 1: Very good. Now, this is just for the amendment. Any other discussion on the amendment, and I'll just share in closing that I'm not supporting the amendment. Thank you for bringing it and having a transparent conversation. In my mind, this equitable development initiative and the investments we're making are absolutely critical for preserving cultures and communities that are vital to our city, many of whom are are priced out through historical practices of racism and discrimination, are finding challenges even more increasing with a president we have in this country. And these investments are urgent and we should treat them as such. And so I'm ready to support both this and a sweetened beverage tax as we move forward. In simple terms. So I won't be supporting the amendment, so we're just going to vote in the amendment. So having said that, all those in favor of the amendment, please say I and raise your hand.
Speaker 6: I Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: That was one and a half. No. Okay. I believe it's one vote. All those opposed. Say no and raise your hand. No. Okay. So the amendment fails. So now we have the base legislation with the it'II in place. Councilmember O'Brien, did you need to see any more words or are we ready for a vote?
Speaker 7: I'm ready.
Speaker 1: Did anyone else need to close on this or. I'm going to call for a vote. CHEERING No hands. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Must get up.
Speaker 6: Now. I'll say I.
Speaker 2: O'Brien. All right, let's go now. So what? I think John Gonzalez, purple. President Harrell, I. Seven in favor.
Speaker 1: One opposed, the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next edition item into the record.
Speaker 6: Agenda item to cancel 119551 relating to creating a fund for sweetened beverages tax revenues. Adding a new section 5.50 3.0 55 to the settlement of code and providing additional guidelines for expanding proceedings. Proceeds excuse me. Committee recommends the bill passes amended. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to funding for the Equitable Development Initiative and affordable housing; creating a fund for short-term rental tax revenue. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119551 | Speaker 6: Agenda item to cancel 119551 relating to creating a fund for sweetened beverages tax revenues. Adding a new section 5.50 3.0 55 to the settlement of code and providing additional guidelines for expanding proceedings. Proceeds excuse me. Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: But actually I turn over to you first.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, I believe that we have been speaking about this for the better part of an hour. And again, this was the item that Councilmember O'Brien allowed me to share in my committee about the sweetened beverage tax and how we are going to be spending that money. I just want to articulate from the get go, there isn't a single thing that either the small the sweetened beverage tax as intended would fund or as we had funded through the general fund. We're going to have to find a way to support all of these investments. But in the in the immediate time. Councilmember O'Brien, would you like to speak to it?
Speaker 7: I would, if that's okay.
Speaker 1: Council President Castro O'BRIEN Please.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Customer Base. I thank you again on this one, too, for finding the time in your committee and to work with me through this colleagues in public, we've talked about this in quite some length. My goal here is to commit to the original intent of the sweetened beverage tax. Community members we know are of low income community members and communities of color are disproportionately affected by this tax, and they are also disproportionately affected by the negative health health outcomes of consuming sweetened beverage. That's because of specific marketing efforts by soda companies and also because of ability to live in communities that don't. The reality that many low income people live in communities that don't have access to healthy food, whether it's not affordable or simply not even available in their community. And so the original policy intent of this was not to raise revenue, but rather to address the public health concerns, and thus there is a tax component of that that will raise some revenue. But it was critically important, has been and continues to be that those investments continue to go back to support access to healthy food and other investments like early education for folks in those communities. This will create a dedicated fund so that all revenues from this will go into that fund. That will make it easier for us all to track down exactly how much revenue is raised and where it goes. And it gives very explicit guidelines that this money is to be spent on certain priorities and not to displace other funds, but to be additive to existing general fund programs that underlie that. I want to also thank all the people who came out and testified, many who are still here, some who left last week. There was a lot of conversation about what this means. If we were to pass this, it certainly would mean that we would rededicate these fundings or that's the intent to the programs provided. That includes a variety of food programs that we heard from the mayor's office or at least department heads, that other certain programs would be cut. And I want to be clear that when the budget comes to us, we'll see what the mayor proposes. But the city council will have its process almost two months long in figuring out where to prioritize. And I will tell you that my commitment again this year, for the 10th year in a row will be that we're not cutting other human services programs because those are a top priority for me. We should dedicate this money as intended to sweetened beverage tax, and we should also continue to fund fully fund human services. And if the mayor sends a budget that does Perdue provide cuts to that, I will work as hard as I can with my colleagues to restore and potentially increase funding for human services. Council President. There are a series of amendments. I am sponsoring the first one and I'm supportive of the next two. And so if it's okay to move forward to amendments, I'd like to propose my First Amendment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's just walk through the amendments. Take the first one, please.
Speaker 7: So I move to amend council bill 119551 is presented in Amendment 1/2.
Speaker 1: Removed and second and.
Speaker 7: This is simply a clarifying amendment. Council central staff looked at some of the language that would add language that says revenues may be used to maintain program expansions and new programs in accordance with subsection 5.53.055. B. The the specificity is around central staff, recognizing that it may not have been clear in the original legislation that would allow that to happen. This doesn't change any of the intent that we've discussed. It just clarifies what we define it.
Speaker 1: Very good. This is the amendment only any other discussions on the amendment? All those in favor of amended amendment. Number one, please say I. I opposed the First Amendment passes. I believe Councilmember Herbold has amendment number two.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I am moved to amend Council Bill 11 9551 as presented an amendment to the second.
Speaker 1: Please proceed.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So this amendment is.
Speaker 2: Intended to.
Speaker 4: Provide some reassurance to community members, service providers, and also to express our.
Speaker 5: Hope.
Speaker 4: For the budget that the mayor proposes to us in September and our commitment to address issues of concern related to other funding for other programs if that budget does not come to us as we expect it. So the amendment itself states that the legislation is not intended to reduce funding for any impacted programs, and the Executive and Council are expected to identify other funding sources to maintain full funding for these programs.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 1: The amendment only. Any of the questions or comments on Councilmember Herbold amendment going back to.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Herbold, thank you for bringing this and also thank you for adding the ad council there. I thought I felt it was really important to demonstrate both to the community and to the executive that we're in this soup together. So I'm certainly going to be supporting it.
Speaker 1: Thank you to the amendment only. All those in favor of amendment number two. Please say I. I opposed oppose. The ayes have it. The amendment to passes leave council member Gonzalez has a third amendment.
Speaker 4: I do thank you. Council President Harrell. I move to amend Council Bill 119551 as reflected in Amendment three. Can elaborate thank you so much. So this is an amendment that would once again further clarify and address some of the concerns we heard from some of our service providers who work in the prenatal space and provide prenatal services . We heard from a few of those individuals today during public testimony, but we also had an opportunity. My office had an opportunity to have direct conversations with some of those service providers who pointed out that some of the mandatory language that we included in our First Amendment related to expansion of services in this space of 0 to 3, may or could be read to exclude funding that we currently provide for prenatal services that would primarily be around our nursing home program, for example. So I have clarified the language by striking the word birth and including prenatal to ensure that we're covering the full spectrum of existing and intended services to be funded in the future . And that would include those home visiting programs that I just mentioned in addition to child care assistance programs and parent child plus programs as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you for doing that.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Actually, do you want to come in officially.
Speaker 8: Instead of under my breath?
Speaker 3: And thank you for doing that, for including the prenatal. It's very important, as you well know.
Speaker 1: And I those. Thanks. Thank you, Catherine Gosar, any other comments or you should have some comments here. But, you know.
Speaker 6: We are.
Speaker 1: All okay.
Speaker 6: Oh, prenatal.
Speaker 9: Care.
Speaker 1: Okay. All those in favor of amendment number three. Please say I oppose. The ayes have it. And we have a Fourth Amendment I think will be advanced by Councilmember Pacheco.
Speaker 9: I moved to a Land Council bill 119551 as president and then 4/2.
Speaker 1: And moved to second. Please, please elaborate.
Speaker 9: On what change the proposed financial policies and council bill 119551 prohibiting the use of the sweetened beverage tax revenues to supplement other funding sources beginning on the effective date of the ordinance. This amendment would require that any unallocated surplus SVT revenues be used for expanding existing or creating new programs, including program cost increases in accordance with the statute. This would accept the use of SVT proceeds to supplement general fund moneys in the adopted 2019 and endorsed 2020 budgets, but ensure that unallocated surplus revenue in these years is used to expand existing or create new programs in accordance with the statute beginning in 2021. The amendment would require that all SVT revenues be used only for expanding or creating new revenues. New programs including program cost increases in accordance with the statute line. The Council of the Mayor. More time to create to either create additional revenue sources and or reprioritize appropriations to undo the fund swaps. I also want to thank the community members that are here for taking the time to engage on this issue. I have been personally benefited from many of the early learning services and food banks, and these programs are very much personal to me, and I want you all to know how much I am with you. Second, I am saddened that this conversation has shifted to pitting programs against each other and when in reality, this is a conversation how we fund these crucial community programs. Now, if we find them, tensions are particularly high around this legislation and the issue of revenue sources generally. I want us all to take a step back from the finger pointing and acknowledge that we all support the broader community need for these programs and these critical programs. They should not fall in the middle of internal city disagreements. Where we currently differ is in the approach we think is the most responsible way to budget for these programs. Personally, the path to restore and make the communities most impacted here is to have these financial policies take effect in the 2021 budget. It simply gives us more time to identify where the money will come from to fund the programs currently receiving SBC, SBT dollars. I want to thank my colleague. Councilmember backs off originally introducing the amendment that added this kind of flexibility which I supported in committee. Unfortunately, we didn't arrive at this decision point overnight. It is for this reason that I am seeking an amendment that provides a path for us to fulfill the intent of Councilmember O'Brien. I don't want to tie our hands before a budget season that I know will be a difficult one. This amendment reflects my desire to have some flexibility going into that process, to not make commitments before we identified solid revenue streams to back up our legislative goals. So again, I strongly support this legislation and intent. I just want to see us carry it without preemptively tying our hands about funding for other programs we all care about . Lastly. The city and how we got to this point owes the community organizations that have been impacted by the decisions. We've made an apology, and I want to express my deepest sincerity and apologizing for the decisions that have led to this point and the conversations that have escalated in the last few days. You all deserve an apology. And so for that, I want to say sorry. I am asking I am pleading my colleagues to support my amendment so that we can move forward in the most responsible manner. Please.
Speaker 1: So we have a motion that's been second it and he even said, please. So Councilmember Beck shows you'd like to speak to the motion.
Speaker 3: I would. Thank you. Councilmember Pacheco, it's not too difficult to know which way the wind is blowing on this amendment, but nonetheless, I would like to speak to it, and I'm speaking as your budget chair here. I'm concerned about a couple of things, Violet, by the way, you're right in your conclusion. But in the meantime, I have concerns about binding future councils by tightening down how we spend the money. I also want to acknowledge that, like Councilmember Pacheco, I have been deeply concerned over the last couple of weeks at what I consider to be a really vituperative dialog and a misunderstanding between people that service people that are providers , the executive in this council. But first and foremost, I want to acknowledge Councilmember O'Brien and all of us who have been at this table. I believe the intentions are good. What I see as a conflict is that last year during our budget, we made some agreements about how we were going to spend the money both in 2019 and in 2020. And those endorsed that endorsed budget, I think is really important. But it now brings us here and I want us to stop this fighting, acknowledge what the good intentions were when the sweetened beverage tax was first passed. And I also want to acknowledge Kirstjen aerostat standing back there against the wall that you and I are going to have to start off and my colleagues are going to have to figure out where we're going to find $6 million worth of cuts in order to continue the programs going forward for 2020. But we will do that and I believe that are our good efforts. Now we will figure out a way to invest in the programs that are now being paid for in Human Services Department Deal and AOC by the sweetened beverage tax that now was supplanted. And we will have to find other general funds money but to make it clear. As Budget Chair, even though I believe it's the wisest thing to stay the course, I am going to support Councilmember Pacheco's amendment here. I have a pretty good sense of when this is going to come out and when it comes time to vote . I'll be voting yes for the underlying bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We are voting just on the amendment yet we have a few more speakers. I saw council member herbals hand go up first.
Speaker 4: Well, I just wanted to clarify that the need for the council to find cuts during the budget process will only be if the mayor proposes a budget without funding for these programs through as as we all voted for in Amendment two as far as our.
Speaker 8: Our.
Speaker 4: Our intention as a council, in our hopes for the executive intention. So I am hoping that we do not have to find a find fund for cuts to repair the mayor's budget. And I just see this again. I see this as much like much like the budget. I mean, much like the action we took last week on the cost of living legislation. It's, it's pre-budget work and it's us choosing to tie our hands on some decisions that.
Speaker 6: We intend to make during the budget process.
Speaker 4: And to.
Speaker 5: Allow.
Speaker 4: Supplant supplanting of general funds in the 2020 budget would.
Speaker 6: Would go.
Speaker 4: Against our prior statements for what we intended to do and that we've voted on several times now. So I think this is really consistent with.
Speaker 8: Prior.
Speaker 4: Budget actions that we've taken. And it's it is not irresponsible. It is actually fiscally responsible for us to be making this commitment to the public for how we are intending to make our future budget decisions in just a couple of months.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. I'll let you have the final word since this year. Motion. I'll ask Councilmember O'Brien to speak now.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I will be opposing this amendment as it would serve to potentially delay the standing up to the true original intent of the sweetened beverage tax and potentially allow for up to $6 million next in next year's budget to once again be diverted to other programs outside the intent of this. I think it's critical that we honor that intent. This is not the last time that we will have a tax do we work with community on and their expectations and what we do with that tax is critically important that we stand with what we tell them we're going to do so that we can continue to make good , sound policy going forward. I also want to speak to I think Councilmember Herbold put it very well. This we are intentionally tying our hands. This is making a clear policy statement that this money should be off limits except for the stated purposes. I was disappointed to see attempts to divide the community and I was really grateful. It's so many community members coming out today on relatively short notice to speak. Whether they are recipients of this or would not be recipients or perhaps their funding might be threatened because of some of the claims to say that we're not going to divide low income communities and communities of color and turn against each other, but we're going to stand in solidarity. What happens next if this passes? Well, if this amendment fails and the underlying legislation passes, we will see a budget from the mayor in about two months. And I want to be clear that that budget will be the statement of the mayor's priorities. It will be over $1,000,000,000 in general fund money that she can allocate how she chooses in the proposed budget. We're saying this $6 million that we're discussing, which is less than a fraction of 1% of the general fund budget, is off limits for other needs. But that leaves over 99% of the other general fund budget to list your priorities. If at the end of the day, that mayor says. The mayor says that the lowest priority that she needs to cut is some of the human service projects that she talked about last week. I can tell you that I am committed to not do that and to continue to restore those funds. So, colleagues, I will be opposing this amendment and I, I hope you'll join me in opposition to it.
Speaker 1: Councilman Brown. Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 3: I will be opposing this amendment also. And I just wanted to say very clearly, first of all, the $6 million that we're talking about, yes, it's a very small fraction of the total city's total budget. But also, it it's it's something that we didn't expect we would have because the sweetened beverage tax has raised more revenue than it was than we had projected for. But let's go back to the original intent of the tax. It was not meant as a revenue generator. It was meant as a mechanism to eventually have the funds be flowing back to the communities that are, unfortunately, because of their economic and marginalized circumstances, are having to make, you know, having to consume foods and beverages that are not good for your health. But the intent of this tax was never to penalize the communities that are facing these unfortunate choices. The intent of the tax was to make their lives better. And so when you have when the city has 6 million extra dollars, then those dollars should go back to making their lives better as part of the original intent. And I have to say, I've heard Councilmember Bagshaw use our position as the current budget chair. You know, the budget chairmanship rotates, but the budget chair is one of the council members who as an as a council, we have to make a collective decision on the budget. And I don't accept that as a budget chair this this false idea of fiscal responsibility. We all have a responsibility to make sure that the budget passes by charter. The budget has to be balanced, but that does not absolve us as the highest elected body of the city to find progressive revenues. And if Councilmember Baxter is so concerned about revenues, then she should not have voted against the Amazon tax and for the repeal. And I would urge that all council members who feel that we don't have enough revenues, well, let's make sure that this year the budget has more progressive revenues, not fewer. Council members want you bring this up all the time. And I would like to point out that on May 31st, 2017, you voted against this and I voted for it. So it seems a little hypocritical. No hypocritical at all. I did vote against it and the community knows why I voted against it. And I'm going to bring those points up when we talk about the legislation itself. I think it is hypocritical of council members to vote for the Amazon tax repeal, vote against every progressive revenue measure that we have brought to the City Council in the last couple of years with the people's budget movement and then say that, well , we don't have enough money, we're going to put paid programs against programs and all our good programs.
Speaker 1: So I'll I'll come back to this exchange in my closing remarks during the Bass legislation, as much fun as we're having here. Councilmember Pacheco, can you close us out on the amendment only, sir?
Speaker 9: Sure. This conversation started long before I joined the Council with the passage of the sweetened beverage tax in 2017 and the budget actions taken last year. It would also inevitably continue well beyond my time on the Council. I support the goal of this legislation to establish a set, a separate fund for the sweetened beverage tax so that we keep the promises we made as a city when we passed this tax. I think that the conflict we find ourselves in today is the result of several unfortunate actions taken in the past. We all share some blame, and I don't think people in Seattle want us to point fingers and play a blame game. They want us to get good things done. While I support the goal of this legislation, I think we must get there responsibly. This council voted to approve the 2020 endorsed budget and I do not think we should throw a wrench into that budget at the last minute. Community organizations that rely on SBT funding budgeted with the 2020 endorsed budget in mind. While we intend to backfill their funding in this legislation passes, the uncertainty introduced by this process is regrettable. I am asking that we get there and do so in a responsible manner that I think would best, most benefit the people of Seattle. The community organizations here today, as well as lead us in a path that is the most responsible way.
Speaker 1: Okay. So there's the amendment that's been moved. And second, I'm going to call for the vote. This is just for the amendment. All those in favor of amendment number four is advanced by Councilmember Chicco. Please say I and raise your hand. All those opposed. Say no and raise your hand. Nope. So that motion fails. And so now we have a base legislation that has been amended with three successful amendments. And Councilmember O'Brien, did you want to say a few more words about it? I emphasize the word few, but this is important legislation, so go at it.
Speaker 7: I just want to thank community members who have been so active in this. This was not an easy policy in the first place. A couple of years ago, you had to do a lot of work to help us get the policy right and working with community members. And I apologize that you have continued to have to come back and work with us on this. You spend a lot of time, especially in the last couple of months, and likely you'll probably have to spend some time during the budget making sure we still get it right. And that's all the time that we're taking away from conversation with community members to have healthy access to food. And so I apologize that I'm grateful for your advocacy. I hope through this effort, the solidarity we've seen in community today will help strengthen the organizations and will come out of this stronger than ever before.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Cast member Brian. Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 3: Thank you. President Harrell As Councilmember accurately pointed out, I did vote against the sweetened beverage tax and I made it clear at that time to all community members that I voted no because it is a regressive tax that falls disproportionately on the shoulders of poor and working class people, especially low income people of color. But as community members have mentioned repeatedly, the regressive nature of the tax can be mitigated if the revenues collected by the task tax find our way back to the lives of the people who are having to pay the tax in the first place. So in other words, that's the intent of the legislation today to make sure that whatever revenues are raised through the tax, go back to the communities that are impacted. To be clear, today's legislation is about how those revenues are used and not whether the tax should be in place. That tax is already in place. We are not relitigating that matter here. So I will be voting yes on this council bill because it will help ensure that the funds from this tax are used to support the communities who are overwhelmingly paying for the tax. However, I think we have to have a caution in our understanding. A legislation like this one by itself cannot necessarily succeed in mandating that the mayor's office do the right thing when it comes to the budget. The mayor can always reduce the funding from the general fund going into programs that are funded with a sweetened beverage tax like she did last year. The only way to really prevent that from happening is for community members to stay engaged and build a movement during the budget season, which comes in the autumn. So our work will not be done. I hope everybody understands that we will need to mobilize and and get organized for the budget. And I invite everybody to be part of the people's budget movement that has had a tremendous record of successes in holding the budget process accountable. It is totally unacceptable the way that Mayor Durkan has implied to social service organizations that their funding would be cut if they did not oppose or speak in opposition to today's legislation. And I congratulate all the community members and organizations for your courage in standing up to that pressure and also importantly, rejecting, as Violet and others have said, that rejecting a cynical attempt to divide marginalized communities. We should always reject this kind of divide and rule. And this is classic divide and rule. The reality is that these. Missions are being paused because, you know, like the question about what happens with the small amount of revenue generated by the sweetened beverage tax. What it demonstrates is the fundamental problem that social services are chronically, grossly underfunded across the board because the city has not made sure that big business and the super wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. That has not happened. That is why we keep revisiting this question. And always the question is posed as which programs to fund as opposed to other programs that are equally good, rather than making sure that all the needs of society in the city are funded. Because these are people's lives we are talking about. If Mayor Durkan was truly concerned about the funding that might not be available without the $6 million that she wants to go after, then she should not have repealed the Amazon tax. In fact, go to war against the city in order to repeal it because it was a one concrete legal measure through which big business could have been taxed. And as Gary Mooney pointed out, King County has 14 billionaires from 27 statistics. There are 68,000 millionaires. I'm sure the number of millionaires has grown as as as as just as a number of the people who are facing problems has also grown. So, you know, there are many ways that the mayor could actually design the budget in such a way that all programs are fully funded. She could, you know, promote progressive revenue, new progressive revenues. She could stop the sweeps and use of homeless people and use the $10 million that I spend on the sweeps every year and find 10 million is greater than 6 million. Why go after the sweetened beverage tax revenues in order to supposedly in order to fund some programs, end the sweeps. Stop the sweeps and make sure those $10 million are used for programs that we know work. In fact, just earlier today, we heard from the Human Services Department yet again that they do not have one iota of data to show that the sweeps of homeless people are doing any good. But we have ample evidence of the harm they create. And in the people's budget movement last year, my office proposed using that funding for housing instead. That did not pass. Again, the question is posed. Mayor Durkan tightens to cut funding for food and education programs, as she has, you know, promised to do so. Then we will need to build the people's budget movement to stop the sweeps to restore that funding. I will be voting yes on this bill to spend, to use or invest the SBT revenues on food access and education programs. And my office will continue fighting to make sure that progressive revenues are expanded so that all the necessary needs of society are funded. And I really reject the efforts of the mayor to pit one program against the other.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Catherine Swann. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to again thank the prime sponsor of this legislation for moving forward on the commitment we made in the budget last year to make sure that we did wall off this specific funding for the specific intent as we committed to the voters last year. I, too, am disappointed, disappointed by the language that's been used to create unnecessary and manufactured crises among some of our most vulnerable organizations. Sorry, our organizations who serve the most vulnerable. I think that the information that has been put out there has caused concern and deep anxiety among folks. And I hope what you heard today was clarification. Clarification that we can do both and we can both create a walled off set of funds that come in from the sugary sweetened beverage tax and continue to mean or maintain our commitments to these very organizations that are providing early learning and food access programs. I know that we have expressed multiple times today, but I want to underscore the intent of the ordinance, as outlined, was meant to be used to fund the expansion of existing programs and the creation of additional programs for outreach and education, for nutrition and early learning programs, not to replace the general fund that provided the baseline funding for these very critical programs. And so we know we can do both and expand the critical services and protect the funding that was always provided through the general fund. The city does face tremendous needs. We talk about it every day from housing affordability and homeless issues, from the crisis of equity in terms of access to economic stability and early learning needs. We need to be intentional about how we invest our public dollars. We need to make sure that we're not in a situation where we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, and especially in one of the most prosperous cities in the country. We need to not engage in us in austerity budget, not an austerity budget, when we have robust opportunities to identify funding, to go into early learning and food access programs. I want to thank some of the incredible speakers who've come forward today and the multiple emails we've received. And to also underscore what my council colleagues have said and what the Budget Chair has said, we can both invest in early learning and food access programs and maintain the integrity of the sweetened, sugar sweetened beverage tax. And I think it's been said are already up here on the dais. But it bears repeating that the reason that I think that it is important for us to maintain funding, to go into especially prevention and education programs as was promised in the sugar sweetened beverage, is to reduce consumption of soda, to reduce the consumption of this toxic product that is intentionally being marketed, especially to our black and brown communities, intentionally being targeted to our lowest wage workers. We want consumption of soda and sugary sweetened beverages to go down, and in order to do so, we need those funds to go into education and prevention programs in nutrition, to promote healthy eating, to ensure that our local convenience stores have access to fruits and vegetables and not just unhealthy food. And to make sure that our earliest learners and their families have the support they need. That was the intent of the sugary sweetened beverage tax. And today we're reaffirming that commitment that you all wanted in the initial language that was passed by the council, by by voters, by the council that was supported overwhelmingly. We want to make sure that this is a true commitment that we're keeping to the voters. So I'm really excited that we have the language that was included and proud to be a co-sponsor with Councilmember Herbold O'Brien and Gonzalez. To make it crystal clear that the legislation is not intended to reduce any from any programs currently funded with the with the sugar sweetened beverage tax, and that we will redouble our effort. Council members somewhat want mentioned it is every one of our responsibility when it comes to budget to make sure that these programs are kept whole in the budget. I reaffirmed that commitment for myself to you. I hope that the full council supports this underlying bill so that we can continue to work towards creating the both and approach. And it's so early, it's mid-July. We have plenty of time to continue to work on that. I appreciate all of the work that you all have put forward today in the effort to support the sugary sweetened beverage tax initial intent and to make sure that we keep these other programs whole so that we don't unnecessarily create additional angst and confusion in the community . We stand with you in the desire to make sure all of these programs are served. Thank you again for moving forward this legislation so we can fulfill our commitment to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comments from a skater. No questions or comments or good customer record sales. Okay. Customer Good.
Speaker 4: So I'll keep it brief because I know we're on agenda item two. I too, want to thank many of the community organizations who've been working on this particular bill, but more importantly, who've been working on the greater effort around getting the sweetened beverage tax passed in the first place. And I feel it's really important for us to anchor this conversation in the commitments that we had originally made way back when in 2017, when we first considered this this legislation to enable this tax to be levied against the people who consume sweet beverages in our city. And back then, one of the things that we we debated ad nauseum was whether or not we were passing a piece of legislation that created a new revenue stream for the sake of producing a new revenue stream, meaning that we could use the money for whatever purpose we wanted to, or if we were really committed to investing these dollars back into communities who were being disproportionately and negatively impacted by the soda industry, that in a manner that was so detrimental to our community's health and and safety. And and really, you know, I just want to go back to that period of time and remind folks that we have that debate and that. And in the course of that debate, we concluded that it was important for us not to create a revenue stream for the sake of revenue that really what we wanted to do is have a mechanism to collect additional revenue that we could directly reinvest back into low income communities and communities of color that would eventually interrupt the cycle of soda companies taking extreme advantage of our communities by targeting us for sugary beverage consumption, and that it was important for us to make sure that we tied the investments back to that purpose. So today for me is a follow through on that commitment. And the only apology I'm going to give to the community is that we didn't catch this when we first passed it in 2017, because it's always been our intent to have this type of dedicated revenue stream for these communities in particular. And so to those of you who have that expectation, it was an appropriate expectation. And we should have included this language in 2017 as part of the original legislation. But I don't think that those of us who are sitting up here now, who were there in 2017 imagined a world in which we would be put in this unfortunate situation of manufactured division among communities of color and low income communities, and frankly, the pumping out of terribly inaccurate information that has really resulted in creating a tremendous amount of fear among community based organizations who have very limited resources to begin with. And all the minutes that you have spent in these chambers to advocate for us to do the things we should have done in 2017, could actually have been spent right now serving vulnerable communities in the city of Seattle. And so that is a massive regret that we have to do this. But I feel very strongly that we need to continue to support this, this bill that has been introduced by Councilmember O'Brien. I think the intent is a follow through of the original intent. And I really want to appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's leadership in this space and do see it as an opportunity for the city council to be transparent and to follow through on commitments that we made to the public about what we were going to use these dollars for and why we were we were passing this revenue in the first place. I also just wanted to take a moment to my office, compiled a list of all of the organizations and coalitions that have written in in support of Council Bill 119551. And I think it's important for us to acknowledge that not everybody got a chance to perhaps speak and for the full amount allotted. But the list is is very large of the organizations who wrote to us rejecting the mayor's narrative around what was happening here and in doubling down on their support of creating this dedicated revenue fund. Those organizations include the Seattle Healthy Kids Coalition, which is made up of the Seattle Neighborhood Farmers Market, Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition. Our core foundation, American Heart Association shape Washington Central Rosa. Washington Bass. Paul Sherman, who is with the Community Health Plan of Washington, also a member of the Community Advisory Board, got green Rainier Beer Action. Coalition routes of all roads. Mobile Farm stands for Youth Action Network's Yellow Human Services Coalition, including the Southwest Youth and Family Services, YWCA, SHC Saddle Farmers Markets as a Coalition. Pike Place Market Foundation Queen Anne Farmers Market Neighborhood Farmers Market Solid Ground Seattle Food Committee, Lake City Neighborhood Alliance Central Area Collaborative Kids Company and the Community Advisory Board, both as a board and and individuals from that organization have also stepped up in concert in support of this bill. And so I'm really appreciative of all these organizations really being able to come together and seeing through this strategy and helping us stay true to what the what the real intent is. So with that, I am excited to support the bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Any more brief comments? I'll say a brief comment to. I'll just say this. Look at my daughters over here saying, no, I haven't said anything. Okay. I'm not going to say I'm going to say this. But I was one of those kids that were I had never met a twink in a seven. If I didn't like growing up. I was not a big fan of this tax to begin with because I saw it how it went to poorer people and people that just were marketed to. Like our colleagues said. But that was our commitment to the community. And that's why I got behind it. And it's as simple as that. And this legislation was called irresponsible. I think it's very responsible. We're not cutting anything, so it's very responsible. Those are my comments. You see, I am brief. When I say I'm brief, I'm brief. Okay, now we're ready. I don't want to deny anyone an opportunity. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Get to I O'Brien High Pacheco. Pacheco.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 2: So on. I beg Shah. Gonzalez, i. Herbold, i. President Harrell high seven in favor one oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. The Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item three about 119537 relating to the sale of low income housing, requiring owners of certain multi-family rental housing to notify the Seattle Office of Housing, the Seattle Housing Authority and the tenants of the owners proposed sale of that housing. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to creating a fund for Sweetened Beverage Tax revenues; adding a new Section 5.53.055 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and providing additional guidelines for expending proceeds. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119537 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item three about 119537 relating to the sale of low income housing, requiring owners of certain multi-family rental housing to notify the Seattle Office of Housing, the Seattle Housing Authority and the tenants of the owners proposed sale of that housing. And in many sections 22.90 7.0 30 and point 100 of the transfer code. The committee recommends a bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Customer.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. And as people leave, I want to say thank you for both. Also commenting on the notice of intent to sell legislation. As you also talked about the need for a sugar sweetened beverage isolated fund. So thank you for that. I won't take their exit, Mr. President, as an indication that they don't like it because folks have weighed in. So I appreciate that. Today, I'm really excited to bring forward this legislation that creates the notice of intent to sell ordinance. I should say that updates the existing ordinance that's already on the book. We already know that Seattle's current real estate market, the tenants affordable housing providers, often struggle to compete. Many buyers come with cash in hand and snap up properties within days of being listed. And sometimes buildings are also sold without ever being listed on the market at all, leaving few opportunities for low income buyers to get a foot in the door, including tenants and nonprofit organizations, community organizations that are interested in preventing displacement and helping to make sure that people have an affordable place to live. So I believe, as this council has talked about multiple times, we need every tool in the toolkit to help make sure that we are creating new first time homebuyer options, that we are preserving affordability where we can, that we're creating and building more affordable housing units, both for renters and for first time homebuyers. And that, as we do all of this, we create additional options to exercise greater self-determination in terms of how we access affordable housing. The existing notice of intent to sell ordinance, which many of you passed years ago with Councilmember Burgess and Clark, I think, who led the effort, had identified that multifamily properties of five units or more with at least one rental unit at 80% AMI or below, should notify the Office of Housing of their intent to sell any property and provide a 60 day window before any transaction to allow an opportunity for affordable housing developers to submit an offer should they be interested in acquiring the building. However, as we've heard over the last year and a half, there is additional tools that we need in that toolkit. One is for those smaller buildings, those with 2 to 4 units, and to create more opportunities for those nonprofit developers and organizations, to have more of an opportunity to potentially make an offer on some of those larger units with five larger buildings, with five units or more. So we've engaged with community members and affordable housing providers. Some of the industry folks who you heard from today to try to get some feedback on the ordinance in front of you and ultimately have landed on this legislation with the amended amendments that Councilmember Herbold and Council Member Bagshaw have worked with us to include. And I believe that it really strengthens the opportunities for tenants, strengthens the opportunity for community organizations, and strengthens the opportunity for nonprofit, affordable housing developers to purchase multifamily residential buildings when they come up for sale. Be this either for individuals as tenants of the building who will now finally get notification before their building goes up for sale. Or nonprofit developers who we want to facilitate the ability ability for them to either preserve the building or create more affordable units. And also for our community partners who have said they would like to get more into this arena and to help preserve buildings or build more units so that there can be more affordable housing on the market as a whole. And with this legislation, we will be able to provide notice to those entities so that they have more time to make an offer. The proposed updates are not only intended to expand opportunities for tenants and nonprofits interested in purchasing properties come up for sale, but also to create a potential pool of new new purchasers. When we incorporate some of the language that Councilmember Herbold has been instrumental in, including by making sure that the Office of Housing is, let's say, hosting educational programs so that people understand where potential resources can come from. As we pull in existing funding that has come from the Office of Housing and other community development entities that have funding available for this type of purchase, we're going to build out our knowledge in the community about how to access these funds and potentially create more self-determination, homeownership and affordable rental units on the horizon. And we're also looking back as Councilmember Bagshaw has spearheaded the effort in the legislation. We're also going to be making sure that we'll hold ourselves accountable, that this tool is working in the future, and that we respond to the data that we get. We want this to be a benefit to tenants, to nonprofit organizations, to community organizations that are interested in this. And I believe that as we do so, we will potentially see more opportunities for those who've been historically not able to engage in this type of purchase, engaging in preserving affordable housing, and hopefully building out more affordable housing in the future. So creating a new pool of potential purchasers, obviously, this is not going to be one policy that solves any of our affordable housing. And Chris, this is again, one additional element to a much larger toolkit that we all need in order to create affordable housing across the income spectrum, but specifically for our lowest wage workers. And I really appreciate folks engaging on this legislation. We know we have other cities to pull from and the National League of Cities, again, in their report that they just released a few weeks ago, highlighted this policy strategy as one important tool to make sure that cities are offering more opportunities for people to purchase these types of buildings, and importantly, the nonprofit developers and community organizations along with tenants. So that is my comprehensive summary of the legislation and my huge thanks to all of the council that has engaged on this legislation. And I'm looking forward to hearing any concerns, but looking forward to really the implementation side of things.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any questions or comments? Councilman Bagshaw?
Speaker 3: Thank you all. I think we still have council central staff here for all of your good work. Thank you for your leadership on this councilmember mosquito. I want to underscore a couple of things. One, this does not impact single families. So single family homes with people that want to sell. It also does not impact the large commercial buildings that people are worried about. And I do want to acknowledge that, Councilmember Moss, Kate and I both reached out to representatives that work for landlords. The reason we added the tiers and the various gates for the 15 days was to make it clear that we're giving opportunities to people that might not have the information that they can get together and if they've got the financial wherewithal to put an offer forward. But I also, without blowing any attorney client privilege, I want to recognize and acknowledge that we did work with a lot apartment on this. So some of the issues that were raised in the last week, I believe have been addressed. So many thanks. I'm certainly voting for this. We'll see how it goes. We also have tied in an evaluation by the city auditor. If we find it's not working, it can be undone. So I think it's a it's a worthy effort. Let's try.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Beck. Customer Well.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I want to thank the chair mosquito for moving forward some language in a shared amendment that was important to tenant advocates and organizations working to promote community land trust and low, low income homeownership. Specifically the need to do more to strengthen monitoring and enforcement efforts to improve compliance and help realize greater retention of affordability and promote tenant ownership in alignment with that. As it relates specifically to strengthening monitoring, making sure that properties that are that are required to comply with this law are or are likely to be required to comply with this law, are put on on a watch list that tenant groups and the city can work together in making early assessments of whether or not those are properties, should they go up for sale that the city should work together with community groups on identifying. Funding and opportunities to support the purchase of those buildings. And I think it also dovetails into some criticism that we've received from the the Rental Housing Association, which I actually don't see as a criticism whatsoever. They they refer to a similar legislation in Washington, D.C., called the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act. And they show that over a six year period, 5% of buildings, subject to the requirement, were purchased by tenants. I think that's given the fact that we don't have endless public dollars to purchase properties. I think 5% of eligible properties being purchased would be would be fantastic. And I think what we really need to do not only is to support this ordinance and support tenants who are looking to purchase properties in collaboration with the city. But we also need to work on on the funding piece as well, which I think is something that there's broad agreement on. No, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Customer Herbold Okay. I think we'll be ready to vote. Customer said you wanted to reach.
Speaker 6: Please, just to close it out, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: That was closed out, but go ahead and close this out.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I want to thank the council again and also underscore what Councilmember Horrible just ended with. We have so much more work to do to make sure that there is the funding necessary. So our community organizations are nonprofit developers and low income tenants do have funding that they can pull from and when a potential purchase comes up in the future. I want to underscore my commitment to that as well as we move forward. My hope is that this type of legislation, in combination with robust funding and other public policies that we've passed, will lead to more co-op models, more co-housing models, more public housing models, as we're also making sure that this list of notification goes to the Office of Housing, as well as Seattle Housing Authority. This is one critical element as we're looking forward forward to creating more affordable housing, both for first time homeowners options, first time home ownership options, and for affordable rental units. So we're excited about the prospect of this and will be looking forward to working with all of you as we do the evaluation. Just a quick thank you, Mr. President, to wrap it up to the community housing roundtable who's been engaging with us. I want to thank Puget Sound Sage and Washington Community Action Network, who testified today in support and on our team, Erin House, who's done a lot of research on this. And as Tracy is listening, Tracy Ratcliff from central staff for her intense research and drafting of this legislation, in addition to the law department, who Councilmember Bagshaw has mentioned, has been working with us very closely on this legislation. Very excited to bring it forward to you. And with that, I will stop, Mr. President, so we can vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Cathy, I'm a skater. Okay? If there's no other comments, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Musgrave.
Speaker 2: I. O'Brien All right, let's go. I want to thank John Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill Pass and chair of Senate. Please read the part of the Select Committee on Civic Arena's. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale of low-income housing; requiring owners of certain multi-family rental housing to notify the Seattle Office of Housing, the Seattle Housing Authority, and tenants of the owner’s proposed sale of that housing; and amending Sections 22.907.030 and 22.907.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119566 | Speaker 1: Bill Pass and chair of Senate. Please read the part of the Select Committee on Civic Arena's.
Speaker 6: The report of the Select Committee on Civic Arena's Agenda and for Accountable 119566 relating to Broad Street transfer jurisdiction over the portion of Broad Street between Thomas Street and Taylor Avenue North for the sale of primary transportation to the Seattle Center Department for purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining a public skate plaza. That can we recommend Civil Pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So I'm going to channel in co-chair of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas Deborah Suarez with me as I present this because it was a select committee, I think all of you are familiar with what we're trying to do in these three pieces of legislation. The first one is fairly straightforward. We're just transferring the jurisdiction for a portion of the Broad Street portion of Broad Street between Taylor Avenue North and Thomas Street without charge from start to the Seattle center. And that's simply for the constructing and operating and maintaining a public skate plaza. And, of course, this was caused by the work we're doing over at Key Arena and on the Seattle Center campus. And so that's basically what this does. And I look forward to your support. Any questions or comments? But please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda I. O'BRIEN Hi. Pacheco. All right. So thanks. John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill Pass ensures chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda in the short short time to. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Broad Street; transferring jurisdiction over the portion of Broad Street between Thomas Street and Taylor Avenue North from the Seattle Department of Transportation to the Seattle Center Department for purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a public skate plaza. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119549 | Speaker 1: Bill Pass ensures chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda in the short short time to.
Speaker 6: Please agenda item five cancel 119 549 relating to the sales center department authorizing sales center director to execute an amendment to the facility use agreement with Force Ten Hoops LLC. The committee recommends a bill pass go again.
Speaker 1: So this Council bill is relative to our. Beloved champions, the Seattle storm. And this basically modifies the facility use agreement amendment. It allows the basically it it doesn't increase our potential liability. The city was continues to remain capped at 2.6 million. But what it does is recall it modifies the formula used to calculate relocation payments. It it no longer makes a differentiation between additional costs and lost revenue. And by doing that change, it certainly encourages and incentivized the storm to play the storm to play their home games here in Seattle rather than electric the location like Everett. And I think many of you know that they're now playing it the pavilion at the University of Washington. And we want to keep our champions local. So that's what this does. And it was a agreed upon negotiation. Any other questions on this great nat please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Must get to I O'Brien by Pacheco so I thank John Gonzalez purple by President Harrell. I eat in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Center Department; authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute an amendment to the facility use agreement with Force 10 Hoops, LLC, authorized by Ordinance 125323 for use and occupancy of KeyArena for playing of professional women’s basketball games; making findings of fact about the value provided by professional women’s basketball in Seattle; amending the relocation payment structure in the agreement; and exempting the amendment from the requirements of Chapter 20.47 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119543 | Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item six Council 119 543 relating to Lenny since any amending seven sometimes because sections 23.50 5.002.003.005 and 23.84 8.0 36. To add new assembly sections 23.50 5.0 52.00. 54.0. 56.0. 57.0. 59.0 62. Subject Design Overlay Districts and sign regulations for the Sale Center, including regulations for sub areas containing the Seattle Center area excuse me, arena and the brassy garage block. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So this last piece of legislation is basically creating what we call the sign overlay district, and by that it amends the land use code to define a sign overlay district that basically provides the tailoring of the sign code provisions at the Seattle Center. The both the developers and city leaders and those sort of vested in the project believe this is absolutely necessary incident and sort of a catalyst for wayfinding and for the creation of vibrancy in the Seattle center. And so the signage which do illuminate but they're not like Las Vegas type signs but are necessary for wayfinding and again , creating the vibrancy that we want to see at Seattle Center Arena. We had a robust conversation, I thought, at the committee table, and there was some concern by both the design commission and some folks testified about sort of a be careful approach or whether this is the best approach. But we heard, I thought from the executive and the department some fairly compelling testimony in terms of how they limit the use of signs. There's actually a total reduction of the amount of signage by 2000 square feet that was allowed in the original lease, the hours that science could be illuminated, etc. all seem to be reasonable and as determined by the committee. And so this justice, this legislation was overwhelmingly passed out of committee. And we think it's the wise way to go. Any questions or comments with that? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Mr. O'BRIEN. Hi. Pacheco. Hi. So one big John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Eight and favorite on a.
Speaker 1: Post please call off the bill passed and Cheryl sign it please read the report The Civic Development Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Sections 23.55.002, 23.55.003, 23.55.005, and 23.84A.036; and adding new SMC Sections 23.55.052, 23.55.054, 23.55.056, 23.55.057, 23.55.058, and 23.55.060; to establish a sign overlay district and sign regulations for the Seattle Center, including regulations for subareas containing the Seattle Center Arena and the Bressi Garage block. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119569 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. Agenda seven Council. Bill 119569 Granting a utility easement of surface and subsurface rights to King County Commission recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And on behalf of Councilmember Suarez, we've got the last three items. So we are going to go quickly on this. This is a Discovery Park ordinance that grants a utility easement of surfing and subsurface rights to King County. They will maintain the overflow pipeline and channel and Discovery Park. We amended the ordinance in committee to adopt Attachment one Version two, which stipulates that the city will be responsible for maintaining any natural causing disturbance to the easement. So if there is an earthquake, it's ours. This amendment was agreed upon both by the city and the county, and the committee recommends a do pass recommendation on this.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments now? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda I O'Brien. I Pacheco. I so want I beg John Gonzalez Herbold i President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Will pass and share with Senate. Please call the next agenda item into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting a utility easement of surface and subsurface rights to King County, through its Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division (“King County”), to maintain an underground overflow pipeline and channel for the King County-owned reservoir within Discovery Park, which serves the regional wastewater facility, to meet federal guidelines for a potable water supply separation in the event of an emergency shutdown and backup of the incoming water supply. | SeattleCityCouncil |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.