meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119570 | Speaker 1: Will pass and share with Senate. Please call the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 6: Agenda item eight Cancel 119 570 relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing acquisition of real property property commonly known as 23. Northeast 1/25 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 3: Thank you so much. This is an exciting piece of legislation for councilmember suarez and five and in particular, it will allow parks to acquire a piece of land that's located on 100 and twenty-fifths fifth street used for open space parks and recreation purposes. It's on the north fork of Thornton Creek. Councilmember was sent in a statement that says In protecting a pristine acre of salmon bearing stream, we will also boost the flood retention ability of defines main watershed. And Councilmember Suarez wants to thank Seattle Public Utility Seattle Parks and Recreation, Thornton Creek Alliance, King County Councilmember Rod Dombroski and the 46th District legislative delegation for coming together to get this done. So we recommend a unanimous approval that this piece of property be purchased.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Bagshaw, any other questions or comments? But please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda I. O'Brien Hi. Pacheco Hi. So what? Gonzales. Herbold Hi. President Harrell All right. Eight in favor.
Speaker 1: Nine opposed to bill passed share of Senate. Please read the last agenda item.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item nine Appointment 1377 Reappointment of J.A. Richards, Member of Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees four Term two April 1st, 2024. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 2318 NE 125th St.; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07152019_CB 119550 | Speaker 1: And to cancel 119550 relating to the funding for housing community developed programs, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Kasper Back show.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So at our last financing committee, neighborhood committee, you will remember that we were looking at the 2019 Annual Action Plan. And what happens here is that it is a grant that we will be able to accept. It's roughly $2 million more than what we had identified during our budget for the Community Development BLOCK Grants and for other housing opportunities for persons with AIDS and a couple of others. So the recommendation from the committee is that we approve the grant and move forward with accepting $21,167,444.
Speaker 0: Sounds like a good idea to me. Any other questions or comments on this bill? Not please call the role on the passage of the bill herbold ii.
Speaker 1: Whereas I Macheda i Pacheco. I Suwannee Bayshore High Gonzalez, President Harrell I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the housing. Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; adopting The City of Seattle 2019 Annual Action Plan to the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing acceptance of grant funds from that department for programs and activities included in the Annual Action Plan; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2019 Adopted Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07152019_CB 119542 | Speaker 1: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item three Accountable 119 542 Relating to contracting by the Human Services Department, providing that the Seattle Human Services Department provide a cost increase when renewing or renegotiating contracts to address escalation in costs and specifying how and when to apply the increase in Manning Section 20.60 .102 of the settlement occurred to exempt Human Services contracts from the provisions of Chapter 20.60 and adding a new Section 3.20 .06 to the systems code. The committee recommends that all passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Customer I'm a skater.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would love to maybe speak at the end and also support you in your amendment. If you'd like, I could either second your amendment or move your amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we would like to make the amendment first for the basically. Yes. Okay. So I will move amendment, I guess I'll call it amendment number one. And in addition, you have a copy of the amendment and it was probably circulated on a timely basis and I think central staff for that. Basically what it does is we heard a lot of testimony about how underpaid the the employees doing this kind of work are. And I don't think there was any disagreement. However, it occurred to me that some of the language I thought in the bill could have been a little stronger to making sure that is clearly our intent . And we understand that there are high fixed costs in these nonprofits and other costs that they just don't have control over. But I thought a strong policy statement saying that we get that too, but we also get the fact that these are underpaid jobs and we want to recognize that. So that's what the amendment does. Number one, the number two we've had some of us have been around where we've had real tough times where, you know, a recession and where we had to really sharpen our pencil to make some tough cuts and some policy statements that we had this around 2008 or so. Some policy statements that we said during then were why we have to make these real tough cuts, that the work that you all do, the work that Human Services do, we are preserving that. The work is so critical to protect our most vulnerable that in our budget deliberations, this is so critically important that we recognize you have to preserve, if not even enhance the funding. So the other language of this amendment captures that, and I think it's read by say by saying the critical role we recognize, the critical role that human services organizations fill. And it's our intent to fund annual adjustments in times of both economic prosperity and economic hardship. So that's what the amendment does. And I will formally move it, move it consistent with what I described. Councilmember Mosquito's second it. Any other comments on the amendment?
Speaker 3: I'll take a.
Speaker 4: Comment. Mr. Personnel.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 4: I just want to thank you, Mr. President, for bringing this amendment forward. I think it is a really smart idea to make sure that we express the Council's strong desire that these annual adjustments are received by our provider organizations and in dealing with the fixed and variable costs, as we create greater stability for the organizations, our desire is absolutely in line with what both the CEOs, the executive directors and the frontline staff have said. We want to see wages stabilized. We want to see workers stabilize and the turnover and vacancy rates addressed. So I really appreciate you underscoring that in the amendment. I also think it's important that we, through your amendment, underscore our commitment to investing in the critical role that these human service provider organizations, frontline staff and their leaders provide to our city. And by fulfilling the city's intention to fund the annual adjustments in times of both economic prosperity and economic hardship, I think really recognizes that more people are going to need these various services, especially in times of economic hardship. Very much appreciate you bringing this forward and working with our office on this and will be an enthusiastic yes on your amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Castro administrator. Sort of like we have a few newlyweds here. Sort of like those wedding vows, for better or for worse. Okay. Any more comments before we vote on the amendment? Okay. It's been moved in, seconded all those in favor of the amendment. Only just the amendment. Please vote. I. I opposed. The ayes have it. The legislation is amended. I'll turn it back over to. I'm a skater.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I am very excited to bring forth to the Council this amended human service provider inflationary adjustment legislation. If it pleases the President. I may wait to make my comments at the very end. Sure closes out.
Speaker 0: Sure. So many people have worked on this legislation, so now would be the time to talk about if you'd like. I give you the option to talk about any comments you say before councilmember skater closes. Debate on it and I'll wait.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Bagshaw Thank you so much. Councilmember Misgendered Councilmember Herald Thank you for both bringing the amendment and for your staunch support. And I want to say thank you to all you and the community for the tremendous work that you. Do we know that people that are suffering on the streets, people that are suffering from behavioral mental health, they need your help more. And that warm handoff is more important than anything else that any of us can do. So I want to.
Speaker 1: Acknowledge how difficult.
Speaker 2: And challenging the work is and for our friends in the public defenders for the work you're doing on lead. We know that that makes a huge difference as well. So I want to say I support this. I had brought forward an amendment that I was really more focused on the budget to make sure that future councils had an opportunity to make decisions about what was going to be required going forward. We know that that amendment didn't pass. I am in full support of moving forward, in support of you, and also acknowledging that in the future, if difficulties are faced because of budget, the budget, climate, whatever it might be, future councils and the executive can make their own decisions. So I do want to acknowledge just how strongly I feel about the work you're doing. And I also want to respond to somebody in the audience who said it's a good first start. Well, actually, the good first start was last budget when we did add an additional 1.75 to 2% for this exact thing . So now we're adding another 2%. I'm proud of that. And just Godspeed.
Speaker 1: In all your work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Bagshaw and Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to add that there's been talk about the council exercising budget, budgetary discipline. And it's my opinion that this piece of legislation is actually an expression of our budgetary discipline. This is us saying that when we enter the budget negotiations this year that this is our top priority and it's very similar to what we've done in previous years. It's precisely in tough economic times when prior councils have passed resolutions or budget priority letters sent to the mayor, saying that our intention was to hold Human Services harmless to two cuts in past years. This is a this is a this piece of legislation is an expression of our values. And future councils may have different values, but this is an expression of our values at this time and my values for as long as I'm on this council. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Both, stated Councilmember Herbold. Any other comments before we turn it back over to Councilmember Swan?
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Herrell. I'm glad to be voting yes on this ordinance to try to prevent or at least help prevent human service funding in our city from falling even farther behind than it already has. I really am grateful to all the organizations, the workers and the unions that have advocated for this, including SEIU, Healthcare, 1199 Northwest . This bill requires human service provider funding to be increased with inflation. And let's be clear, this is not some kind of largesse. If the funding goes up in step with inflation, it just means that they break even. And as the speakers in public comment have stated, not only today, but in on other occasions, that not only are the wages not keeping up with inflation, it's also the other costs that all the nonprofits face, including utilities, which they are on the hook for. They can't get go to City Light and say, we can't pay the bills. They have to pay those bills. So this is absolutely the bare minimum the city can and should do. As I mentioned in the committee meetings discussing this legislation, at the heart of this problem, of course, is the chronic underfunding for social services over the past several decades. The federal funding for housing and mental health services that was eliminated in the 1980s has never returned, and we are reeling from a vicious cycle downward. Social services has been outsourced in multiple cities, have been outsourced from the public sector to nonprofits. And once the political establishment offloads that responsibility, they systematically begin underfunding these nonprofit organizations. And so you have the situation where a corporation like Amazon pays no federal taxes and instead gets $129 million tax rebate from the thanks to the Trump tax cuts. Social service workers, homeless service workers are so underpaid that they cannot make their own rent. I think these stories are really poignant of of human service workers being a paycheck and a half away from being one of the people in need of the services themselves. And I just wanted to quickly, in terms of drawing connections between different struggles, also wanted to congratulate the Amazon warehouse workers around the country who are courageously going out on the prime day strike to protest dangerous working conditions and inadequate benefits and really against even, you know, having insecure scheduling. And they are being joined today by tens of thousands outside who are on on the streets protesting no tech for ice against Amazon's contract with ice. So I think these struggles are tied together. And we have to be clear. Also, the problem is not that some workers like that workers are paid more than human service workers. I think all working people deserve a high standard of living. The problem is that the biggest businesses and the billionaires are amassing the wealth of society into fewer and fewer hands. Under capitalism, economies have a cycle of booms and busts. When the economy is booming, big business makes massive profits, the wealthy get rowdier. And when the economy falls into recession, then then workers are asked to shoulder the costs under the false slogan of shared responsibility. We should reject this kind of mythology and understand that we have to fight for our rights. And whether it's a recession or a boom period, we don't accept a low living standard for the workers who make our cities and our services run. We need to fight to fully fund human services, which means that in addition to today's measure, we urgently need to tax big business and the super rich to provide those funds. I would also say that council members who have expressed concerns about so-called fiscal responsibility should not have repealed the Amazon taxes. Very easy way of addressing fiscal responsibility, which is expand public revenues in a city with the most regressive tax system in the entire nation. I also think as workers, we should note the ominous pronouncements that have been made that future councils and mayors may do other things. Yes, that is true, which is why we have to fight for taxes on big business today and enshrine it into law. We also need to fight for rent control to address the alarming rate at which people are being forced out of their homes simply because their rents are going up, out of control, and further overloading the responsibilities of the human service organizations. So for the human service workers, it is not going to be enough to increase wages, because if those wages are taken up by disproportionately high rent increases, then it still doesn't help. So we have to fight for this measure today. But also please join us and me, my office attendance union of Washington State and other organizations in the rent control movement. And specifically, I would like to invite you all to our rent control rally at the All Pilgrims Christian Church on Broadway at 500 Broadway East at 6 p.m. this Saturday, July 20th. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. I want. Any further comments before I turn it back over to comes from a skate. It comes from a stadium floor.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, entire council. And thank all of you for turning out now to half a dozen community meetings just this year alone. I'm really excited to bring forth this legislation today in its amended version for final passage. I have to say that we've been working on this for half a year, but many of you have been working on this for over a decade. I see Allison out there and at the rally I said, you told me that this was something that we've been working on for for ten years, and she said at least ten years. So it's very exciting to be able to take this initial step. And Councilmember Bagshaw is correct. And I want to appreciate her leadership in last year's budget where the full council was able to include a 2% increase for both the non general fund and the general fund in last year's budget. That was an incredibly important first step, but we also at that point committed, committed to passing legislation to end the cycle of uncertainty, the uncertainty for providers as frontline workers, as the leaders of these organizations, and frankly, directly for your clients, the folks that you serve that have come and testified here time after time about how important it was to have case managers and reliable staff at these organizations who have the trust and experience, who can stay in these organizations and help stabilize folks. This is about making sure that we follow through on that commitment. And I want to make sure that the folks who are watching understand the type of folks and services that you're helping with. You're helping, yes. To make sure that people who are most vulnerable get the services that any other country would fund through progressive tax measures, that any other country would lift up and say, we have to invest in these. Here we are in this corner of our country trying to make up for a fact that we don't have the revenue that we need to invest in the very fabric of the social safety net that you all actually make possible. You provide food on the table for seniors through food banks and meal programs. You make sure that our youth development programs get funded and that people have a safe place to stay at night when they're youth. You make sure that those who have experienced domestic violence and sexual harassment and assault get the treatment that they need and sometimes, more importantly, the prevention that they need so that they're not in that situation. You make sure that people have a warm, safe place to stay at night and you prevent people from falling into homelessness. As we said at the rally, you are the backbone of what makes our commitment to serving the most vulnerable possible. And today we're showing that we have the backbone to stand up for all of the services that you provide to those most vulnerable. We also recognize that if the work that you had done had been within a department at the city, if you were city workers every year you would receive this inflationary adjustment departments, frontline workers here at our city, they get adjustments in the costs of both their operational costs and the dollars that go to staff. We've intentionally decided to contract with you. The city has intentionally decided to contract out this work not because we believe in contracting out, but in this specific case, because we believe that you are the most equipped, the most trusted. You have the experience on the ground level to actually serve our most vulnerable in a way that can be heard and well received to help stabilize folks. You are the individuals that we have invested in, and we need to make sure that the contracts that you receive receive those inflationary adjustments at the bare minimum to keep up with the cost of living. So it's a really exciting opportunity for us to show that the city values this work, that we're investing in, the work that you provide, the strong relationships and the community connectedness that you provide at the ground level. And we stand by the principle that nothing should be contracted out just because it's cheaper. We should be contracting out for the very reasons that we are, which is because you are valued partners. So we will continue to make sure that we look at this historic underfund that has been mentioned earlier by my council colleague. We know that we can't publicly state our commitment to making sure that the Human Service contracts, the services that we're providing to the most vulnerable and the workers are valued if we're engaging in a process that forces these organizations in a race to the bottom. Nobody benefits from that. And if you're starting off at a an amount that is already historically low, if there's a historic underfund for many of these programs and services, you're already at a detriment. We heard a year ago about chemical dependency counselors who have master's degrees in chemical dependency assistance starting out at $33,000 a year. It is no wonder that many folks are struggling to survive on that wage. We need to address both the historical underfund in the future and today. We take a really important step by making sure that all of your contracts are tied to the Consumer Price Index, the inflationary adjustment that we experience every year, and that those contracts keep up. I'm really excited that this piece of legislation is coming forward now, and I just want to say a few. Thank you. Thanks to Councilmember Herbold for continuing to support this and standing there at the rally last week. Councilmember. To offer your amendments on the report back and the reflection piece in there. Council Member Harold. Council President Harold, for your amendment today, as we look at the fixed and variable costs, we know that in many cases many of the leaders in these organizations are making heartbreaking decisions about not filling roles because they have to pay for rent, they have to pay for utilities, they have to pay for the increased cost of operations. And the folks who bear the brunt of that are the frontline workers and directly the folks that you serve so excited to have an intent language included, so that we can really look at that variable cost, which unfortunately has resulted in high turnover rates, 40, 50% vacancy rates among our organizations. And to provide that stability that we need to address as a city because it's a value statement. I can't do this anymore. Justice on the workers. I already have you heard them speak today? I think you've heard them speak about a half a dozen times over the last six months. And they've talked about the important role that they provide, the way in which we have, I think, tied the inflationary adjustment to CPI. It's a very common sense approach somebody said in their testimony today. And it is I think the the the value statement that we put forth today in this legislation will have years of benefit to come. So we look forward to working with you, to making sure that this is providing stability and also continuing to address that historic underfund that I know Councilmember O'Brien has continued to bring up. And we look forward to continuing that legacy. So just to reiterate what's been already said, this is not a budget exercise. This is a policy and value statement that is embedded in this legislation that the city moves forward today. And I want to just say a few. Thank you, Mr. President. And I will be done.
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 4: Okay. I want to say thank you to Allison Eisinger, Hilary Coleman from the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness. Julia from the Seattle Human Services Coalition, Lauren Fay and Nicole Macri from DSC, Susannah Weinberg and Evelyn Correa from Youth Care, Jesse and Lindsay from SEIU 1199, Kelly Larson from Plymouth Housing, Aaron Moore from West Seattle Help Line Flow from Catholic Community Services. Jennifer from Ballard Food Bank, Rizwan from Muslim Housing. Alex and Andrew Bean from SEIU seven seven, five I say Kareen from okay, you look at my union and all of those organizations, not just those individuals, but all the folks that you've turned out and the frontline staff, the workers, the people on the ground level who have also had those relationships where you brought in the clients themselves, who testified at this very table and their words were incredibly powerful. Thank you again to all of the organizations. SEIU 11 89775 API Local eight, especially the Human Services Coalition and the Coalition on Homelessness. Thank you all for continuing to come forward. The folks at Youth Care, we could probably have not have done a better job of articulating those fixed and variable costs without that incredible demographic or graphic that you shared with us. So thank you for sharing all that information. And internally, Amy Gaw and Jeff Sims from our central staff have been tremendous on this. Jessie, I know you're no longer with us in the city of Seattle. Thank you for your ongoing work where you currently are and for what you did with Councilmember O'Brien staff and Leslie as well . Marc Kazuki from Labor Care wrote an incredible op ed that we're really excited about that highlights the importance of this work. And Katie and Nicole from MLK Labor, our communications team has been all over sharing the incredible turnout that you guys have done. I mean, this room was packed. How many times? Six times in the last six months. So thank you. And with that came the work of the security guards. So thank you to our security for helping get folks up here and continue to move folks in and out, especially in the evening meetings. I just want to say, if we had a huge round of appreciation for those folks and say Joe Perry, chief of staff, who organized all of this. So thank you for all of your work they've done. And, Mr. President, with that, let's do this.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Katherine. Mascara and make sure we cover all bases here. Thanks for all of your comments. Thank you for your leadership. With that, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold i. Suarez macheda i. Pacheco all right. So what makes john gonzalez president harrell.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass for simon. Well then please read the next and our less urgent item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item for putting in 1380 appointment of Victor and Lozada as Member Domestic Workers Standards Board for Term two February 28, 2022. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to contracting by the Human Services Department; providing that the Seattle Human Services Department provide a cost increase when renewing or renegotiating contracts to address escalation in costs and specifying how and when to apply the increase; amending Section 20.60.102 of the Seattle Municipal Code to exempt human services contracts from the provisions of Chapter 20.60; and adding a new Section 3.20.060 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07082019_CB 119563 | Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please call the Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 6: Agenda item two accountable 119 563 relating to grant funds from non city sources authorized and director of the Shell Department Transportation to accept a specified grant. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is I mentioned this council briefing a bit. It's about a little over a $600,000 grant acceptances for work on the Cowan's Cowan Park Bridge. I think this is a bridge that will be getting some seismic upgrades. As I mentioned earlier, the this was on the contingency list of projects the city had submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council for the grant approval process because a couple other projects in advance are ahead of that. We're not able likely to be able to complete the projects by the end of the year for the funding requirement . The city, thankfully, was able to accelerate this project to use some of those grant funds so we wouldn't have to the region would not have to forfeit those grant funds to go back to the federal government. And this allows the other projects that were behind elsewhere in the region to slide in for the next the next grant process.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brian. Any questions or comments on this bill? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez purple. Hi, Suarez. O'Brien, Chaco. All right, so what I think Shire President Harrell high eight in favor not oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passed in the Senate. Please read agenda item number three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept a specified grant and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, including the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising project allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2019-2024 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07012019_CB 119544 | Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 10: Three point The Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item three Constable 119 544 Relating to land use and zoning in many sections 23.40 4.0, 11.0, 14.0, 17.0. 20.0 41. 23.40 5.5 4520 3.80 48.002.0 32.0 38 and 23.80 6.007. CNN Ms.. Barcode to remove barriers to the creation of attached and detached accessory dwelling units and to add a floor area ratio requirement in certain single family zones. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I know that there are amendments on this item. So if you want to make introductory comments and then take the amendments, great.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Helms President Yeah. So I'll make a few opening comments about this and then we can walk through maybe the amendments in order. First, I want to just give some highlights of what this legislation does do. The intent here is to make it easier for folks to build accessory dwelling units, whether those are attached or detached . The legislation is based on well over four years of work now and receiving community feedback on what people in our communities would like to see and what kind of flexibility they would like to have or what kind of barriers they see today. The main changes are going to happen. One is that currently the restrictions are that you can only build an 800 square foot backyard cottage. This would allow them to be 1000 square feet. We allow them to be 1 to 2 feet taller because we heard from a lot of folks that that second floor of living space is very difficult to make it a habitable space, but 1 to 2 extra feet of height would make a big difference. We'd eliminate the parking requirement. We hear that the expense and the necessity of building an off street parking spot for these units is a barrier, and it goes against some of our climate values also. Currently, there's a limit. You can either build a backyard cottage or an accessory an in-law unit. This legislation would allow you to build both. And finally, the current requirement there is an owner occupancy requirement, meaning the owner has to live on site, will be heard from community members was often that they plan to live on site but making the investment necessary to add an accessory unit. And then the fear that that something might happened in their life, whether they get transferred for a job or have to move out of town to take care of a family member, they'd be required to either leave their main house vacant or kick their tenant out and lose that rent. That uncertainty that made it really challenging for them to make the type of investment they were hoping to make. Those are the main changes and obviously some other ones there. In addition, we heard today in comment that it would place a far limit of floor area ratio, limit of 0.5 square feet per square foot, a lot with an absolute minimum minimum of 2500, whichever is greater between that and lot size. Couple of things this doesn't do. I just want to clarify because we heard in public comment, current city law in the single family zone, you're only allowed to cover 35% of the lot. The other 65% of the lot needs to be open. This does not change that at all. So if someone commented that we could cover 65% of the law, that's not accurate. 65% of what has to be open. There's no change to what's currently allowed in the single family zone. Similarly, this doesn't loosen three regulations. It adds a modest regulation about adding an additional three in certain cases, but it largely leaves the existing three regulations in place, recognizing, at least for me, that I think we need to do some work to have a better tree code, but to not address it specifically exclusively in this backyard cottage legislation, to rather address that comprehensively. And as we heard in public comment, there's a request in energy to hopefully get something done this year, which I would fully support. With that colleagues, I'll save other comments and others questions and walk through the amendments if it's okay with you. Council President Starting with the proposed amendment number one on the agenda.
Speaker 2: Would you like to move the amendment?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So why don't I. I'll go ahead and move amendment number one, which is a technical amendment and just a substitute for the legislation to clean up a lot of the language, but doesn't change any of the policy issues. Okay.
Speaker 2: Do you speak to it?
Speaker 4: Do you know it? Just to clean things up, fixes typos and other drafting errors identified by central staff. So I'd move to substitute version D six for D five, which is amendment number one.
Speaker 6: And I think you've.
Speaker 2: Got to got a second already. Any comments on the amendment? Those in favor of amendment number one. Please vote and raise your hand.
Speaker 1: I had.
Speaker 2: Those opposed. Vote no. Raise your hands. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.
Speaker 4: The Second Amendment is being proposed by Councilman Pacheco. So I defer to him to speak to this and make a.
Speaker 5: Motion.
Speaker 2: To reject.
Speaker 5: I am proposing this amendment to recognize that as we add more households and greater density to our single family neighborhoods, we should also be expanding opportunities for folks to get around by bike or other future mobility options in those areas. This amendment would incentivize building bike parking in dads by exempting up to 35 square feet of bike parking area from the maximum size of a dad to you. It would also request that start looking to opportunities for expanding bike public bike parking in single family zones, which I believe should be a priority as we add more density and as bike and scooter programs expand in our city. I hope I can count on your support for this amendment.
Speaker 2: We need a second for volume. It's been moved and seconded and introduced by Councilmember Pacheco. Any other comments?
Speaker 4: I'll just say, Councilman Pacheco, I really appreciate your work on this. To find a creative way to make this happen and your commitment to to not penalizing folks that are creating that extra space for alternative transportation modes. Thank you for your leadership on that.
Speaker 2: Any other comments? Those in favor of amendment number two, please vote and raise your hands.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Those opposed would know the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Number three, Councilmember O'Brien, I believe you are moving this.
Speaker 4: I am moving this. We've had a lot of discussion throughout this process, including a committee about the impact that short term rentals may have on on the use of accessory dwelling units in backyard cottages. We did a pretty extensive body of work around short term rentals about a year and a half ago when we put those regulations in place. Just to be clear, what those regulations allow is that individuals in the city of Seattle may use their primary residence as a short term rental. So if that's a single family home, they can either rent out a guest room in that single family home, or they can rent out the entire home while they're away on vacation or traveling or whatever that might be. And they could have a second unit to use an accessory as a sorry, as a short term rental. So that would allow someone, in addition to their primary home, to own a second unit. It could be a single family home. It could be a townhouse. It could be a condo. It could be an accessory unit. But they could just have their primary. Plus one other unit is what the limits are. I think that there is a possibility as we look forward and if we think short term rentals is more broadly is a challenge to our our housing needs. I would certainly be open to considering changing that, but at the moment, I don't think it's fair to limit what people can do in an accessory unit beyond what's already defined versus what people could do by owning single family homes, townhomes, row houses, the like. But I do think it's important to watch what happens. And we have language in the bill already that directs the Office of the Finance Administrative Services, which authorized short term rental use to monitor the license. And we also request sale department of construction inspections to work with that fact, identify other recommendations as appropriate to modify the legislation with this thing. With this amendment would do with ADD the language that basically sets the council's intent and says if this report would reveal that a significant number of accessory dwelling units are being used solely as short term rentals, the City Council intends to impose additional restrictions or a prohibition on short term rental use and accessory dwelling units. So I would go ahead and move amendment number three.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 2: It's been moved and seconded and described by Councilmember O'Brien. Any other comments on this amendment that the members get it?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank Councilmember O'Brien for your leadership on this effort overall and especially for this amendment. I think that many of us share the desire that you've just articulated and one that we've heard from council are in these council chambers before, which is to make sure that we are meeting our goals of creating greater long term rental housing options in Seattle. And what is clear from the data is that speculation has not materialized. In fact, we've seen in other similar cities like Portland that the units that are being created as backyard cottages are detached dwelling units, accessory dwelling units are in fact predominantly being used for long term housing rentals and not short term housing rentals or or vacation rentals. So the first line from the Seattle Times editorial board said data and research ought to guide the city council as they consider policies that would would address housing. In fact, we are exactly doing that. We're using data to drive the policy solutions. The data shows from the report that was presented in your committee just a few weeks ago shows that overwhelmingly, two thirds of those who currently have a backyard cottage in Portland, for example, have lived in their homes in the primary residence or own their home as the primary residence for longer than five years. And if you count those who own or are live in the primary residence for greater than one years, 95% of people actually have that owner occupancy self-imposed because they've owned it for a longer than one year. And when you ask the question, how are these rental units being used? Who is occupying them? 74%. So three quarters of the individuals that are renting these units that have been created because of the allowance of backyard cottages are long term rentals and also to friends and family. The vast majority are being used for long term rentals and for friends and family. This is exactly what we want to do. We're using data driven solutions to get to our our desire to create greater stability for rental units and for greater affordability. So I'm very excited that you've put forward this legislation. I think that it's rooted in what we've heard from community over the last few years, frankly, about how we can create access and fewer restrictions to these rental units. And community partners believe that the language that you've already worked on from my conversations with folks is going to help us get there. Looking forward to looking at the data that comes in from our own city. But I think it's important that we underscore we are absolutely using data driven solutions here, and the data has shown that the speculation has not occurred. Thank you for putting forward this amendment.
Speaker 2: Those in favor of amendment number three. Please vote I and raise your hands.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: There are no opposed. So the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any other amendments? God forbid? Horrible.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So I move to amend Council Bill 11 9544 by amending Section five as shown in Amendment four. And I will pass this out. This was distributed via email, but it is not attached to both agendas. It was distributed this morning before noon per our council rules. 1159 I think that might be right. This is the same amendment that was discussed in the committee. I think I'll wait for hopefully I might get a second.
Speaker 4: Sustainability Transportation Committee. I do not support the amendment, but I'll give you a courtesy.
Speaker 8: Secondly, appreciate the courtesy. Second, thank.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 8: Yes. So this was this amendment was discussed in the Sustainability and Transportation Committee and it we had a vote on it. It was voted on 2 to 2, not passing. I had two amendments in that particular meeting. The First Amendment was to focus on my desire for us to really make sure that this strategy of accessory dwelling units is really being focused on rental housing. And so it was the intention of the amendment was to as as we voted on it was to really drastically limit the conversion of these units to short term rentals. The I'm not bringing that amendment forward again because I've taken a look at sort of what the numbers are as relates to the residential housing market. And the Puget Sound Stage 2016 report indicated that at that time in the city of Seattle, there are about 2800 short term rental whole units of about 357,000 residential housing units in the city. So that works out to be less than 1% and 7/10 of a percent. So if you take a look at what's anticipated under the EGIS for ADU development over the next ten years, the the estimate is about 4400 units per year. I'm sorry, over ten years or 440 units per year. That works out to be about 35 of the units becoming short term rentals. So I have been I've been reassured that my concerns about that, I think it's good to put them on hold until we have more information. So I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's amendment to study this issue. I am still concerned about the speculative market shifting to take advantage of these new regulations. And so the Second Amendment is one that is focused on trying to address a speculative market that will flip these units and in such a way that will have a displacement impact on on renters. So just for clarifications sake, this amendment would require one year ownership before permitting the second ADU. It is not a owner an owner occupancy requirement. It's not about whether or not renters make good, good neighbors at all. And it is not an additional year. So folks who who own a house and have done so for a year or more, which is the vast majority of homeowners in the city, could build to 80 use immediately. But what this this does is the study area showed that 80% of the study area for the new legislation was currently owner occupied and 20% of that study area was renter occupied. So it also fine found the EIA has found that there is a chance of of. Basically the properties being flipped and and that also aligned with the 20% number. So 20% of the use being built being built under these, again, speculative market conditions. And it's true that we don't know for sure about what's going to happen in this market, but we do know what's been happening in other cities. And there's no reason to believe that this isn't already happening here. We just haven't done an analysis of how has happened here. So Fortune magazine says single family home rentals have long been dominated by local entrepreneurs, mom and pop investors. And historically, when bigger fish such as head, foot, hedge funds and real estate investment trusts invested in real estate, historically, they focused on apartment buildings. But the historic housing crash of the 2000s changed the math. And over the past seven years, those investors have amassed a substantial portfolio, some 300,000 houses. And all these players include Imitation Home, a Reef that is the product of a merger of rental divisions of several investment firms, including Blackstone, Starwood Capital and Colony Capital, American Homes for Rent in Amherst. All of these landlords use automated house hunting to fuel their growth. The Wall Street Journal says big private equity firms, real estate speculators and others that buy properties can prize more than 11% of all home purchases in 2018. These investor purchases are the highest on record and nearly twice the levels before the 2008 housing crash. The New York Times writes Trends are being spurred by a fast growing industry that promotes an investment in single family homes, lenders who provide the capital, brokers who handle transactions, wholesalers who buy homes by the dozens and sell them before they even take possession. Finally, The Guardian writes that the UN's housing adviser has accused private equity firms and one of the world's largest corporate residential landlords, Blackstone Group, of exploiting tenants, wreaking havoc in communities and helping to fuel a new global housing crisis. Blackstone's business practices include massively inflating rents and imposing array of heavy fees and charges for ordinary repairs. So when you take this this 20% number, 20% of the the units that are currently renter occupied and you look at this that says that those are properties that that could be flipped and the renters displaced. I asked myself, how many families does that represent in a year? And again, using the the numbers in the egis of 440 new adus a year that could displace 80 families a year in our city. And so this amendment, again, we don't know what's necessarily going to happen in this housing market, and we can't prohibit speculative development . But the amendment would create a speed bump as a disincentive for speculative development, creating a more cautious approach in case, you know, the assumptions that we have about development are wrong. This would provide a small disincentive.
Speaker 2: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I appreciate the concern and the intent of this, although my concern and the reason I oppose this is what I see is actually happening with backyard cottages and accessory units, is that it is typically who are the folks we heard from today are our neighbors who want to build this. And if someone is to buy a, you know, a new house or if they if someone buys a house in a neighborhood and they're moving in and they're doing a remodel at that point before they move in and they want to add two units at that point, because that would be the logical time when they're under construction to do it. I think that is a good thing. And I want to be clear that the I'm not sheepish about folks having two accessory units on a lot. The point of this legislation is I hope that we see two accessory units on a lot of single family lots because I think that's going to be good for our neighborhoods, but allowed new opportunities for people who can't afford to live in some of these neighborhoods, to live in those neighborhoods. And it might help the homeowner, too. And I think the logic of doing that all at once, as opposed to saying, I'm going to come in and remodel the house or whatever and that accessory. And then I have to pause for a year until I can add the second one will significantly add costs and disruption. And I think that that is the reason not to do this, to allow it to move forward.
Speaker 8: May I ask a clarifying question? The scenario that you're describing, though, that is not the that is a scenario for somebody newly by buying a property, correct? Not for people who currently own their homes and want to.
Speaker 2: As a member. Any other council members want to speak? That's why Pacheco.
Speaker 5: So I voted against this amendment in committee and will be voting no again today. We are voting on this legislation because we need more to use in Seattle to provide more people with housing options. And I'm concerned that this amendment would make it more difficult and costly to build a second adu. I do share Councilmember Herbals of concern about speculation, but between the rise and trends in other cities have not found compelling evidence that any reform will cause speculation without data supporting that concern. I don't think now is the time to restrict any development. That said, this legislation does include regular reports of the Council on Area Development Trends. So I am voting no today if a future council wishes to address any potential challenges. They can do so at that time.
Speaker 2: I wanted to add a couple of comments to this before earning it. De Guzman memorable to close it out because it's our amendment. I really appreciate Councilmember Herbals efforts on making sure that we really speak up against speculation against corporate developers. I am really strongly supportive of all of those points, but I also would echo the point that Councilmember O'Brien made. And in addition to that, I will be voting no as well on this amendment. But in addition to that, also say that absolutely we have to be pushing back against the for profit market. But again, as other council members have said, the data is not only showing that speculation is much more is very rampant in the building of towers of luxury units and row houses. I have not seen any speculative edu bubble anywhere. And so I think that what we should be doing instead is passing this bill through and then also fighting for rent control and a massive expansion of social housing, which is high quality, publicly owned housing. Duncan Burble.
Speaker 8: Sure. Yeah. The only closing remarks I have is again, the this showed that at at most with an amendment like this, perhaps 80 units a year might not get built. We also know that 20% of the study area represents rent for households, 80 units approximately. So again, this is about preserving the housing for 88 families a year who rely on that rental housing and trying to make sure that those properties aren't flipped over to a speculative market.
Speaker 2: Think you guys were bold? Those in favor of amendment number four. Please vote and raise your hands.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Those opposed. Please vote no and raise your hands. No, no. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any other? So I think we're done with the amendments, as far as I understand such comments. Yes. Yes, I was about to say that. Yes, please. Do you want to just close it out? Sure.
Speaker 4: I like I love to say a few words and let my colleagues make some comments and then if I can wrap up, if that's okay, I want to I want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank folks here today. I know that we heard mixed comments today, as we have throughout the 3 to 4 year process. We've been working on this. And I know some people will feel like this is a win. Some will feel like it's a loss, some feel like it's mixed. But I think it's often asked. I often get asked, why did it take so many years to pass a piece of legislation that we're talking about, 4400 units, actually, like about 2400 units, additional units being built in the next ten years. And I think it's a fair question because there's a lot of work that people have done for a relatively modest shift in what we predict will happen in our neighborhoods. But I also think the reason folks have engaged at such a deep level is because there's a fundamental question about what are we going to do in our single family zones and what's appropriate. And I do think that that's why this has taken so long. That's why so many folks have been engaged. And I think it's been a really robust conversation and important conversation. It's an important conversation for Seattle to have. And frankly, it's a conversation that's happening in high cost communities around the country right now. And I believe that in a city where our single family zoning represents about three quarters of the residential zoning in the city of Seattle. And in a city that's been growing as fast as Seattle has, we've seen the population in our single family zones decline over years because there's really not capacity to add additional housing in the single family zones and because household sizes are continuing to shrink in our country and in our city. As a result, this big chunk of land that set aside for single family zoning is housing fewer and fewer people. And I think this is an opportunity to to to stem that trend, to allow additional units to allow smaller units that will be more affordable, as we've seen the evidence from other cities. And my colleague, Councilman ROSQUETA, pointed to so eloquently, these are often rented at or below market rate, often to friends, families and neighbors. And well, it is relatively modest. Modest both in terms that I don't think this is going to solve solve our housing crisis, nor do I think it's going to radically transform our neighborhoods. I do think it asks a big question of what are we going to do with our single family zones going forward and who gets access to those and who is locked out because of the pricing? There's a lot of comments we made. We don't know exactly how that's going to play out. We have a lot of evidence from what's happened in similar cities, and so I believe that that's probably what will happen here. But we will clearly be watching this closely as it moves forward. And I believe this is going to be an opportunity to invite so many more people into some of our most exclusive neighborhoods in a way that will really strengthen those neighborhoods, still make them more diverse from an economic, more diverse, racially, more richer, also not rich. And in terms of financial wealth rich, but in a rich of like richness of humanity. And those additional people will be supporting the businesses and make those businesses stronger. That means transit ridership will have be able to be served better by transit. And I think it will make our schools more mixed parks that are used. And I think it overall, it's a really beneficial thing for our community. I know that some folks are disappointed, some folks are thrilled by what I think will happen in a few minutes. But I really appreciate everyone's engagement on this and look forward for the conversation about our single family zone. So continue. I'd like to reserve a just a minute at the end, but I will step back and let my colleagues make some comments.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you so much for your words and your leadership on this. And I want to acknowledge the division that this particular legislation has had. The whole ADU complication and the discussions we have had over the last decade has been amazing to me, whether it's the owner occupancy rule or parking, whether or not we should deal with size of lots. And even among some of my favorite architects and designers, I have heard and received dozens of emails even this weekend and as early as 630 this morning, I'm still having debates with people about whether or not the legislation goes too far or doesn't go far enough. So I do recognize that there is a division and there is a concern about this. But frankly, I am a big fan of these ideas and to use in residential zones. I lived in a single family home for 20 years in Lake Forest Park. My husband and I now live in a condo downtown. But one of the things that was terrific about our place downtown is that we were able to move my father into a unit that was right next door to us. Now, had we had the single family home, we had looked at having a detached dwelling unit for him in Lake Forest Park. I think one of the most important things about expanding this legislation is that we can focus on the all ages and abilities part, and that's something I've been advocating for for years, making sure that seniors , if they chose, could stay in their house, have a place they could rent out, or the reverse, which is something that we're hearing, particularly in some of the larger homes. Our seniors would like to stay in their neighborhood. They have their community, they want to stay there. But it's easier for them to have a nice, detached auxiliary accessory dwelling unit or even one that is attached where their family can move into the home. We've seen that happen in some of the other cities such as Portland, Los Angeles, Austin, that are daddy friendly. We're going to be taking another step forward. And once again, people will be looking at how is this impacting us? How does it impact our neighborhoods? And I really respect the Third Amendment, Councilmember O'Brien, where we're going to be looking at what actually happens, allowing space and some grace that if we need to change this again next year, that we can. I'm also believe a real believer that allowing for flexibility in what these designs look like so that somebody who has a disability can build something that is going to accommodate him or herself. And I believe this is going to be a real opportunity for us. And with regard to the no onsite parking requirements, I'll tell you, that's one that I scratched my head over and struggled with, talked to a lot of people about, ultimately believe that not everybody in the city does have a car, wants to drive a car, and where these neighborhoods are going to accommodate it, there is transit, there's Lyft. There's other opportunities for people to get around. As one young woman said earlier that she uses her feet to get around. That's a good thing for all of us. So I concluded that I can live with this no parking requirement for now. Again, I'd like to see what kind of an impact that has on the neighborhoods and if it has a negative impact. I'd like to look at our opportunities once again and see what we we can do or should be doing with those. So just in short, I'm an advocate for the cottages, for the in-law suites. I want to acknowledge what Rex Holbein has done with the BLOCK Project. Someone brought this up earlier. I want to say thank you to the air. Those of you that have contacted me over the years and it hasn't just been for the last year, we all went to Portland in 2011. It was the first time I had seen what could be accomplished for a relatively, I think, financially frugal amount of money in people's backyards. I also want to acknowledge the fact that what we're trying to do here is not discriminate against renters. Everybody who spoke today acknowledged that as well. But the next step, I think, is financial innovation. What we can do, what options are available to encourage emergence, emerging loan projects, or more available financing options around capital for construction. And we will just see what we can do, I think, in the city. I'd love to see if we couldn't be a leader in that front. So just in sum, I believe that this is a change that is important, as Councilmember Moscovici said. Thank you. It is data driven. I was quite surprised when I read the editorial from The Seattle Times suggesting that we weren't thinking about that. But I'm really glad that we are embracing and welcoming people who want to live in our beautiful neighborhoods. And I'm glad that we can help move this forward. So I'll be voting. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other comments?
Speaker 7: I'll go next. If I may.
Speaker 1: Please do. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So this legislation obviously has been a long time in the making. I want to give a special thanks to Councilmember Mike O'Brien for all of the years of work that you have been doing on this particular piece of legislation. Thank you so much for your steadfast commitment and dedication to making sure that we have a path forward for additional housing choice. And I just want to acknowledge and recognize all of the countless number of hours and days and weeks you have spent on really championing this. So thank you so much for all of that. So I really you know, I think it's important for us to acknowledge that what we're doing here today is is really, at its core, a modest change to existing law and the code as it exists. It is not a massive zoning change, despite what you may be reading in some of the print media. And frankly, I think that that recycled and reused rhetoric, rhetoric does not make it true just because you keep saying it. So currently, we already allow single family homes, three units on each lot. This legislation will address barriers to construction for many homeowners who want to see natural density in their neighborhood and welcome more neighbors in the course of doing so. Some of the same rhetoric out there that have led many to believe that Adu and Adus and Triplexes are the same thing as Oh Adu and Daddy you construction will lead to a three story structure next door to a single family home is simply just not true, nor is it the reality. Well, they can have the same number of units to use in in dad, who's by definition are auxiliary to the single family home already on the lot as basement apartments or backyard cat cottages. And I don't believe there is such a thing as too much housing in a city that is growing as quickly as the city of Seattle. And this bill will help to bring more housing to every single neighborhood. My support for this legislation is about creating more housing choice for everyone. We have a lot of work to do to build the amount of housing Seattle in this region needs now and in the future. We need more permanent supportive housing. We need more deeply affordable housing. And we also need this kind of housing. ADU And to use our housing options that can be affordable as well, as well as fill some of that need for the missile missing middle housing more than any of these options. What I've heard from more than any of these options, what I've heard from constituents about it, using the Ada's as that, is that this will be their plan to be able to age in place and still stay in the city or how their kids, now or soon to be young adults can find an affordable place to stay in an increasingly expensive, competitive housing market. Adu and ADAS can mean multigenerational housing for families to stay close but still have space and independence. And I had an opportunity to attend some of the charrette in community that were led by the Department of Neighborhoods and heard this theme over and over again from people who were interested, not speculators, not developers, ordinary single family home owners who are looking for that tool that way to continue to be able to stay in their house while also welcoming more people into the neighborhood. And I think that that is the intent that is driving my vote in favor of this legislation. We have a housing shortage. This is felt by many residents of Seattle, particularly for renters and for households who have zero or limited options when it comes to housing. Just last week, Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies joined the chorus of research and data. I said, research and data with their 2019 National State of Housing report adding to what we know about the state of housing in the Seattle area. One stark statistics show that the cost of land in King County has changed 86.4%, and housing construction overall has not kept pace with household growth in the last eight years. With expensive land costs, adding more ADAS and ADAS is one strategy to minimize land cost while building more housing on the footprint that currently exists. That same report showed that since 2011 there has been a 54% decline in housing units that are considered affordable units in this region. More and more households are becoming increasingly, increasingly cost burden, paying more of their income towards rent. We need more housing and we need more housing choice. For me, as a policymaker, I will not leave any policy tool off the table that will help bring more housing units to our growing city. This also means I will work with my current and future colleagues to identify ways to make this. A reality and accessible for every homeowner and neighborhood. In Seattle, for example, as Councilmember Bagshaw already referenced, there's exciting work being done in place in other places to help us in this space. In Portland, Oregon, for example, there are non-bank community lenders like Craft three that help homeowners finance ADU Construction. Our Office of Housing has an attitude Adu financing pilot for low income homeowners as well. So I would like to continue to develop those those creative financing options and also work with our state legislators, along with my colleagues on council, to have more of these tools available for Seattle homeowners to be able to access a financing, to be able to bring their Adu and Dadu plans to a reality. I also wanted to take an opportunity to to share a constituent perspective that I received over the many several last weeks that we've all been getting inundated with emails. And and I think this is important because there have been some comments during public testimony that somehow, as nine elected officials up on this dias who represent the city, that we have our heads stuck in the sand or that we don't quite get what's happening in the city. I, I take great pride in reading the emails that I received from constituents, and I also take great pride in just having conversations with my neighbors and moving about the city like an ordinary person would do, and engaging with folks about about their stories. And there's one constituent who shared a personal story with me in response to a newsletter that I recently sent out on this particular issue. And she shared with me that she had been a resident since 1959. And she has also seen how Seattle has changed over the decades to become an increasingly complex urban environment. But she also is the owner of a mother in law apartment in her home, as well as the owner of a short term rental. She tells of told me that without the income from these two units that she rents below market rate, but she's chosen to rent below market rate. She wouldn't be able to keep her home and she would no longer live in the city of Seattle. She shared with me that she feels a sense of security from having people come and go living their lives and looking out for each other along the way. Having an edu and short term rental to her humanizes the city. The diversity this has brought into her neighborhood and life is good for anyone. That is her belief. And she encouraged me today to take a bold step and vote in favor of this legislation, and I couldn't agree more with her sentiment. So today I will be voting in support of this legislation. And I want to again thank Councilmember O'Brien for years of dedication and seeing this code change through. Your leadership on this issue will help to eliminate some of these barriers to bring more ideas and ideas to every Seattle neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 2: So it doesn't almost get him.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Madam President. And I'm really excited about today. I'm really excited to applaud Councilmember O'Brien and your entire staff. I see current and former staff back there. I know you've been working on this for a number of years. My staff has helped us get over the final finish line with your office, and I just can't thank you enough for your leadership on this effort. So thank you for shepherding this forward. Over the last four years, this is a really exciting day for us to put forward a piece of legislation and I think vote on it that includes the right balance to make sure that there is access to more housing options around the city and to make sure that we're mitigating against the speculation in the market that we've heard so much about and that we're concerned about, but doesn't seem to be playing out in other cities. We're also figuring out how to set the foundation for future rezoning to correct past historic wrongs. And this is one important key piece of the puzzle as we try to address the housing crisis across the city. And there's a few issues that have come up. And I want to thank the folks from the air who were here, the architects who have also raised some of the issues that we've heard from some of the people who are concerned about this legislation not going far enough regarding permitting. And we did see some of that as well in the Seattle Times editorial piece, and I'm going to address that. I think that we do have a lot to do to help improve permitting. That is something that we can do and also pass this legislation today. We are also concerned about some of the fees that we've heard about that our friends at the King County Council are also trying to address. Some folks have talked about a $10,000 hook up fee for sewer that could be too costly for many people. And we're working in partnership. And I just got great news that the King County Council is taking this issue up in the third quarter of 2019. These real issues that she brought to us are things that we've heard and we can address by working together. But we have got to pass this legislation today. So I'm going to commit to you to continue to work on this because I'm not lame and I'm really excited about action and I'm really excited about the foundation. I'm going to use that pun intended that is being set here in this legislation for future rezoning. Until 65 days ago, I was a renter and have been a renter my entire time in Seattle. I in that time that I was a renter and for example, in Queen Anne, when I lived at 10th and Olympic, had the chance to hold the door open for my neighbor who was leaving that day to go get married . I had the chance to go visit my other neighbor who was in the hospital because he's a World War Two vet and was in home care and had just had surgery. I had the chance to hear from my husband about how he literally carried home our elderly neighbor, because she fell while walking her dog and carried her home to her house. We've walked our our neighbors dogs. We've been there to take care of our friends as as if they were family. Renters are good. And not only are they good, Seattle is already a rental city because 52% of our residents who make up Seattle, they are residents, they are renters, and they absolutely need more options around the city. So I'm excited about putting forward with you our leadership, the opportunity for more people to be able to afford to live in this city. Accessing the limited rental units that we have has continued to shrink over and over the years as we've seen a 20% increase in the population size in just the last 6 to 8 years. And as that population has increased, we have not been able to address the housing crisis that's in front of us, mostly because of litigation and delays. And today we're responding to that need that we see in our community for more affordable rental units, to address the increase in population and to address the fact that we need more folks to be able to afford to live in the city. And hopefully creating an accessory dwelling unit, a detached dwelling unit in their backyard helps more people also stay in place, agent place, and not be pushed out of the city. I think that this bill that you have in front of us helps to address the acute housing shortage that, frankly, has been exacerbated by an influx of the increased population. But the reason that it's exacerbated is we already had an insufficient housing supply that was rooted in exclusionary housing and zoning issues, that was rooted in redlining and racist policies of the past. And as we take bit by bit to address the policy changes that are needed. Again, we know that there's no one single policy solution, but we have got to have the political courage to pass the public policy to undo past wrongs and past public policy that left so many out of our city . I'm really excited also that this legislation helps us create the ability for to get away from the owner occupancy requirements. I'm going to also flag that one day. I think we should change the size requirement so that maybe more people can afford to own that parcel and we can have smaller lot requirements so that more people could potentially have the ability for first time homebuyer options like I just had. I want to just the second thing that has come up, I think repeatedly over the last few weeks, you know, many of us sat up here just last week and we all signed a commitment to address the climate. Crisis. We all signed a commitment to address the Green New Deal, and as we put forward our solutions around it, we have got to recognize that the largest contributor to greenhouse emissions and pollutions is car emissions, and we are now the third largest mega commuter city in the entire country. Part of the reason that people are having to commute for such long distances is because we haven't created that affordable housing. So this is exactly how we live our values as a green city. This is exactly what we should be doing to address the impacts of environmental encroachment that is created by sprawl when we are not creating the ability for folks to build in our city. This is how we move forward with our commitment to, in part, address the Green New Deal that's so needed. So I'm really excited because the housing that we're now permitting will allow people to live near their schools, live closer to grocery stores, live closer to health centers. And this, coupled with additional housing and zoning changes and our commitments to bike lanes and scooters, legalizing scooters and more busses and more dedicated bike dedicated bus lanes, I think, helps to address the public health crisis that's been created by not having sufficient housing in our city. Again, this is an intersection of climate, public health and affordability goals. And I'm really excited because we know that also when we when we create smaller dwelling units, we can reduce our carbon footprint because they're more efficient and they consume half as much energy as these larger units. And I'll just wrap up by saying, you know, the other environmental component of this is we're protecting the land that is potentially getting encroached upon by sprawl like forests and parks and farms and wildlife habitat. That's the land we should be protecting, not past policies that have excluded folks from living in the city. And I do think that we have an opportunity in combination with the language that you have helped to champion with mandatory housing affordability that allowed for greener setbacks and tree protections and make this language that we've put in front of us today. Thank you for including my amendment a few weeks ago that allowed for rooftops to be created so people can have gardens and rooftop spaces as we think about denser living situations. I know that having access to a rooftop and allowing people to get some sunlight is really important. Allowing them to build or to grow in their own garden and things like that will be really beneficial. Add to the city. And thank you for helping to address the FAA requirements needed so that more people could have rooftops. I want to thank my friend Sam, who let me come over to his dad, who recently had a two bedroom tattoo in District five. And we had the chance to see how that the mother of the family that lived there was able to live near her kiddos, care for her grandkids, and to not have to commute 2 hours to come see them in there helping to care for the family. This is about intergenerational commitments to create additional affordable housing throughout the city, helping more people stay in the city. And my hope is that we do more to address the the need for us to build on this. The headline from Sightline a few weeks ago said, A duplex, a triplex and a four plex can cut a single block's carbon emission by 20%. So today is a good first start. Really excited to work with you on the next efforts as this full council continues to address the housing crisis throughout this year.
Speaker 5: Let's hope.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold was next and then Councilmember Pacheco. Okay.
Speaker 8: Good. Thank you. So, as I mentioned before, I definitely support the ability of existing owners to build two new units on their lot. But the EIA shows that it's more profitable under this ordinance to sell one's property than to build. And so a new owner, whether or not it's an investor or a resident who buys with the intention of immediately purchasing a property and immediately building to add to use as soon as they do so, as soon as they buy, the primary unit is likely to do so and displace that existing right to a family. I'm a little bit at a loss. Why we would not discourage this from occurring, all for the sake of maintaining the profit motive for a new owner to purchase property, displace a rental tenant. I just think that the amendment I offered earlier is a really useful safeguard. But nevertheless, I do strongly support this legislation and I just want to say a few words to the folks who too I hear with concerns that I mean, the rhetoric is that ideas are going to destroy their neighborhoods. And, you know, we've we've thrown around this 4400 over ten years number a bit. That works out to be 440 units a year over the study area, which is 35,000 acres. And if you convert that to that, that is one Adu. A year over 80 acres, which works out to be about one A.U. for every 30 to 50 square blocks in the city. So I just think it's really out of out of perspective to suggest that this legislation is going to destroy single family neighborhoods. And, you know, I support the.
Speaker 1: Overall goals.
Speaker 8: Of the legislation to increase opportunities and flexibility for both renters and existing homeowners. And I'm excited about being able to do more so that these units that are being built are actually affordable, both by reducing the permitting costs, the design costs, the construction costs, as well as further development of the Office of Housing's pilot program to support the development of affordable rental. So for those reasons, I will be voting in favor of the legislation.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 5: PACHECO So in September 2014, Councilmember O'Brien and the City Council adopted Resolution 31547. That's almost five years ago. And as my mother would always tell me, keep trying for five years on anything. She had a word for me, which was terrible. So thank you for just your willingness and your your willingness and your desire to keep going on this legislation over those five years because we are finally at a vote today. So when I first moved to Seattle a decade ago to attend grad school, you know, I first I found my first place to call home in a backyard cottage in Wedgewood, and I literally lived in another Adu in Wallingford. Without these ideas, I don't know if I would have been found an affordable place to live and if I would be calling Seattle home today. I'm excited that we have the opportunity to make sure that more people have the housing options that allowed me to make Seattle home. As someone who has watched my own parents struggle to stay in their own home, I also see this legislation as a valuable tool for homeowners who are struggling to hang on or who want to age in place, or who are watching their family and community members be pushed out of the city. The amendments that were offered in committee, well, allow us allow us to really continue to make this legislation better by having unpermitted ADAS come into compliance with reports back to the Council on the ADU Loan Pilot and reports back on demographics and rents charge for its use. Lastly, this conversation surrounding density. As this conversation surrounding density continues, I encourage folks not to demonize one another. I've heard today and during my office hours within the district that renters don't care about their neighborhoods. Surrender myself. I show up every day to work with a desire to make my community better. Let me be clear. We're all neighbors, and it's time that we show each other the respect that we each deserve. As our city grows, we should grow together and grow equitably. This legislation help us, just helps us do just that. And I'm proud to vote in support of this.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. I forgot to mention Ali Pantucci. Thank you. Thank you so much for all your good work on that. Suzie and Lakisha as well. Really appreciate all of the work that you have done. And when the question about the trees came up, I forgot to mention that the Urban Forestry Commission and I are working with the mayor's office to look for a work plan that we can lay out and make really clear what we're doing, how we're preserving and protecting the trees. And once again, Ali, potentially you'll be helping us work on that. So many thanks.
Speaker 2: Sure. I wanted to make a few comments myself, and then I handed over to Councilmember O'Brien to close it out before we take the vote. I am strongly in favor of this legislation and I will be voting yes. And I thank all the activists and community organizations that have advocated for this, not just this year, but for several years. And I do agree with many who have said that they should. This was a long time coming and it should have been done a long time ago, especially given the acute housing crisis that we're facing. I also think it is really bad for anybody to make any any create any context where there is negative rhetoric against renters. Renters are not only about half of our city. Renters are now more and more of the residents of metropolitan areas. Most working class and middle class people don't of cannot afford to buy homes and they are forced to rent. And there is nothing wrong with renting. It is, you know, regardless of whether you have ownership of your property or not, you are residents of the neighborhood. In fact, I would extend that even further and say that even if you are homeless, you are community members and it doesn't matter. And you not only have every right to your community and to your neighborhood and to your city, but nobody should question your commitment to society. In fact, if anybody's commitment should be questioned, it should be the for profit corporate developers and the property management corporations who are enriching themselves beyond belief at the expense of the renters in our city. I also wanted to add that, you know, again, I appreciate it. Councilmember O'Brien's sort of putting it in perspective and also Councilmember Herbold. I think this bill has been greatly exaggerated by its detractors right now, as the Urbanists article from October last year mentions, only 1% of single family lots in Seattle have an idea or did you? So I don't think this is in any way going to. To paraphrase what councilmember horrible said, destroy single family neighborhoods. I also think it is important to note, as Councilmember O'Brien did, and I appreciate that, that the bill's promoters have also greatly exaggerated the bill in terms of the effect it will have for affordable housing. I absolutely support it will have some positive effect, there is no question about it. And I support every single affordable home that we can generate through a, you know, series of comprehensive policies. But we should also have it in perspective that it is not going to address the housing crisis in the way that we want to address the housing crisis. And so we do need to get to work on far bigger public policies than than this one, although I strongly support this one and we need to go forward on this one. I also wanted to thank the working class and middle class homeowners like Ruby Holland, who is an African-American homeowner in District three, who have advocated for this bill as well, making the important point that for the homeowners who are able to build and a backyard cottage, it could potentially be a very urgently needed source of income, especially people who are hit with large health care costs and also the higher property taxes, because this the city does not have does not really have any progressive taxes. So I really appreciate the homeowners who have joined the renters in advocating for this bill. And it's a really good, positive example where homeowners and renters can come together and fight together for some of our affordable housing policies. I also wanted to reiterate a point that we've made repeatedly in Councilmember O'Brien's committee, which is that the the data also shows that the homeowners who can afford to build backyard cottages are the more well-off homeowners and the homeowners who need to build, you know, in order to get a source of income and rented out as affordable housing often cannot afford to build it. And so I do want to keep alive the question of how we will provide public sources of funds for the homeowners who want to build a backyard cottage but cannot afford to raise the capital expenses that they will need to in order to make that happen. I also wanted to add one other thing that again, from the Urbanist article in October of last year, where they report that in contrast to what we have in Seattle, in Vancouver, British Columbia, which has been a pioneer in ideal land use code liberalization, roughly 35% of single family, lots of ideas which they referred to as laneway housing, resulting in about 25,380 use and 1050 do use across the city. I think Vancouver, B.C., has led on this, and I think it should be our goal to really move forward in a big way in Seattle as well, because we have, you know, they are their sister cities in many different ways in terms of what the problems, the density and all of that. So I think that does provide a good guidance for us. Last but not least, I will say I hope all the activists and the community organizations who have been fighting for this correctly, but also join us in the struggle for much more far reaching public policies and not only join us in Seattle, but join the movement in New York, which are just one major historic victories. By forcing the New York state legislature to pass not only a closing of the loopholes on the rent control, existing rent control legislation in the city, in New York City, but also enabling a whole host of tenants rights to be passed and also enabling other municipalities in the state, in New York state to pass rent control. Because we have seen that when rent control does not have corporate loopholes, it has provided a lifeline to many people. In fact, I just met a constituent recently who said that her son and his wife used to live in the Bay Area. They lived in a rent controlled home as particularly at a time when they were young, when they had a young family and they needed rent control. And rent control enabled them to actually save up even on their middle class salaries, and they were able to come and buy a house here. So, you know, in reality, homeowners and renters have a joint incentive to fight for rent control together. And I really urge everybody who's watching this to join us at the rent control rally on July 20th, at 6 p.m. at the All Pilgrims Christian Church on Broadway. And I will now hand it over to Councilmember O'Brien. And I just wanted to point out, actually, that. The the petition for rent control with both my staff and many, many volunteers who are now volunteering with us, have gone throughout the city in different farmer's market, including Lake City Farmers Market and soldiers at the are all the three days of pride and we have collected 7500 signatures, which is a huge amount, especially given all the negative mythology about rent control. So I really urge everybody who's not joined the struggle yet to please join it with us.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council president, colleagues, thank you so much again for your work on this. I appreciate the kind words you shared with me personally. You know better than anyone else that the work I do is a mere fraction of the actual work that's done, and I get a lot of credit for that. But we bounce around from from topic to topic and the staff behind us that support us make this possible. So I want to say thank some of those folks. I want to start with a couple of volunteers that are here. I know Laura and Matt, for example, who have been dedicating a lot of your unpaid time to making this work. So thank you. You know, you're your advocates and your voice matters, but you've been really good at helping me connect with community members and really understand what the need is in community. And I'm grateful for that. Allie, I want to thank you so much for your years of work on this, not just in the typical role as a central staff member, but spending multiple hours on the stand during the hearing examiner examination and all sorts of other roles. You're an amazing resource for the city. You've been an amazing resource for me on this particular piece of legislation. I'm very grateful to that. I want to thank Nick and the mayor, as you've worked for your work, has been your work has been amazing. And I'm really grateful to this mayor and past mayors who've allowed the city council to have access to your expertize and your team's expertize. Going back to the very first kind of community meetings when I first met you doing this over three years ago. You're just thoughtful. Approach has been really, really helpful to the guiding US policy along the way, and I really applaud your work for that, and we can all applaud Nick. As has been mentioned, this process has taken quite some time, both the long process during which babies have been born, including a baby that's in the back today . So I want to thank my staff member, Susie, who has been working on this tirelessly for years. She's currently on parental leave. But Ezra's at, I believe, his first city council meeting today. So we gave we've got time for her to be here. And then in the very near term, we've taken enough time today, council colleagues, and we have managed to put Ezra to sleep. So that's also one of our strength up here. So way to go. But Susie, thanks for your work on that and and Susie's absence. Alisha, in my office has been the lead picking up this work. We've gone long enough that Alicia probably had to go to the meeting that I was supposed to be at 20 minutes ago. But I'm really grateful for her. HAYLEY So there you are. You're back. Thank you so much for you. My whole team has been a part of all this police. I really appreciate your leadership on this. That is all I have to say, colleagues. There's so many amazing folks throughout the community that have worked on this in other departments elsewhere. But it's a team effort here. And, you know, I look forward to this vote. We'll see how it goes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Got some heavy rain. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 3: Make sure. Gonzalez I. Herbold I was just getting high. O'Brien Hi. Pacheco Hi, President Swan. I didn't favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 4: I. I know I've overlooked a few folks, but I'm looking at Sherry right now and I apologize. I didn't mention to you with the likes of Matt Lauer, have you been an amazing point person to work with? So thank you for all that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, everyone. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning, amending Sections 23.44.011, 23.44.014, 23.44.017, 23.44.020, 23.44.041, 23.45.545, 23.84A.002, 23.84A.032, 23.84A.038, and 23.86.007 of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove barriers to the creation of attached and detached accessory dwelling units and add a floor area ratio requirement in certain single-family zones. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07012019_CB 119540 | Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the item of the Violence and Abuse Committee agenda.
Speaker 10: Item six Cancel 119 540 Willington Historic Preservation Poison Control is upon the Ainsworth and done warehouse committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And again, this is landmark legislation that unanimously passed out of the committee. The Aynesworth and Dunn warehouse, commonly known as the old Spaghetti Factory, will have controls on the outside, the exterior. They've actually done a fantastic job with cleaning up the bricks, the outside, and they've restored the old windows. So they've they're complying. They want to do this work. And the exposed interior structure, as well as these old, very old beams that they are restoring. To look like they did when they were new. It's really been an impressive part of the new waterfront, and we recommend that this be the landmark legislation be accepted.
Speaker 2: You got to remember any other comments. Please. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Bakeshop. Hi, Gonzales. I herbold. I was. Mosquera I O'Brien Pacheco I president's what I seven and favorite on oppose.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the a report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities New Americans and Education. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Ainsworth & Dunn Warehouse, 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_07012019_CB 119547 | Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the a report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities New Americans and Education.
Speaker 10: Committee report at the Gender Equality Safe Communities, New Americas and Education Committee Agenda Item seven Constable 119 547 Relating to a Community Service Officer program amending ordinance 125 724, which adopted the 2019 budget, lifting a proviso inviting fire and confirming search prior acts committee recommends of El Paso.
Speaker 2: And Dallas.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council presidents want council bill 119547. As I mentioned this morning during council briefing would lift a 2019 budget proviso to allow the Seattle Police Department to advance its implementation of the Community Service Officer program really quickly. By way of background, this program and this unit will be staffed by noncommissioned officers who are trained and work as liaisons between the community and the police department. Community service officers will not carry weapons nor enforce criminal laws. Instead, they will serve to bridge the service gap on non-criminal calls for service and perform a variety of public safety related community service and outreach work, therefore, freeing up sworn police officers to focus on more critical matters. They will receive training in police operations, social work, de-escalation, conflict resolution and mediation, crisis intervention, institutional racism and cultural competency using internal and external training channels. The Community Service Officers will also develop community partnerships to support increased collaboration between the Seattle Police Department and the community for the purpose of leveraging community strengths and identifying alternative strategies to various law enforcement and social issues. Community service officers will work assigned areas of the city on foot or in marked community service officer vehicles. Responding to radio dispatch calls for service largely at the direction of patrol officers. The Seattle Police Department plans to deploy initially ten community service officers and two community service officers. Supervisors across two shifts shifts up to six days a week, Monday through Saturday, excluding Sundays and holidays. That is subject to change depending on calls and demands of the program and of course, future funding in in the future. So I promise this morning during council briefing that I would bring and share with you all a copy of the job description and posting for the Community Service Officer Program. I've distributed that for you all to take a look at, but I think with all of this information, we are ready to lift the proviso and the committee recommends that we do so to allow the Seattle Police Department to advance the Community Service Officer program.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any other comments from her?
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Real quickly, I truly believe that bringing back the Community Service Officer program will be a really valuable addition to policing in Seattle. In the Southwest Precinct, a top community concern is that the number of police officers are not sufficient to meet the staffing needs to adequately address public safety. I am a proud co-sponsor of legislation to bring back the CSOs, but recognize that Councilmember Councilmember O'Brien took the took the lead on proposing it in a couple of budget cycles back. And many, many thanks to Councilmember Gonzales for adeptly and expertly getting us to this. To this point, unsworn officers can prioritize non-emergency community services associated with law enforcement. And as we've heard, that frees up police officers to better respond to 911 calls and needs for.
Speaker 1: Proactive.
Speaker 8: Policing. Given our challenge in this city, as well as other large cities in hiring new officers, bringing back the CSO program is a really important step and also a shout out for two Assistant Chief Diaz for his work on this as well.
Speaker 7: He's done great.
Speaker 1: Work in the.
Speaker 2: Other comments.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Councilmember Gonzales, I really appreciate your leadership on this. I apologize for not being able to be at the community meeting last week. But as Councilmember Raul mentioned, it's been over a year and a half since we allocated the budget to this. And I'm it's a little disappointing it's taken this long. But setting that aside and how we move forward, I really appreciate your leadership and keeping an eye on how this means for. And so I'm grateful for that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: All right, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez I Herbold I was.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 3: Was going to. O'Brien high Pacheco I president's warrant seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the judge will sign it. Is there any other further business to come before the council? Skater.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I would like to be I would like to ask to be excused next Monday for the purposes of going to Washington, D.C., to meet with the folks from the National League of Cities on their housing task force revealing of the report. So I'll be a very short trip, but I won't have to miss next Monday if I can be excused.
Speaker 2: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. I see, I. None of us. So that passes any other motions. Seeing none. Meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 1: Gave. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to a Community Service Officer program; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06242019_CF 314413 | Speaker 0: Bill passed show saying please read the third agenda item.
Speaker 2: Agenda item three quick file 314413. Council on U.S. to approve a temporary expansion of the North Seattle precinct located at 10049 college way north. The committee recommends that the City Council approve the project as a condition of its modifications of development standards.
Speaker 3: Customer Pacheco This clerk files an application by phase for approval of a temporary improvement and expansion of the North Seattle precinct. The temporary expansion would involve adding three portables on the site, which will contain a community room, storage and break room. These spaces currently exist within the main structure, so moving them outside will free up additional space inside for operational purposes. The plan would also reconfigure parking lots and add a small number of additional spaces for fleet parking. This application requires council approval because it modifies one development standard to allow surface parking in required front yard along one relatively small stretch of the lot. We received comments from the surrounding community about this application and Speedy and has responded to many of those concerns at the Pledge Committee, Phase and SPDR are taking steps to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood, including protecting trees, making landscaping and irrigation improvements and limiting parking to protect some of the green space.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Pacheco. Any questions or comments on this file? Okay. So this is a file. So those in favor of approving the project as conditions with modifications of development standards, please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the chair was signed. The findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council. Please read the read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 2: Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda and for Accountable 119 531 relating to housing for low income households. Adopting the Housing Levy, Administrative and Financial Plan for Program Years 2018 and 2020, the committee recommends the bill passes amended. | Clerk File (CF) | Council Land Use Action to approve a temporary expansion of the North Seattle Precinct located at 10049 College Way North (project No. 3031508, Type V). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06242019_CB 119531 | Speaker 2: Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda and for Accountable 119 531 relating to housing for low income households. Adopting the Housing Levy, Administrative and Financial Plan for Program Years 2018 and 2020, the committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Caspar Mesquita.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'm really excited about this legislation that's in front of us. Council Bill 119531 is referred to as the Housing Levy Administration and Finance Plan and Housing Funding Policies for program years 2019 and 2020. But as my Council colleagues who've been participating in this conversation at the Housing Committee know, I've referred to this as the moral compass document for our Office of Housing. This is how we dictate to the city how they will spend the money that we have for affordable housing. This is absolutely critical as we think about pulling together the funding that we have available from the housing levy funds, the incentive zoning payments, the mandatory housing affordability payments, as well as other funding sources that the city administers for creating affordable housing. How we use those dollars and who we allocate and who gets that approval for building affordable housing in the city is truly a moral decision, and we have an obligation to build housing as fast as we can and to recognize that those who are in need of affordable housing are many of the communities that right now are at the highest risk of displacement. We must be building affordable housing as fast as possible to address the increase in the population locally and to address the crisis of the cost of housing. We have not responded fast enough to build that housing. We have not built housing density types that we need across the city, and we haven't worked with our community partners as fast as possible so that those who are interested in working with and leading with the voice of those who are most at risk of displacement can help get to the front of that list so that they can build housing that is culturally competent, that is rooted in community, that has a women and minority of businesses on the first and second floors, that has child care facilities, that has health facilities, that has plazas like Roberto Maceda, this Roberto Massa Plaza. This is the type of housing that we want to see created across our city. And we have taken this opportunity through the administration and finance plan to reconfigure what should be our priorities when it comes to using these housing dollars. Every two years, we have the chance to recalibrate how we administer the housing dollars based on our community needs. And this year, we pulled together a robust group of stakeholders that have helped us craft the legislation in front of us. We pulled together individuals who assist and have themself been eligible for affordable housing, individuals from the nonprofit housing development world who have given us tips and tools for how we can improve our process. Organizations that are newly interested and entering into the affordable housing development world to help us identify how we can create affordable housing across Seattle , address the unaffordability issues and the displacement that we are observing every day. And we've pulled in our labor partners to make sure that we are building high quality housing using good union labor, and that we're aligning those labor principles in our housing policies. So some of the really exciting components of this legislation, Mr. President, include supporting community driven development and harmonizing the policies with our surplus land disposition policy. And just by way of reminder, that was one of the first housing policies we passed last year to make sure that the city, if we had surplus land, that we stopped selling it off at the highest dollar figure that we held onto that public land and used it for the most important public use, which is housing right now. And we said, as you hold on to this land, the first people that we should be working with are to make sure that we are organizations that are working, to make sure that those who are at the highest risk of displacement are getting affordable housing. At the time, community organizations, that that's great. Thank you for holding on to that public land and not selling it off. And we need your assistance with getting the dollars in hand so we can build. So this document today complements that work from last year. We have also emphasized that we want to co-locate not just housing units, but to truly create homes and community. We've included throughout the document the emphasis on child care facilities, health services and other community services like public spaces and plazas and greenways. So that we're investing in housing and we're creating community space at the same time. Really excited about the language that's in here around community preference and affirmative marketing so that we can have an innovative and directive approach to prioritizing community members with historic ties to neighborhoods for that new affordable housing that we're building in areas especially at highest risk of displacement so that people can continue to have a place to call home that is affordable. And we don't continue to see high risks of or high rates of displacement. We've also created more funding and more of a directive for acquisition of properties. So when properties come up for sale, housing authority nonprofit developers Seattle itself through the Office of Housing, has more of an opportunity to put forward the funding to acquire existing buildings so that we can actually create affordable housing. And we've heard from folks like the Seattle Housing Authority and others that because of the cost of. Land, the limited space that we have, the cost, the materials and labor. Sometimes it is more affordable for us and quicker for us to get housing online if we can acquire existing buildings versus starting to build from scratch. So we made sure to include that as well. And lastly, I want to thank again Councilmember Herbold, who with our office and in partnership with the unions and building trade folks, we worked on a comprehensive strategy to address and advance labor equity in our housing investments. And maybe you'll have more to say about that, but really excited to make sure that we look across our housing policies so that we we lift up some of the work that we did last year. You might remember the case site work that we passed last year, and we infused in there through conversations with labor ways that we could see apprenticeship utilization, women and more minorities getting hired into good union jobs, looking at ways that we can make sure that individuals had the opportunity to get into the building trades and have the ability to build the housing but not necessarily be eligible for it. We wanted to make sure that we lifted up that language and so we're harmonizing that across the board. Very quickly, Mr. President, maybe I'll save some of my thank you's for the end, but I just wanted to again underscore the importance of this document that sounds very wonky. It is like alphabet soup. But the reality is that this in combination with the public land disposition policy last year will allow for us to build more social housing, socially responsible housing, housing that's affordable and accessible for communities across Seattle. And to do so with the urgency that this housing crisis deserves.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilwoman skater. Let's remember as a member, because remember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. In addition to working with Chair Mosqueda on how to advance strategies to advance labor equity outcomes in city funded rental housing developments, we also asked SHC to begin now to look at how they can use pre apprenticeships on its housing construction sites. I really appreciated the opportunity to use the plan to define Housing First principles as the expected approach to providing housing for homeless populations. We made clear that we wanted to address the concerns that we read about mutual termination agreements in the we read about concerns about the use of these agreements and the impacts on evictions in the Losing Home report that the Seattle Women's Commission did with the King County Bar Association. And moving forward, we're going to require that our providers have policies guiding the use of mutual termination agreements. We included an expectation that housing providers comply with fair chance housing our our city's law related to criminal background checks. And then two other three other pieces I want to I want to lift up I want to lift up some of the language related to incentivizing councilmembers, get a mentioned our desire to use more publicly owned land for social housing. We also are incentivizing the use of levee funds for preservation of existing affordable housing, the stuff that we sometimes call naturally affordable housing by allowing for a more robust revolving loan fund. And then finally, we have some amendments that I think will help increase affordable housing options for low income housing, specifically amendments increasing the subsidy for three bedroom homeownership units for low income, large, larger families. And then also specifying that levee funds can be used to build a new, detached accessory dwelling unit. In addition to making changes to an attached accessory dwelling unit consistent with the pilot project that Councilmember O'Brien was instrumental in making sure that the Office of Housing work on in conjunction with our new ADA legislation that will be voting on in another week.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Any other comments before Councilmember Mesquita closes the debate? Councilmember skater, you want to say a few closing remarks?
Speaker 8: I want to thank the community members who have made this work possible. You know, I have to underscore that as we're talking about climate change and the need to address climate change with urgency through a Green New Deal, this is one component of a more comprehensive strategy as we create greater density in the city of Seattle. And we do so through an affordability and a racial justice lens and a gender justice lens. When we create housing that is specifically affordable for our working families, that our retirees and those at the highest risk of displacement, we're helping to prevent people from having to move two and 3 hours outside of the city to have to have a car that has high carbon emissions or to take a bus that doesn't get them to. Work on time potentially because they've been pushed so far out of our city. This is part of a much bigger strategy that we need to address climate. And I think as we create affordable housing throughout the city, it's going to take this intersectional lens that we need to apply to housing, to transit, to a to holding the polluters accountable and much, much more. So I just wanted to underscore that connection today because of the leadership you all have shown on that issue today. Specifically, some of the organizations that have been working on both climate justice and housing policy have been at the table to help us craft this policy. And some of these individuals and organizations have been part of our community housing roundtable. I just want to thank them. Puget Sound Stage got Green Rayner Beach Action Coalition, but as a Development Fund. Black Community Impact Alliance Yes. LA Community Collaborative Chief Seattle Club. Delbridge Neighborhood Development Association. Africa Town. Dellums Valley Affordable Housing Coalition Homesite SIP the PDA Housing Development Consortium. Thank you for all of your work. And thank you again to the the labor unions and our friends from the labor movement, including the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, Seattle Building Trades Laborers, Local 242 Northwest Carpenters, Local 86 who were part of the work that we did last year on the case site pilot that lifted up labor standards. And part of our efforts this year again to make sure that we concretize that commitment in the air and off plan. Thank you again to the folks at the Office of Housing, especially Director Walker. We know this is your last month with the city of Seattle. And I want to underscore the amount of attention that our Office of Housing gets at the national level for the work that we've done. We need those funds in hand and we need to expedite our commitment. But we couldn't have done what we've done so far without your leadership and thanks to your team, including Emily Alvarado. I want to thank our committee colleagues who are up here today, central staff, including a Radcliffe who done a ton of work on this for your collaboration on this legislation. I already thanked our Councilmember Herbold, but I also want to thank my staff, Erin House, who has put a lot of work into pulling together all of those organizations I just mentioned. And Aretha Basu, who just stepped out, who helps convene the community housing roundtable and to acknowledge and recognize her mother, who's with us today. Thank you for being here. CITY They're very excited to have you, your daughters doing great work. Thank you. And with the passage of this proposal and the amendments that we've included building on the foundation that the Office of Housing in the mayor's office sent down to us, I think we have fully rounded out our moral compass for the Office of Housing over the next two years and look forward to working with you to expedite the creation of affordable housing throughout the city. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer I'm a skater. Any further comments before we vote? Okay. If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 7: Swan Badger. Hi.
Speaker 2: Herbold. I suarez. I macheda. I O'Brien. Pacheco.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: President harrell. Hi. Aiden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The branch if counted as I. This called the next budget night event of the record which the the bill passed insurer said thank you customers get very much. These are part of the governance equity and Technology Committee. Please read all three of the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to housing for low-income households; adopting the Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan for program years 2019 and 2020; adopting Housing Funding Policies for the 2016 Housing Levy and other fund sources; authorizing actions by the Director of Housing regarding past and future housing loans and contracts; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06172019_CB 119541 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item for Council Vote 119 541 relating to the Department of Finance Administrative Services authorizing the Director of Finance Administrative Services on behalf of the Seattle Public Utilities to negotiate and execute real property. Lease Agreement and amendments for Broad Acres, LLC for office space and ancillary uses in the wharf building. 4209 21st Avenue West. In ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Jasmine Back.
Speaker 3: Show. Thank you. This is a lease for Seattle Public Utilities. They are moving a group that focuses on the kind of ecological disaster that none of us want to see happen. And they've got 19 staff and 16 vehicles and one boat, and they need a place to put all of the vehicles. And they're planning to move over onto Wharf Street, which is off of Emerson and down by the Fisherman's Wharf. The particular specifics on this is that it'll be 7759 square feet of a warehouse. They work closely with FASB, who went through 15 different sites. They visited the four sites. They did cost comparisons. This will be a ten year lease that allows them to add one five year option or to actually reduce it to eight years if they decide that they don't need that much space. And this is actually because of the linear reservoir that is going to be constructed in Ballard. So the landlord's going to provide $310,000 for tenant improvements. Negotiated rent is $25,055 per month. It increases annually, and this is consistent with the amounts of money that others are charging in our area. So I want to say thank you both to Seattle Public Utilities, the folks that came in and briefed us at our committee and also to FASB. The good work that they've done to make this happen. And the committee unanimously recommends that we have previously hornets.
Speaker 0: Thanks, guys. My backs. Are there any questions or comments? Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I thank John Gonzalez I Purple II.
Speaker 0: O'Brien, II.
Speaker 1: President Harrell six in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed bill passed and chair of Senate. I believe that concludes our business on today's decision. Is there any further business to come before the council comes from Gonzalez?
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'd like to move to be excused on Monday, June 24th.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in a second. And that Councilwoman Gonzalez be excused on June 24th. Any questions or comments? All those in favor say I oppose. The ayes have it. Any further business coming for the council? Catherine and Brian. I'll move to be excused on Monday, July 15th.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: The mood. And secondly, that Catherine O'Brien be excused on July 15th. Any questions or comments? All those in favor say I. I opposed oppose. The ayes have it in the house. Okay. We stand and cheering and everyone have a great rest of the day. You all right? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services, on behalf of Seattle Public Utilities, to negotiate and execute real property lease agreements and amendments with Broadacres LLC, for office space and ancillary uses in the Wharf Building located at 4209 21st Ave W; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06102019_CB 119504 | Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Leigh. Please read the next edition item.
Speaker 0: Agenda Item to cancel 119504 relating to the Pike Place Market Historical District amending ordinance 125 652 extends its effective date by six months. The committee recommends the bill passed with councilmembers Herbert Swanson O'Brien favor and abstention with Councilmember Pacheco. Customer Herbold Thank you for this council bill amends ordinance 125650 to extend its effective date by six months. The bill it is amending establish an interim expansion of the Pike Place Market Historic District last August. The legislation will allow the Department of Neighborhoods some additional time to complete work that this council asked Don to do in last August, so that the effect, again, is just to simply extend the legislation we already voted on by six months. The central staff memo accompanying this legislation specifies that the Department of Neighborhoods expects their consultant will complete much of the work needed to develop a preliminary recommendation by the end of June. If the recommendation is for a permanent expansion, CPA review would follow that recommendation. We had a public hearing last Tuesday. A lot of folks came out to testify in support of the legislation, and folks speaking in favor of the legislation really did a great job of speaking to why in their perspective, the market should be looked at as part of a a permanent future expansion for the for the Showbox to be within the market boundaries. The points that they spoke to was that the market was established in 1909. The shoebox building opened up about ten years later in 1919. It was a public market. Folks noted the fact that there is a commercial synergy between both the market and the shoebox. Many visitors go to both places each year. For the last several years. Seattle has had a record number of visitors. And so tourism is an important industry in Seattle. One of the comments that came up in the public hearing was from businesses for people who had moved to Seattle because of the culture and who have since started a business. The folks also spoke to the physical synergy between the the look of the buildings and the appropriateness of the shoebox to be considered as as part of the market. Because of that as well, the Department of Neighborhoods is working to implement ordinance 1 to 6 560, which calls for a review of the historic significance of the Shoebox Theater to study the relationship between the Shoebox Theater and the Pike Place Market and to consider amendments to the Pike Place Market, Historical Design District Design guidelines related to the Shoebox Theater. They're also part of this ordinance called for them to draft legislation, conduct outreach to stakeholders, and conduct State Environmental Policy Act review on the permanent expansion of the historic district as appropriate. The there may be some confusion about the scope of what the executive is doing right now. The Department of Neighborhoods has clarified that the current scope of the study includes an analysis on whether or not to permanently extend the the market district to cover the shoebox property and in order to make a recommendation on whether or not to extend expand the expand the district to cover that one property. They need to look at a broader area. And in this case, they are looking at First Avenue properties to better understand the historical context as it relates to the shoebox. Essentially to analyze the shoebox property, you have to analyze the historical connection of the adjacent areas. We have heard from folks who, during our earlier deliberations back in August, had not taken a position. We heard from some of them today, and we also received a letter last week from Friends of the Market, the Pike Place Market Foundation , Historic Seattle, Friends of Historic Belltown, the Fisher Studio Building and Rise Up Belltown and Friends of the Shoebox may have mentioned them twice because they are awesome. And the. There's been a question of a potential lease expiration in January 2024. If part of the if this property is becomes part of the market historic district, the change of use would require a certificate of approval from the Mark the Pike Place Market Historical Commission. So that just a little bit of additional context about how the recent news from the owner on their plans for the for the building would impact future decisions around the the district boundaries.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Pacheco, an open up for comments or questions. Councilmember Pacheco.
Speaker 3: I hear and appreciate the nostalgia and sentiments that brought some of you out today to support saving the shoebox. And I believe that this conversation highlights the need for better tools to preserve the cultural resources we have in our city. That said, I do not believe that this tool expanding the Pike Place Market, Historic District, is the right way to go about preserving the shoebox. As with any policy decision, there are major tradeoffs associated with preserving the shoebox. When we use a blunt policy instrument like the historic district as our tool, we are making housing the cost of saving the shoebox that is housing that the city desperately needs in the midst of a housing crisis which rooted and which is rooted in a shortage of housing. We need to be building more houses of all type. This action takes away the opportunity to build 442 new units of housing that we need. Even more importantly, under make. All new development must contribute to affordable housing by closing the door to redevelop. On this site we are turning down up to $5 million in affordable housing payments that could have been required under MHR as a chair of the council's Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. I'm a firm believer that we should be embracing density and building more housing in walkable neighborhoods, particularly close to transit and light rail stations. I also serve on the Puget Sound Regional Council, where we are challenged with Vision 2050 as our region is expected to grow with 1.8 million new residents and 1.2 million new jobs. As we confront climate change, congestion and unaffordability building housing near transit and jobs is what's what will allow so many Seattleites, like myself, to live without a car. As someone who has advocated for greater density density in my own district, particularly in a district where new light rail stations are opening, it is intellectually inconsistent to oppose any new development so close to light rail. Let me be clear. I'm not opposed to saving the shoebox, but I cannot in good faith support saving the shoebox in a way that places the burden on families trying to afford a place to call home. And Seattle, as a as a city, we need to move away from a conversation that sets up a false choice between creating new housing and preserving cultural spaces. Instead of putting these two things we need against each other. We should be having a conversation that promotes both housing and culture. I wasn't on the council last year when this temporary boundary expansion was established, but if I had been, I would have voted no. I believe that the Council could have and should have taken more time to identify a solution that preserved the shoebox and created more housing. If we had worked with a developer to identify a solution that worked for all sides, we could have found a way to preserve the shoebox and have 442 units of housing that we proposed that were proposed. As someone who was just at the Showbox on Friday, I don't think that it is contradictory to want to preserve the history of that place and recognize that it could use some upgrades. For example, we all know that the shoebox is on the city's list of unreinforced masonry buildings, meaning that it poses a serious danger to the people in the area in the event of an earthquake. This fact alone should tell us that freezing the shoebox in time is not a safe or responsible option. I will be voting no today because I believe that saving the shoebox in this fashion is leading us down the wrong path as a city. And because I am hopeful that it is not too late to pursue the options that allow us to preserve culture while also building housing. If I can make one final note. I hope that we as we have this conversation, we can do so in a way that is respectful to all of us. At the public hearing last week, I was very concerned to hear one individual comparing himself as a shoebox fan to a Native American and call the shoebox his reservation. I was even more concerned that the crowd the the crowd applauded that statement. That sort of comparison is unacceptable in my mind, and we should not be condoning it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco. Any other comments? Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 4: I'll just be brief. I just want to share that we have a point of order. Council President We just had an hour of public comment about people supporting or saving the shoebox, and during that time nobody was cheered or made noises. And Councilmember Pacheco deserves to have due to be respectful and to listen because that's what we're doing. So I'm going to ask that you do that and that this is not a rally. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman worries for the comments and I. I'll take that in advisement. Any other comments? Questions I think comes first. One I think you were in queue comes from a skater that's going to figure that one out. Just refer to your side by side colloquy there and go at it.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I really applaud Councilmember Pacheco in terms of your concerns around affordable housing and housing in general. And I want to make some comments about housing. And I think the crux that we're at with wanting to create affordable housing, more housing in general in the city and preserve cultural hubs throughout Seattle. I will be voting yes again on this legislation to make sure that we have additional time to consider the requests in front of us. But I want to be very clear about something. We voted yes last year. We voted yes in the budget to give funding to the department to complete the study. The study did not begin until January of this year. So if there's frustrations, I want folks to know what this council did in August versus what actually happened beginning in January, and to direct those frustrations accordingly. I think it's also very important to know that we here on council have taken a number of steps to ensure that there's access to both cultural hubs and promoting access to housing throughout the city, and that it doesn't have to be an either or. One of the issues that we had been working on last year prior to the passage was making sure that if there was the opportunity to preserve the shoebox as is and then build housing above it, that all of those options were tirelessly pursued before moving forward. And unfortunately, we don't have that option in front of us. But I am supportive of giving us a little bit additional time so that we can see if there is opportunities that do present themselves to protect this cultural hub. But I think in the future we want to make sure that there's not a distinction between cultural hubs versus housing. It should be both. And there's also, I think, an important element that Councilmember Pacheco has elevated. And Councilmember Suarez, you know, I appreciate your underscoring of the need for respect because we do want to make sure that we're not pitting ourselves against each other in this city when it comes to residential, cultural and business displacement. That is a very real and pressing issue around Seattle, especially though in communities of color. And as we're facing the the challenge of looking at displacement across our city, one of the bigger, longer term impacts that I'm going to be looking at is to make sure that we have both and both housing, both affordable housing and the ability to create and preserve cultural hubs. It's really important for us to weigh these equity implications as we take actions to preserve important community spaces like the shoebox and so many others that have come before us. And also think about how we can build housing around these centers so that more people can walk to work that can afford to be artists in the city. You can go down the street or down the elevator to their place of employment or the place where they're playing a show. So I hope that we keep that in mind and that also, as we think about the opportunities to both preserve cultural space, we take the same level of energy that we've seen today and throughout the last ten months. And we really do apply that to creating greater density, like some of the comments that were made around creating density at Fort Lott. And we've we know that there's tremendous opposition sometimes and having your energy, harnessing that energy and focusing it as well in terms of creating affordable housing, as much as we are as creating cultural hubs , I think can be both. And and that's what I'll be looking forward to in the longer term policy solutions and conversations. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, councilmember skater. Councilmember. So want.
Speaker 2: I wanted to thank all the activists and music lovers who are here again today. And I know many of you were here at the public hearing last week, and many, many more of you have been fighting for the shoebox. And I've been honored to stand alongside you all who have made the hope of saving this shoebox a reality. Although obviously we are not done. I also wanted to take a moment to congratulate Save the Shoebox movement, especially the shoebox employees, the friends of the shoebox, and historic Seattle in overcoming a major hurdle and winning the landmark status nomination last week. And we are looking forward to a really positive outcome on that as well, even though we are all very clear that doesn't preserve the music venue use of the building. The victory we won last summer expanding the Pike Place boundary, historic district boundary to cover the shoebox would never have been possible without this movement, without the over 118,000 people who signed the online petition, without the hundreds of you all who packed council chambers demanding the shoebox not be destroyed to make way for unaffordable luxury apartments. Without the hundreds of local musicians and artists raising their voice on behalf of their community and forcing the council to act, we would not have had any chance of winning. Indeed, the Pike Place Market itself would not be standing today if it were not for a movement decades ago similar to this, and probably larger in scale because of what what they were up against. It's also a critical component for the movement to have its own elected representatives who will always stand with and fight alongside the movement, never betraying it. And my office was proud to play that role. And we will continue. My staff and I will continue standing with the movement at every step of the way. I also want to do again thank Automobile O'Brien, who supported my ordinance last August from the get go, and Councilmember Herbold, who brought forward this bill today, which I think is important, those who were there last year will recall how at every opportunity, many council members would say, what is the rush? Why someone's office pushing for this boundary expansion to apply so soon? Why is striking the legislation necessary? The reality is that if we had done it their way by believing that deals can be struck with wealthy landowners or corporate developers, then we would not be here. People likely know about a lawsuit filed against the city by Roger Forbes, the building owner of the shoebox. When the judge reviewing the case throughout significant portions of the lawsuit, we are this was due to our movement demanding no delay in action. So judicial outcomes also are influenced by what we see out in this world on the streets and how strong our movement is. When we passed our legislation last August, we knew we had one interim protections and we knew we would have to come back this spring and summer. So here we are. I will be voting yes, of course, on today's proposed six month extension of the interim expansion. And I call on council members to respect the demands of the movement and do the same. But really, as Shannon Rose said, you know, it should not have come to this today because the mayor's office and her department had more than enough time to ensure the necessary studies could have been conducted in ten months. Okay. It didn't happen. But this is what happens when the immediate pressure of the movement is absent. So it's important that we keep in mind after today that if we have one six month extension, it doesn't lead us the movement off the hook. We have to make sure that all the studies that were promised in the workplan are carried out in a timely fashion. And that will only happen if we remain vigilant and vocal. And we want to make sure that in the next month especially, we have enough pressure on the mayor's office due for the survey to be completed on neighborhood impacts by the city departments. Because it can be done in that timeline. We cannot we simply cannot rely on the behind the scenes deals and negotiations with Forbes attorneys, developers and corporate landlords. It was, you know, we won the initial interim protection purely to the strength of the movement. And we should not waver regardless of what we hear, what else we hear. We should not waver because we know that behind the scenes deals is not the way to go. For now, let's when the six month timeline extension and keep the pressure on the city department to report to the mayor's office and make sure the studies are completed. I wanted to thank those who have been fundamental to this struggle. The employees of the shoebox, the friends of the shoebox, historic Seattle Central staff members, Lesch Whitson, who is here, who helped us tremendously with getting the legislation ready. The community organizer was in my office, some of whom are here today, Jay Middleton, who launched the online petition. And Seattle's vast community of artists and musicians, some of whom are also employees of the Showbox. But I also wanted to mention Smoky Brights, Ben Gibbard, Soul Sassy Black Dude, York Spirit Award ruler, many of whom also performed at the free concert we had last summer on the plaza outside. Thank you all so much. And then in closing, I will say, as Arnie Ashford said last August, if you're right here in chambers, this is not about culture. It is not a question of music versus housing. This is not about music versus affordable housing. This is about culture and housing for everybody versus profits for the few. And as Arnie said, he asked elected officials, you have to pick a side, you know, decide which side you're on. And I will also say that making this about affordable housing, in my view, is either naive you don't know the facts or is disingenuous of elected officials because we know it's not about affordable housing. Elected officials are concerned about affordable housing. Then those who repeal the Amazon tax should not have done that. And if you want to support affordable housing, then let's fight for rent control and to expand social housing massively by taxing Amazon and big business. Let's keep fighting.
Speaker 0: Casimiro Gonzalez Thank you, council president I'll make this quick cause I know we're on agenda item two of a very long agenda for today, but I just wanted to say that consistent with my vote in August of 2018, I intend to continue to maintain my my same position. So I'm going to vote yes on this bill. However, I wanted to give some caution and some additional rationale for that. So I don't think there is a justification for me at this point to modify my vote on what I see as a technical amendment, to allow some some time for the departments to continue doing the evaluation that we originally asked them to do. We haven't modified the substance of the evaluation and analysis and study that we originally asked the departments to do back in August of 2018. This is an opportunity for the City Council to provide the executive additional time to be able to complete that work again. Nothing substantive has changed in terms of the work that we're asking the executive to do. This is just about finding an additional amount of time to allow to do this. So I see this amendment to this bill as technical in nature and not substantive in terms of a final long term solution for this particular parcel of land . Which leads me to my second point, which is a caution to my colleagues that I am concerned about the direction of looking at an excess, of expanding the scope of evaluation for the alleged purposes of evaluating the true, historic and architectural district nature of this space. I am I am. I am conscious of the fact that this may the expansion of the scope may lead to further limiting development capacity along First Avenue, utilizing this historic resources tool as the mechanism to do that. And we have seen in the mandatory housing affordability context and in other spaces that oftentimes historic resources and historic resources as a tool is being is being weaponized to prevent additional density and affordable housing coming into particular neighborhoods. That that should be taking on the burden and responsibility of additional development capacity for purposes of housing our families and low income members of the community. And so I'm going to vote yes for this bill today with with the caution that that doesn't necessarily mean that I would support a final bill. If that final bill signals, in my mind a move towards a scope of study area that would diminish significantly development capacity along First Avenue, again under the auspices of preservation. And and I just really think we need to be very careful about evaluating specific historic resources and how that might implicate policy positions, clear policy position positions that the City Council has taken in other areas with regard to zoning and allowing additional development capacity for purposes of increasing dollars, real dollars available to us to construct affordable housing , either in this particular neighborhood or in other neighborhoods around the city of Seattle. And when we look at the maps of where our development is happening as it relates to affordable housing developments, a significant majority of those developments are occurring right here in downtown in District seven. And so when we know that our inclusionary zoning incentive zoning programs require that downtown developers contribute the most amount of money under our mandatory housing affordability program, I have serious concerns about a broad stroke approach here that may compromise and diminish the great efforts that I think the City Council has taken in the space of affordable housing as it relates to a broader swath of land along First Avenue.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Katherine Sellers. Any other comments or questions? I'm going to say a few. Would you like to close debate at first? If you so just a few things. I'm going to support the legislation, Councilmember. Horrible things for having a committee meeting on it and bring it to our attention. And we were sort of monitoring the deadline of our first legislation. And I want to thank the advocates for coming out. Your voice is heard, meaningful and thanks for the song. MARQUEZ Beautiful. This concept of picking a side to me. It's nonsense. It's not for me. It's not about picking a side. It's about listening to people. When you pick a side, you're drawing a line and you're on one side of the other. To me, that's not how we get things done in this city. We listen and we try to understand and try to come up with a good outcome. I think many of you've presented a very clear picture of what we can preserve and what we should try to preserve. I can't stand. Pacheco. I want to thank you for taking a bold stance on what you believe in, and you weren't part of the long discussion we had that got us to this point. But I want to applaud you for voting for your conscience, which I always think is noble, not listening to anyone else, but trying to try to trying to hear others, but trying to vote on what you think is right. So thank you, sir. And lastly, I want to say this notion about behind the scene deals. I want to address that. So my take on it is the city didn't do its behind the scene work as feverishly as I was hoping they did when we passed this legislation, I was hoping that behind the scene work was really done and so we didn't have to get here where we are today. We all know it's no big secret that we're in litigation on this matter. Okay, that's. If you didn't know. I'm sorry. Let that secret out the bag. But we are in litigation on this matter, and my hope is that perhaps parties can work together and we could come up with a win win a win that preserves our great music venue and allows these talented musicians to do what they do so well and that we we again, look at the value of the market and the beauty of the market and housing issues. And we come up with some win wins. And whether that's behind the scenes or here in City Hall, I care less, but I just want to get that kind of work done. But for me, it's not about picking a side. It's about working together as a community and getting some things done. So hopefully within the next six months, as this legislation presents, we will get this work done. And I want to take all of my colleagues for this robust discussion. I'd asked it, Councilmember Herbold, close the debate and then we will vote and see where the chips fall.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I just want to close out with some comments some of you heard before during the public hearing highlighting the work of the arts office as it relates to the the need to act with urgency to preserve our cultural spaces. The a report out of the Arts Office, the Cultural Space Report identifies that the value of cultural spaces and activities are quantifiable. They drive economic growth and urban development blocks in Seattle with cultural spaces have significantly higher walk scores. They have more businesses open at 10 p.m. on Fridays, and they have twice as many outdoor cafe seating permits pointing to the the economic development value. They go on to say that the arts ecosystem that we have today thrives in a rich network of cultural spaces that were able to flourish because during periods of greater affordability in Seattle, without the spaces to support this cultural life, without the presence of arts and cultural organizations in our neighborhoods, this ecosystem can't be sustained at times of less affordability. Like the times we are in now. Vulnerable communities are the canaries in the coal mines of displacement. They are disappearing from the cultural landscape and some of the first to disappear, as we have heard our communities of color and the arts and cultural organizations that reflect them, whose presence helped create the very land value on which those cranes are now building. I think that's a good point to end on.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. And with that, we are going to vote on Council Bill 119504. So. Clerk, please follow the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: O'BRIEN All right. PACHECO Now.
Speaker 4: Sergeant, I beg Sean Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I Herbold. I Suarez. Mr. President Herrell high eight in favor one.
Speaker 1: Opposed bill passed and chair of with Senate. Clap on that one. Okay. Please read the next edition.
Speaker 0: Item 3.8 The Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda Item three Council of 119507 Relating to Fair Housing. Establishing a one year prohibition on use of rental housing bidding platforms. Amending Section 7.20 4.0 24 code and adding a new Section 7.20 4.0 98 said on this figure, the committee recommends the bill passed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pike Place Market Historical District; amending Ordinance 125650 to extend its effective date by six months. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06102019_CB 119507 | Speaker 0: Item 3.8 The Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda Item three Council of 119507 Relating to Fair Housing. Establishing a one year prohibition on use of rental housing bidding platforms. Amending Section 7.20 4.0 24 code and adding a new Section 7.20 4.0 98 said on this figure, the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Because remember Skater.
Speaker 5: Seven. Thank you, Mr. President. So on to rental protections. Because I'm neither naive nor ready to wait. We're going to change policy and we're going to make sure that it's informed by our community partners at the table. We have worked on a one year prohibition on rent bidding technologies. So for folks who aren't aware, this is like eBay for rental units. Nobody wants to see their rental unit go on eBay and the costs of their housing skyrocket. But what we heard immediately after getting elected was that there was a number of people, especially in the University of Washington area, students specifically who had seen these eBay like platforms escalate the cost of housing in their neighborhoods. And our intent was to create a one year prohibition on these rent bidding technologies in order to provide time to determine whether or not these platforms are in violation of our fair housing laws, and to analyze how they may impact housing cost or cause greater inequities in our access to affordable housing and housing throughout the city, creating potentially disproportionate impacts on our communities, especially communities of color and lower income communities. And what we've seen over the last year through the Office of Housing, in coordination with the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Construction and Inspection, is that they've been working diligently on time , I will add. Thank you very much to the mayors, three departments who've been producing a report for us in July. They will provide a study to help us better and analyze and understand this new technology, its impacts on equitable access to housing, and what long term regulations may be necessary given the pace at which new technologies. And right here we see a number of them crop up right in our own backyard, can come online, can be ingrained in our communities and ingrained in our systems. We really just wanted to hit the pause button. Let us have a little bit of time to see how these rent bidding technologies or eBay like systems for rental units actually affect the our commitment to fair housing, whether or not they have an impact on the rental housing market and whether there's implications for our commitment to protecting our populations, access to fair housing laws. So the report will be presented, as I said, on time in July of this year. What we'd like to do with the Council's support today is to add an additional 12 months. So once we receive that report back from the three departments, we will then have the opportunity to work with tenants and the community at large to develop potential policy solutions and conduct a robust engagement process to actually talk about what to do about the technology we have seen from other cities, that they have not put this pause in place and the consequence has been limited access to units throughout their cities, an increase in the cost of affordable units, and with an effort to try to be proactive and get ahead of it. We're very excited to be able to put forward in front of you a unanimous vote from the housing committee that looked at requesting that a 12 month extension so that we can create the appropriate and informed decision on this longer term regulation for rent bidding platforms. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other questions or comments on the legislation before we vote?
Speaker 4: Councilmember Bagshaw Councilmember Mosquito, thank you for bringing this forward and for your leadership on it. And I certainly will be voting for this today at the committee. The other day I asked the question because I've been hearing from both renters as well as property owners, how is our study going along the lines of the first in time registration? Because what I'm I'm concerned about is that people who are at their computers during the day, that they get a first shot at a rental unit that comes open. Somebody who is working outside and away from a computer may find themselves delayed and behind frankly, behind the eight ball in terms of getting on those lists. And is this something that we can continue to look at or will it be part of this 12 month study or could we make it such.
Speaker 5: Thank you for the question, Councilmember. I'm looking down the way here at folks who are working on the first time legislation previously. I think that that's part of the question that they will be answering for us in July. How has this tool impacted that ability? If you're the first one to put your application in, you have the qualifications, you have the funding, you should have access to those that that rental unit, unfortunately, with the way in which the platforms were working before, are one hour stay on these technologies. The cost was escalating. So those for folks who were first in time were getting outbid. So I think your questions exactly the type of question we hope that. The July report will answer.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments before we vote? I think we're good. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Hi, Chico.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: So I'm.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 0: Big John Gonzalez Herbold. Whereas Macheda I President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and Cheryl signed it. Please read items four through six and you could read a shorter title of any of those if you'd like.
Speaker 0: Agenda Items 436. Resolution 31887. Adopting a Peruvian application for surplus property at Fort Lawton, including Redevelopment Plans Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Council Bill 119 535 relating to the Fort Lunt Redevelopment Plan application, the committee recommends the bill pass cancel 1195 ten relating to land use and zoning. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to fair housing; establishing a one-year prohibition on use 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_06102019_Res 31887 | Speaker 0: Agenda Items 436. Resolution 31887. Adopting a Peruvian application for surplus property at Fort Lawton, including Redevelopment Plans Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Council Bill 119 535 relating to the Fort Lunt Redevelopment Plan application, the committee recommends the bill pass cancel 1195 ten relating to land use and zoning. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: All of these items are interrelated. Thus we read them into the record together. So I'd ask Councilmember Mosquito. Is it mosquito.
Speaker 3: Or.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. That's a mosquito to describe them all. And then we'll vote individually if that works with you.
Speaker 5: That would be great. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really excited about today, and thank you for giving us a little bit extra time to describe these three pieces of legislation as they all hold together. This is really an incredible opportunity for us to celebrate the culmination after 15 years. This is about a community vision for affordable housing to be developed at Fort Lawton. Take in community engagement, planning and advocacy advocacy. As I mentioned for 15 years, that is now going to create a variety of homes, including homes for seniors and veterans experiencing homelessness, affordable rental homes for families and individuals, affordable home ownership opportunities for low income buyers. And with housing costs soaring and displacement crisis at a very high levels, as we just talked about, there is an intense need for these homes to be built now more than ever. And as we do so, we've talked about as we create greater density in the city, one of the most important things that we can do is also preserve and expand access to greenspace of the Fort Lawton land that we are talking about. 60% of this site will be dedicated to parks and open spaces, complementing the natural beauty of the recreational space that is right next door at the Discovery Park Park. This is wildlife habitat at Discovery Park. And the area that we all love to enjoy in Councilmember Bagshaw is district that will not be touched by the development at Fort Lawton's or will be complementary and all but up to the existing land at Fort at Discovery Park and this Fort Lyon housing will be a complement for the neighborhood. And by creating affordable homes in a very high cost area of our city, Fort Lawton will further expand our commitment to exactly what you were just asking about our commitment to fair housing, creating greater inclusion and advance opportunities by opening access to more families to be able to live in a very high cost area of the city that has previously been out of reach for very low income communities, especially for communities of color and low wage workers. So I want to underscore today is a win win. It's a huge opportunity and it's a rare opportunity to gain access to a significant portion of public land from the federal government. At no cost. At no cost if it is used to build affordable housing and services, especially for homeless. It's a win win for Seattle's highly competitive retail I'm sorry, highly competitive real estate market. And over the course of several evening hearings and I will over the last few years and especially five public hearings at the Housing, Health , Energy and Workers Rights Committee just this year, we've heard from community and interest in doing a couple of things. Number one is expanding access to bus services in the neighborhood and increasing school capacity. We heard from Scott and folks from Metro that they will engage in a process for looking at the frequency at which busses should come and how to potentially add stops or routes to the area. Over time, we've heard the desire for increased school capacity and actual school buildings for teaching. What we've heard from Seattle Public Schools today is that they will engage in that process of looking at additional facilities for classrooms. But the most pressing issue that Seattle Public Schools has right now is the need for more play fields. And that's exactly what we're creating here. We're also creating more space for wildlife habitat. And as you heard, I think from some of the folks who presented today and in previous committees, we've heard the desire to make sure that there's more space opened up to wildlife habitat and that we reduce our surface parking lot streets. In today's package, we have a really great amendment that came directly from the coalition that was working with Fort Lawton and in the neighborhood that they brought to our attention the desire to reduce the surface parking space by at least a third and to work with communities so that we could create more public space, especially for wild wildlife habitat, including the blue heron population. So I'm really excited about the proposed package that you have in front of you. The amount of work that has gone into making this these three pieces of legislation that you just heard described come together is really important. And, Mr. President, if I might, I think there's a few details as it comes to housing that I'd like to underscore for the population, for the community.
Speaker 1: That'll be very helpful. Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 5: So there is. About five buckets that are critically important. Number one, homes for seniors. This is 85 supportive housing units for seniors, including veterans who've experienced homelessness. On site, there will be house housing, case management, residential counselors and housing stability plans created so that we're really not just creating a door and a roof, but we're creating the ability for folks to get stabilized. Thanks to the support of services in partnership with Catholic Housing Services and United Indians of all tribes. This is not just creating a house, but it's truly creating a stable home for folks. Again, that land will be at zero costs. The second bucket is for individual and family size rental units. These are 101, two and three bedroom apartments for renters earning up to 60% of the area median income. So you can imagine this is greater space for families to grow and thrive, opportunity for community, space for those tenants there . So it's not just going to be homes and units, it will be actual community space. And this housing is being developed by Catholic Housing Service. The land is coming at an extremely discounted price. The third bucket is homeownership opportunities. And having been a person who just went through the process of trying to become a first time home buyer, it is very cumbersome, it is very confusing and it is very stressful if we're going to create equity in this city. And by equity, I mean racial justice, equity, economic equity. We need to also create the ability for folks to buy their own first place so that they can create greater equity in their pockets, in their bank accounts, so that people can get out of generational poverty without universal guaranteed retirement security. Often the ability to own your own place is one way to pass on a wealth to future generations and to get out of generational poverty. As we create homeownership opportunities, especially for our low income communities, this is one of one way for us to achieve our commitment to equity. And this will create 50 to 3 bedroom townhomes and row homes for low income buyers. Low income buyers between 64 to $86000 a year for two or five person households. So that's our missing middle housing. That's our low income, middle income housing to create greater self-help so that people can create sweat equity and create opportunity to have true equity in their pocketbooks. Thanks to the folks at Habitat for Humanity for working on this portion. And again, the land for this type of housing will come at zero cost. Further, we have included into the requirements the requirement for green building standards, which will be required for all of these new homes at Fort Lawton. And finally, as we heard before, it's important to preserve access to green space and public, public play areas. So 60% of the 34 acre site for park will be maintained for parks and related uses. That's 13 acres for passive recreation, six acres for two multipurpose fields and surface parking lots, five acres for forest land incorporated into Discovery Park. And the existing building where they have the parks maintenance facilities. Parking lot will be reduced now by a third. Again, this land will be at zero cost for the open public spaces. So, Mr. President, with that, I just want to say a few. Thank you, if I might, and perhaps I should hold those. Thank you. Until other folks have a chance to say a few words.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Consumer Indicator Customer Bagshaw Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Mosquito just said about 90% of what I was planning to say. So this is going to be very abbreviated. But I do want to acknowledge our neighbors from Magnolia. Thank you for coming again. And I tried to get your questions answered at the committee and having people address them. And I have been involved in this for way more than the last couple of years, the five committees that we've had in Fort Lawton. And I really want to acknowledge Steve Walker. Thank you. And Emily Alvarado, Tracy Radcliffe from our council central staff that have worked so hard on this. But truly we are getting six acres more of active sports field. That's something that we negotiated with the Seattle Public Schools. There's going to be 60% more of this land that's going into parks. We're not taking more of Discovery Park, Fort Lawton is asphalted right now. We're going to be turning that into housing and a great portion of it is going to go into parks. As Councilmember Mesquita said, the whole idea that it could be an either or. And as I mentioned at the committee meeting just the day before that committee meeting, I'm hearing from folks that are saying, well, look, we've got a really good idea. Let's not do it in Fort Lawton and let's put it down in inner bay. Well, frankly, we are going to have to be looking for space all across the city and all across our region to even begin to scratch the surface on the amount of affordable housing that we need. And it strikes me that, yes, after 15 years, this Fort Lawton plan is one that we have negotiated with the neighbors, with the neighborhood, and I'm very pleased that we're moving forward with it. And I respect the fact that people say there's change. You bet there's change. Seattle is changing everywhere and no neighborhood is really to be swept. Created from this. We need to incorporate, hear the voices and be inclusive. And I believe that in this particular case, over 15 years that we have done that. I also want to acknowledge more Marty Marty Cloister, who was here earlier, I think he's left. But Habitat for Humanity is giving people the opportunity for home ownership, and we know that that's really the step forward for so many families. So I'm very happy to be joining you in this councilmember mosquito. Thank you for bringing it through your committee. And also, I want to acknowledge the United Indians of all tribes, Catholic Housing Services and all those who are helping us get here and bring this across the finish line.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Make sure you have the questions or comments before we turn it back to Councilwoman Mesquita. Customers want.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Harrell. I want to start by acknowledging that we are on the Indigenous land of the Duwamish people, and I'm specifically acknowledging that because we are discussing in this item in the next two items the disposition of Fort Loudon. As everybody knows, in 1970, courageous activists of the United Tribes of all Indians occupied the military base on Fort Lawton to demand it be returned as indigenous land. And it was through that struggle that the DAYBREAK Star Center was one. You know, in other words, the result of a resolute demonstration of civil disobedience. Once again proving that when we fight, we can win. And it was a big victory, even though the movement did not win all the demands that they had. Today, we are voting on approving a plan to transfer ownership of Fort LUDDEN from the federal building for the from the federal government, I'm sorry, to the city and to approve a plan to build some affordable housing there. I will, of course, be voting in favor of the these items because I support building these 237 units of affordable housing on Fort Lauderdale rapidly, as rapidly as possible. And to build more, there would require a new environmental impact statement, which could take years. So I support these agenda items. However, I think we also need to be honest that this has been for years and not not necessarily by the current council here, but in general has been a monumental missed opportunity that could have allowed us to build far, far more affordable housing than we now have in our hands. When former Mayor Ed Murray had city departments conduct the year for the Fort Lauderdale redevelopment, they studied different alternatives. But the maximum affordable housing they studied was 237 homes, which makes that our legal maximum at this stage. The mayor made that decision without consulting members of the public. I'm sure that after today's vote there will be numerous press releases from the political establishment doubting this Fort Lawton redevelopment plan as a triumph. Absolutely, we should celebrate every affordable home that gets built. But I think there's a danger that that triumphalism is such an exaggeration that it does not. It belies the bitter realities that we face in terms of our affordable housing crisis. For comparison, Fort Lauderdale will have 237 affordable homes on 34 acres. In comparison, affordable housing activists on First Hill in District three successfully won sound transit poverty to be used to build affordable housing on a parcel of Madison Street. That one parcel will have over 300 units, more than all of the 34 acres of Fort Lauderdale. My staff calculated the ratio and the first affordable housing project will have over 100 times as much affordable housing as Fort Lauderdale relative to its area. Similarly, the North Lot affordable housing redevelopment of the Pacific Hospital PDA will have more affordable housing than all of Fort Lauderdale. Similarly, the same housing affordable housing project in the central area near Pratt Park will have more than Fort Lauderdale. The list goes on, and all of those properties are on single parcels and not on the vast 34 acres that Fort Lauderdale sits on. So I will be voting in favor of this plan because I want every affordable home that we can get. But I also my message is for affordable housing activists that we should not let up for 1/2 in demanding as massive a possible expansion of social housing in Seattle. Because, you know, as we have these tiny projects heralded with a lot of fanfare, they are actually falling far, far short of what is needed to truly address the affordable housing crisis in Seattle. We will have to tax big business and the super rich to raise the funds that will be necessary to build social housing on the scale that is needed. That is in the many thousands every year, not in the hundreds. And we also need rent control to stop the continued hemorrhaging of existing affordable housing. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Councilmember Mosquito. We'd like to cancel Ramon Gonzales, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President I just wanted to echo my thanks for everybody who has been working on this issue for for so long. I think one person who was left off the thank you list is the great Kenny Pittman who just retired last week. He has been instrumental along the way for continuing to advance the relationship between us and the federal government, to allow an opportunity for us to even be having these conversations around using the surplus property in this manner. And I just wanted to underscore that when you read about the efforts, the 13 plus year efforts around for lot and it's it's it's striking to me that when the city initially proposed development in this manner on Fort Lawton and that was in 2008 and the original proposal actually proposed 415 units of affordable housing. We're now down to about 50% of that. Part of that is because of construction costs and because of, you know, so are other realities related to the process. And I think it's really unfortunate that we are now here over a decade later in a situation where we have half the amount of housing units we could have had in 2008 had we been able to proceed as we wanted immediately before the recession. So I think this is a while we're well, we aren't getting those full capacity of housing units that I think all of us would really, truly want to see in this in this uniquely situated neighborhood. I think it's important for us to acknowledge the work that has been done to allow us to be in a position now to accept the 200 plus units of affordable housing that will certainly meet the needs of many families in the in the city of Seattle. So I really want to thank Councilman Mosqueda for bringing us across the finish line and Councilmember Bagshaw, for your dedicated service to District seven, to be in a position where you're finally seeing this over the finish line must feel pretty tremendous. So congratulations to you as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Customer Worse.
Speaker 4: I will be a little bit brief and I'll probably be showing my age here, but some of us were there in 1973 when we took over DAYBREAK Star, and we didn't actually have the movement, but we did it and we got it done. Anything else? I want to thank the CEO, Michael Tully, who just walked in, who is the CEO of United Indians and also my cousin, always involved in Indian Country and the struggle for Native American people. But I want to add that this goes further back than 2008. Back in 2000, when we were trying to build the People's Lodge, which would have included housing units, a cultural center, an elder center, and more low income housing and medical services for not only native and urban people, but other people who would require those services. Those neighborhoods fought. I was on the board for almost 30 years with the United Indians and work with Bernie White Bear, and I was also legal counsel for 15 years. Those neighborhoods fought us tooth and nail for 13 years. So the historical perspective is this well before nine well, since 1973. Our efforts that we did in 2000, what we tried to do in 2008, I am proud to sit here today and thank customer Mosqueda and Councilmember Bagshaw that we kept at it, that our compass was clear about what we wanted to do with that property. You've heard me say this before. Sometimes just because you chant, When do we want? We want it now. That's not how the world works. You have to keep marching forward and clear and what you need to do for the community. And sometimes you don't get everything you want, but you get to that point where you can actually take a vision and have it transferred into brick and mortar. So I want to thank Councilor Mesquita and Kenny Pittman and again, Councilmember Bagshaw for being relentless and working in the district and Michael Tully and the other CEOs that have worked before him, that we worked hard on this. And also Michael Reichert, a Catholic Community Services. Liz Taylor Cowlitz I could go on and on and on. This has been a piece of property that the tribes have worked on for many decades. So I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Whereas, Caspar, I'm a skater.
Speaker 5: All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. President. And you're damn right we're going to send out a press release after this, because this has been 15 years in the making, and that does not make anybody establishment. But that means we're celebrating a small components that together, woven together will actually help create more affordable housing throughout the city. We're sending out a press release because we're quite literally demilitarizing a parcel of property that was publicly owned that should be put to the public's use so that it can be used for the public good, not a military base. We are absolutely celebrating the fact the. We're creating affordable housing for seniors and for vets. We're creating apartments that will be one, two and three bedrooms so that more families can live in the city. We're creating first time home ownership options, and we're preserving 60% of former military land now for parks and public spaces. Yes, we are celebrating. And yes, we also know that this is one small tool in a very large toolkit that we need to address the crisis of housing in every single one of those opportunities that we can to build on public land. We will take advantage of it. Last year, with the first piece of legislation that I passed was making sure that every parcel of publicly owned property that is not being used for the highest and best use that we've determined is surplus and no longer needed by the city. We should preserve that public land and stop plugging budget holes and actually build affordable housing. This is an extension of that commitment on every parcel of land. We should be working to create housing and community services and the ability for more people to live in the city so that more working families can have the chance to grow , live and thrive in the city so that more seniors have a place to call home and don't get displaced. So that vets who are sleeping homeless on our street have a place to call home. That's what we're celebrating today. I'm incredibly proud to be working with our colleagues to get this over the finish line. After 15 years in the making, after five committee hearings this year, after the opportunity to work with those who wanted more space for the blue heron to get rid of surface parking streets. We are going to celebrate this and then we will keep working and organizing. We also know that when we reduce the cost of housing by building on public land, we make it more affordable by 15%. That's a smart use of the public's dollar. This is a smart use of public land. We are also making smart investments for future generations and for our elders. Thank you. Thank you to everyone who helped to make this day possible. I'm looking at Director Walker and his team, Emily Alvarado. Thank you to the Office of Housing. Thank you to the folks at the United Indians of all tribes for being there from the very beginning to help advocate for turning this military land into better public space. Thank you to our partners at Catholic Community Services and Habitat for Humanity at the Housing Development Consortium and so many others from the housing world who've been advocating for this for so long. And thank you to our team, Traci Radcliffe and Kettle Freeman from central staff for your ongoing tenacious work on this, along with Kenny Pittman, who Councilmember Gonzalez mentioned earlier. He retired last week. He got to see this over the finish line. So we are so happy that he was able to celebrate that committee vote and we wish him the best in his retirement. Finally, thank you to my staff, Erin House, who has been working on this over the last few months to really make sure that we had all of our eyes dotted and t's crossed and we won't give up. We know that we need additional housing. And we also hear you in terms of the need for more transit and potentially schools in the future and will be there to work with you to do that analysis. So, yes, look for that press release because it is coming and congratulations to every one of our colleagues for all of your work and the community at large, for your tenacious work to turn this parcel into housing.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember ROSQUETA, I think that's a good cue to vote on. We're going to vote on three pieces of legislation. We're going to take them individually or do the resolution first. And so those in favor of adopting the resolution that resolutions 31887, please vote I, I oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it on council bill 119535. Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 0: PACHECO All right, so on. I beg John Gonzalez Herbold, I Suarez Ms.. Gather by President Harrell.
Speaker 4: I know I've done a bunch of.
Speaker 2: O'Brien's a lot, but I'm going to say I.
Speaker 1: Myself, the bill passes and the chair will sign it. And regarding council bill 119510, please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 0: I did go sarwan. I begged sr Gonzalez Herbal Juarez Mascara. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor not opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed. And Cheryl sign it. Please read the next agenda. Item number seven. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION adopting and approving an application for surplus federal property at Fort Lawton, including a redevelopment plan, and authorizing the City of Seattle Office of Housing to forward an application to the United States Department of Defense and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in response to the closure of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06032019_CB 119513 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee. Agenda Item one Council Vote 119 513 Relating to the City of Seattle's Paid Family Care Relief Program, amending sections 4.20 9.0, 10.3 20.0 39.07. A code the committee recommends about pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Catherine Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Harrell colleagues Rachel and Erin Elder and members of the public. It is with both a heavy heart and immense joy that I advance council bill 119513 as amended in committee, otherwise known as BS law for a vote by the full council today. If approved, this bill will correct a gap and oversight in our existing paid family care program applicable to municipal employees and their families like the Elders. It will do so by doing the following. First, it defines qualifying death to include the death of a child or the death of a domestic partner or spouse who died from childbirth or from complications related to childbirth. Second, if there is a qualifying death, then it will allow a parent or surviving domestic partner or spouse the ability to access paid family care leave benefit of up to four weeks without drawing down vacation or sick leave within 12 months of that qualifying event, the City Budget Office has estimated that this policy change does not have a significant fiscal impact and can be implemented without additional budget appropriation by the City Council. As I mentioned during council briefing, this is not a legislative fix to a hypothetical scenario. We have had multiple occasions to discuss the specific circumstances of Rachel and Aaron's loss of their daughter, Beatrice. A short 36, 36 hours after her arrival into this world, we have seen the pictures of be we've heard the heartwarming stories of the profound love that Bea gave her moms in that short window of life. We are now bearing witness to a legacy that will leave an indelible mark on our cities family friendly work policies. I am honored to play a very small role in advancing that legacy today. Rachel and Erin had many choices in the aftermath of the loss of BEA and learning that our family leave policies were inadequate for the needs of their family. They chose to effectuate change, to effectuate change by contacting their union protection and sharing their grief as an example and catalyst for change, for positive change, for themselves and for future families. As a result, today, we take a final vote on this legislation that more fully recognizes the realities of the sudden loss of a child. Our city employees should be able to focus on healing with their with their families in these moments. And Bea's law will provide qualifying employees with four paid weeks to do so. We know that the healing of losing someone, especially a young child, will take a lot longer than four weeks. But four paid weeks is certainly more than the three days that you all had to come together and to mourn and to be prepared for what the future would bring. I want to thank Councilwoman Mosqueda for her partnership on advancing this law and the sale Perich and her office for her tremendous and tireless commitment to finding a solution for the alders and all of our city workers. And of course, one last thank you publicly to Rachel and Erin for your courage and commitment to sharing your moment of personal grief to effectuate change in the name of BEA. And with that, the committee recommends that the full council adopt Council Bill 119513, otherwise known forevermore as BS law.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Katherine Gonzales. Any comments or questions, Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm incredibly proud to be the co-sponsor of these law. As you heard, these laws, a policy that will provide time off for city employees, for the loss of a child and the emotional and physical recovery for families going through the loss of their child or the loss of a birthing partner. And this is just the beginning. I want to thank Rachel and Erin, thank you again for your advocacy for being here yet again to see this policy now put into statute without you sharing your story time and time again over the last year and a half, without your persistence to make sure that no family has to go through what you did. We would not be here, and many other families would be suffering the same loss and the same heartbreak. But this policy now makes the changes that you've been asking for for a very long time. It provides time off. If you lose your child for the emotional and physical recovery that you and your family have gone through. We want to make sure that that unimaginable pain is not felt by another family making the impossible decision of having to go back to work so that you can earn a living when you're trying to grieve and recover. We want to make sure as an employer that we make sure that those who work for the city are able to come back to work when they are ready, and that the time that they have is paid time off so that they can grieve and recover. This is the right thing to do. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for her leadership on this, for her office. And thank you for recognizing, as well as Patrick, our chief of staff, who has been engaged with this with you on this issue. I'm very excited to see this move forward. Councilmember Gonzalez outlined the comprehensive components in this law. But I think I just want to underscore three of the critical policies that you all helped to make sure that we changed in the policy as it came down. One is you are no longer required to draw down your existing sick time or vacation time. I hate the concept that people would have to draw down leave that we have fought so hard for. Leave that's important for sick time. Leave that's important for rest and recovery for vacation. We have these vacation and leave time policies for sick leave for important reasons. And the loss of a child is no vacation. You should not have to use that time at this critical moment, and we've changed it so that there's no draw down policy. We've also made sure that you don't have to use this leave concurrently with family medical leave in the event of a qualifying death. This is really incredibly important to keep that policy separate and to create its own bucket. And then lastly, as you've heard, we have really made sure that the qualifying death is a definition that includes the death of a child, spouse or domestic partner as a result of childbirth. And I want to thank you for your willingness to include that component in here, as well as we think about how families may grieve during this moment, especially around the birth of a child, and to make sure that bereavement leave is kind of more conceptually applied to who that might apply to, and critically that we've used terms like birthing partner so that we're inclusive of all families. So thank you for your leadership on this. Thank you for your openness to some of these changes that we were suggesting. And thank you for helping us to really underscore that our existing bereavement policy is unacceptable. One day, as you had with BE, is not a significant amount of leave. So we will continue to work here at the city to make sure that our bereavement policies as a whole better reflect what families actually need. As that, as I said earlier, we believe this is just the beginning of having the opportunity to address our bereavement leave policies as a whole. So incredibly proud to have worked with you, with Councilmember Gonzales, and with the mayor's office to change our family medical leave policies, to address this critical gap as it applies to families that are needing time off to be with their child, to be with their partners, or to grieve the loss of their child. I just want to say thank you again for helping to illuminate the short but incredibly impactful life that has had to sparking this policy change to ensuring no other family has to suffer the same experience. And they're making sure that we lifted up the voice of not only B and you as their parents, but to making sure that there's lasting change. So much more to do. And thanks to Aaron and Rachel, these brave parents for helping to set this past path for comprehensive policy change. Happy birthday again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Catherine ROSQUETA. Okay. Any last comments? Are we ready to vote? Thank you very much for those fine presentations from Castro and Gonzalez and council members. Get it? Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: Musgrave I O'Brien High Pacheco. I so want I Bexar Gonzalez I.
Speaker 4: Herbold, I.
Speaker 1: Suarez President Harrell High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes on chair will gladly sign it. Thank you. Strap on face. Read the report of the Select Committee on Citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City of Seattle’s Paid Family Care Leave program; amending Sections 4.29.010, 4.29.020, 4.29.030, and 4.29.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06032019_CB 119500 | Speaker 0: Bill passes on chair will gladly sign it. Thank you. Strap on face. Read the report of the Select Committee on Citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Select Committee on Citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability Agenda Item to cancel 119 500 Related Lands and Zoning Amending Ordinance 125731 to correct map errors contained a map for 23.58 points or 50 map for 23.50 3.0 50 and attention went to a125 791 committee recommend single pass customer and. GONZALEZ Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, as I mentioned last week, Turner, a subcommittee on the city wide mandatory housing affordability meeting. And this morning during council briefing, this council bill represents a set of technical changes to the citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability Ordinance that this fall council adopted in May of 2019. All of you attended that committee hearing last Monday and heard from Ali Pucci of Council Central Staff the particulars of the technical changes included in this version of the bill. So I won't belabor the point today, but those changes, as a reminder, are strictly limited to ensuring that the maps and code language reflect the appropriate payment levels for development capacity, as determined by the City Council and previous policy conversations, as well as making sure that all of the code language accurately reflects the many policy choices made by the City Council in its deliberations of the originally passed citywide mandatory housing affordability ordinance. Otherwise, there are no substantive policy shifts or modifications to those legislative policy decisions made by this City Council in May of 2019. With that being said, the Select Committee on Citywide may recommend to the full council adopt council bill 119500.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? Do not please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Sarah O'Brien I Pacheco. I want I make sure Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: I Herbold II.
Speaker 1: Whereas President Harrell high nine in favor and in oppose the.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the part of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee. Please read the shirt. Tyler mentioned the number three.
Speaker 2: The report of the Finance Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Constable 119 528 Relating to historic preservation imposing controls upon the Seattle Tower. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to land use and zoning; amending Ordinance 125791 to correct map errors contained in Map A for 23.58B.050 (Section 94), Map A for 23.58C.050 (Section 97), and Attachment 1 to Ordinance 125791. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06032019_CB 119529 | Speaker 2: Agenda item four Accountable 119 529 Related Historic Preservation Opposing controls upon the Mount Baker Community Club Clubhouse Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: As mere backdrop.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This second ordinance will impose controls on the Mount Baker Community Club clubhouse, located at 2811 Mt. Rainier Drive South. And it was built in 1914. And I want to say thanks to the community members who came to my committee. Now, ten days ago, this landmarking will ensure the preservation of the site and the building's exterior, and it's believed to be associated in a very significant way with the economic heritage of the community in Mount Baker. So thank you for that. And we move adoption of 119529.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any comments that please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Macheda I. O'BRIEN All right. Pacheco. I so want I make sure I. Gonzalez Herbold, I was. President Herrell. All right. Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: To passenger assignment. Please read agenda item number five, the short title.
Speaker 2: Agenda item five cancel 119 530 Relating to historic preservation opposing controls upon the University of Washington Carrington Hall Committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Mount Baker Community Club Clubhouse, 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_05282019_Res 31889 | Speaker 0: Bill passed show sign it. Please read the first agenda item.
Speaker 5: From the amended agenda. New Agenda Item one Resolution 31889. In support of a woman's rights to bodily autonomy and the right to access a safe and legal abortion. And affirming the city's sales commitment to act consistently and proactively in support of those rights.
Speaker 0: Castro Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President I'd like to start by requesting that the council rule. I would like to request that the council rules be suspended to allow consideration of a substitute to Resolution 3189, which has been distributed to the Council and should have been at your seats when you arrived this afternoon.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded that we suspend the rules in order to consider this. And I think there was a. But a change that would suggest that we suspend the race. I certainly support that. All those in favor of suspending the rules, please. What I. I oppose the ayes have the rules are suspended. Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 3: Great. And so I'm going to speak to some of the changes that we made to Resolution 3189 that required us to go through that substitution process. We had an opportunity to share a draft of Resolution 31889 with representatives of both Nero, pro-choice and Planned Parenthood. Got some feedback and incorporated that feedback. So the substitution version that you have before you, which should be version D four, incorporates many of those changes. Primarily, what we did is change the recitals to to reflect a more gender inclusive aspect to the language of the resolution. So I want to thank our partners over at Planned Parenthood for their thoughtful addition and modifications to the underlying resolution. In essence, what this resolution does, and I know many of us were at the rally on Tuesday last week that was organized by Nero, pro-choice, Planned Parenthood and others. And I know we have representatives from natural pro-choice here in the audience. So thank you, ladies and everybody else for being with us. Really appreciate it. And you know, really what I think is important for us is to affirm our ongoing city's commitment to ensure that all of the investments that we're making and all of the policies that we're supporting, both here at home and abroad, are consistent with what I believe the vast majority of our constituents believe, which is that people deserve the right to have bodily autonomy and the right to access safe and legal abortions. A lot of us had an opportunity to speak at last Tuesday's rally and really take a strong, firm statement on how the city of Seattle will continue to stand in solidarity, not just with the people here seeking a right to bodily autonomy, but everywhere and anywhere in this country and in this world. And we are seeing a lot of incredibly scary laws coming out of other states that effectively ban safe and legal access to abortions. That is really, really dangerous. And we should make no we should make no mistake of it. It is a direct attack on the reproductive rights and on the movement for reproductive justice for all people. And I feel really strongly that this is a good use of our time and a important policy statement for us to make on the record, to continue to stand in solidarity with people across the country who aren't as fortunate to live in a state like Washington and in a city like Seattle that really has spent a considerable amount of time prioritizing the rights of bodily autonomy and to reproductive justice. And and I mentioned this morning at council briefing that one of the things that we do here at the city of Seattle is that we partner with King County Public Health to deliver services in the space of reproductive health. And so we do have a stake in the game here. If Roe versus Wade were to be overturned, that would create significant questions in terms of how we deliver public health services to people in our county and in our city in the space of reproductive health. So I feel really strongly that it's important for us to share our position with our congressional leaders and with our community that we will continue to stand firm in this in this movement for reproductive justice.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Councilman Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. And thank you so much for your leadership. The words that you have given us and all of just the stalwarts that you are both personally and over the years. I really respect that and I want to acknowledge one of the sentences here that I feel so strongly about, Councilmember Gonzales, for your leadership. And this statement is at the bottom of page two, where it says policymakers should instead focus on the maintenance and expansion of supportive services, whose aim is the reduction of unintended pregnancies, the minimization of sexual violence, and the success of all families by investing in comprehensive sex education, access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care, and quality , affordable child care. Now, this all makes so much sense to me. I am completely appalled that we have a president that is trying to roll back all of the gains that have been made. But if nothing else, if you want to stop a procedure that you feel strongly about, then for goodness sakes, make these kinds of investments in child care and in comprehensive contraception and make that available to everyone. Most recently, I was talking with someone from our public health department about larks, the long acting reversible contraceptives, how important this is for women. To have access to and talk about one of the best investments that we can make for people who need this kind of work. So I'm kind of kind of help and support. I also want to acknowledge Seattle Public Schools and our Department of Early Education. We put money in to support the Nova School. NOVA needed to have a and still does need to have a health care facility on site. And I want to recognize that we can be partners with Seattle Public Schools. All of you that are here, this is incredibly important. Of course, the the work that we're doing around Roe v Wade is critical. But I'm just like so strongly in support of making contraceptives available to everybody who needs them and to have that support . So thank you and thanks for your leadership on that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Bagshaw. Any other comments? Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilmember Gonzales, for bringing this forward and to the folks that they were all in Planned Parenthood for your commitment to this issue. We talked about this last week. We've talked about this the last year. We've talked about this the last few decades that women's health care is health care. And we need to stop passing out reproductive health care from actual health care, because comprehensive health care should include access to contraception and abortion services to make sure that health care is truly comprehensive. I think one important note from last week was that I got some pushback for using the word control, though this is about control, and we should have no doubt in our minds that those who are pushing the legislation that this resolution comments on in other cities and in other states, that this is about control and control over our body is control over our destiny and control over our economic stability, control over our self-determination. And those who are pushing this agenda to restrict our access to choice are, quite frankly, doing this at the very time when women are continuing to speak up, people who are identifying as female continue to speak up for our rights. And in many ways they can't stand it that we're speaking up, speaking truth to power, and then sitting in seats of power. So this should be a simple signal that we will not sit down, stay quiet or shut up. This is about health care. This is about public health. This is about justice. And I'm incredibly proud of our city. And for all of you who have been advancing this call for action for not only the last few years that we've seen more and more attacks against health care access, but also for the incredible tenacity that it's taken for decades of work, for us to continue to stand on the shoulders of those who've come before us to fight for access to comprehensive health care. One additional note that I'll make, as Councilmember Gonzales mentioned, our partnership with Public Health, Seattle King County, and as we continue to stand up and act as a sanctuary city here and a sanctuary area, part of what I think we will be called upon to do is provide sanctuary to providers. And I have no doubt that this city and this county stand ready to offer that sanctuary to individuals in need of health care, but also to the providers who we so desperately need as well. Looking forward to working with all of you as we continue to stand up for this basic human right and access to health care.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Mesquita, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And I also think, Councilmember Gonzales, for your leadership on this and thank my colleagues who have spoken on this. And it is maddening that we're that in 2019, we're still having the discussion and feels like we're losing ground. I'm honored to be part of a body that has fought for these rights for so long and stood up for them. And I want to concur with Councilmember Skate. His comments about this is about control. It is maddening to watch male dominated legislative bodies around the country spend an inordinate amount of time trying to pass legislation to control the rights and the ability of women to choose what they do with their body and while at the same time completely ignoring the other side of the equation and how health care for men plays out. And that hypocrisy has to stop and we need to get to a fair system. Unfortunately, the way things are in some states in our country and at the national level, we will likely be having these conversations for a while at City Council, but I'm grateful that they're amazing leaders here to do that work, including community members who continue to make sure that we understand the dynamic out there. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Castro and Brian Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I just want to add my thanks to Councilmember Oregon.
Speaker 3: It is not.
Speaker 5: My thanks to but my thanks for Councilmember Gonzalez's efforts in this area, as well as the efforts of community organizations like Planned Parenthood in their role. Every few years, we here on the council pass resolutions in support. Court of 1973, Roe versus Wade, and our stating our ongoing commitment to the principles in that in that ruling. And often we are attacked by observers of council activities as saying that we are taking symbolic gestures that don't have meaning. And the fact that we are here today and we are faced with these draconian laws being considered in states of our union, says to me that the actions and the vigilance of organizations like yours on these issues is not symbolic. It's incredibly meaningful. And it's so important that we keep our eyes on the ball and that we stand strong in favor of women's right to choose, and that we recognize that this is actually, in fact, all about control. So thank you so much for your work on these issues.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Okay. If I think the way we'll proceed is I'll actually move it. And then once it's moved in second and then I'll ask Councilwoman Gonzalez potentially a minute to substitute the version five for four. Okay. So I'm going to move the resolution as originally presented. Is there a second? Okay. And. So now all energy and emotion comes from Bazaar for a substitution.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I moved to amend resolution 3189 by substituting version five eight for version for a second. For sorry, it's just version four.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we're just voting on the motion to substitute version five, a four version for all those in favor of the substitution, please. What I, I opposed the ayes have it. So now we have a substituted version. We are a vote for customer anxiety. As you want to close debate, are we ready to vote?
Speaker 3: I would I just wanted to close with one point of information that occurred to me as folks were providing their comments in support of this resolution, which I really appreciate. And so one of the things that I wanted to point out is that even though we are seeing state legislatures across the state passing these draconian laws that would severely limit access to health care for certain people in those states, I also want to remind folks that here in the state of Washington, although those efforts have not been successful, they are still very much attempted every single year. And so this is an incredibly relevant issue for us as representatives of of of the most populated city in the state. And I will remind folks that just this last regular session right here in the state of Washington, there was the introduction of House Bill 2154 in the state legislature that would have, in effect, prohibited and banned abortions right here in our own state. And it would have also criminalized any provision of those services. And so, you know, it is very similar to the law that was just recently passed out of the Alabama state legislature. And so I want to make really clear that these attempts are are movements from the other side that are designed to chip away at the right to bodily autonomy. And certainly here in the state of Washington, we currently enjoy the privilege of being able to fight against those the successful passage of these draconian laws. But we have to continue to be vigilant and and to continue to take really strong positions. And as the city of Seattle, we are, I like to believe, a city of influence on our colleagues in the state legislature on these types of issues. And so I think it's absolutely important for us to continue to speak up and to also remember that we are not immune from these sentiments and this ideology in our very own state and in our own legislature. So, so really proud to be able to take a final vote on this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Okay. I'm going to call on the vote. Those in favor of adopting Resolution 31889 as amended. Please vote I. I oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution stopped. And Cheryl, sign it, actually. Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION in support of the right to bodily autonomy and the right to access a safe and legal abortion; and affirming The City of Seattle’s commitment to act consistently and proactively in support of those rights. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_Res 31890 | Speaker 0: Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: New agenda item two Resolution 31893. Affirming the city's commitment to fostering a welcoming community to protect all its residents and declaring its support for providing permanent protection and a path to citizenship for immigrants. Youth and Temporary Protected Status and deferred enforcement departure recipients for whom the United States is home concerning GONZALES.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This resolution is in support of legislation introduced in Congress that will create a legal pathway for Dreamers, as well as individuals who are currently eligible for Temporary Protected Status and deferred and Deferred Enforced Departure. The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 or H.R. six would put 2.5 million Dreamers and immigrants eligible for Temporary Protected Status or deferred enforced departure on a pathway to citizenship. Individuals who are eligible for protection under this bill have typically lived in the United States for much of their lives. The average dreamer came to the United States at the age of eight, while the average TPS or dead eligible person arrived as early as 1997. This is an issue with bipartisan support at the federal level and one that will transform the lives of millions. It will also be life changing for their families, and it will go far in helping to strengthen our communities when Dreamers and others can go from second class citizens to fulfilling to fully becoming an American. According to the Center for American Progress, who put out a fact sheet on the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 and its impact in Washington State in particular, there's a few data points that are highlighted by CAP. The first is that Washington is home to 52,200 immigrants who are eligible for protection under the Dream and Promise Act. These individuals live with 121,200 family members. Among those family members, 23,500 are U.S. born citizen children. Dreamers in Washington State who are eligible for protection under the bill arrived in the United States at the average age of eight years old. TPS and the eligible immigrants in Washington who would be eligible for protection under the American Dream and promise out to 2018 have on average lived in the United States since 1996. And when we look at the largest eligible communities under the American Dream and Promise Act in terms of our own numbers here in Washington State, Seattle has the fourth largest population of eligible communities across the state. And so we come in at about 4300 people right here in Seattle that would be eligible to find a pathway to citizenship if the if Congress adopts the Dream and Promise Act of 2019. So, again, I feel this is very much aligned with what our constituents expect from us and look forward to having the support of my colleagues.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Any other comments or questions before we vote on the proposed resolution? If not those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I those polls vote no. The more she cares resolution, todd than cheryl. Sign it. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales, for this.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s commitment to fostering a welcoming community that protects all its residents and declaring its support for providing permanent protection and a path to citizenship for immigrant youth and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) recipients for whom the United States is home. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_Res 31888 | Speaker 5: From the regular agenda. Agenda item one The Report of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas Resolution 31888 amending Resolution 318 57. Providing conceptual approval of a significant structure term permit to Seattle Arena Company LLC to include the construction of permanent attention to tiebacks in portions of Thomas Street, east of First Avenue, north and west of Second Avenue North, and the long term occupation of those permanent attention to tiebacks and the right of way to enable the renovation of Key Arena at Seattle Center. Can we recommend the resolution be adopted as amended?
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I did want to mention that Councilmember Mosquito had a prearranged meeting that requires a conflict at this point on an agenda. So.
Speaker 1: So what does he have there?
Speaker 0: So she doesn't need a formal excuse, but she's she had to go. Okay. So I will move to formally excuse councilmember skater from the remainder of the meetings there. Second. All those in favor of schools against mosquitoes say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Okay, so I'll now proceed with the resolution in front of us. So, as you may recall, we did form a select committee on civic arenas and dealing with the key Arena Construction Council member, whereas in her leadership she did the lion's share of it. She was kind enough to allow me to chair one of these small, insignificant issues on tiebacks, but nonetheless, I chaired it. Thank you for that. But this resolution basically gives conceptual approval of what's called a significant structured term permit to the Seattle Arena Company to construct, maintain and operate at a permanent tension tieback required to operate a tunnel under crawl under, under an across Thomas Street. Basically, the arena company that's in charge of the construction revise its construction plans include these permanent tension tiebacks and they'll remain in Thomas Street. They're necessary for the sort of the feasibility of the construction project. They also during the meeting gave us a status report on the project and everything is going as planned and they are very pleased, as are the central staff members of ours and our department is very pleased with how that construction project is going. So basically if this resolution today is adopted, as that will continue the work going down that road and they will draft an ordinance that will grant final approval of the term permit, and we'll describe their proposed conditions of approval at that point, which shall include the annual fee and the maintenance obligations and the indemnification provisions and the insurance and the bond requirements. So again, this resolution is as necessary to allow continued work. Any questions on the resolution? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries resolutions that then show sign it. Thank you very much. Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION amending Resolution 31857 providing conceptual approval of a Significant Structure Term Permit to Seattle Arena Company, LLC to include the construction of permanent tensioned tie-backs in portions of Thomas Street, east of 1st Avenue North and west of 2nd Avenue North, and the long-term occupation of these permanent tensioned tie-backs in the right-of-way to enable the renovation of KeyArena at the Seattle Center. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_Res 31886 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee. Agenda Item two Resolution 31886 Revising certain general rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council. Amending Attachment one of Resolution 31806 Chapter 11 Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. So this is an amendment to the Chapter 11 of our Rules, Section B3, which basically adds a disruption provision. During the public comment section of our public hearings or any time within the chambers and basically adds a new section relating to abusive and harassing behavior, much of which can also be described as criminal in nature. But certainly we don't condone that in council chambers during public hearing, before a public hearing or after a public hearing. So these changes are allowed to address that issue. We circulated these changes to several bodies that sort of watch our rules to make sure that they are not only constitutionally sound but consistent with good, sound public policy and looking at chamber decorum and we've had no objections. So that's what this resolution does. It adds that section to talk about the prohibition of threatening and assault like behavior. Any questions on this resolution? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote. I, i those opposed vote. No. The motion carries resolution. Died in the chair was silent. Please read items three through 11 and all of them. Please read the short title.
Speaker 7: Three is actually separate.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So you read them separately with the short title for all of them, but certainly read them all individually. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION revising certain General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council; amending Attachment 1 of Resolution 31806, Chapter XI. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_CB 119521 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and show sign it. The next agenda item.
Speaker 5: Agenda item four cancel 119 521. Excepting various deeds for street or rally purposes, committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: That's why. I'm Brian.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Harrell. I'm going to speak to the next six items together. I can speak to them and then read them in one at a time or whatever is best for you.
Speaker 0: So why don't you speak to them all? And then I'll have the clerk go back and read. Each one individual will vote on them individually.
Speaker 7: So these next six items, folks, there are six separate ordinances, each excepting various deeds or easements for 20 parcels. So the six bills combined, it's about 120 property or easements changes. We've talked about this few times, but for the public, I'll just state that oftentimes in a new development or redevelopment, there's minor changes to property lines that need to be made. Where the city will will acquire additional right away or other easements for access. These parcels are often very small, maybe a couple of square feet to allow the proper width of a driveway or sidewalk or other easement or access to sometimes utilities in those types of things. There's a requirement in our charter that whenever we do something with property, it has to come to city council. But on these small things, we let the department accumulate 20 at a time to put them in a bill because of the pace of construction in our city. We were in the last few years have been seeing multiple ordinances at a time with 20 and this is a rather big one, but all fairly straightforward.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's number. That's all of them. But. Well, I'll just. You've already read number four into the record will vote on that and you could just read the other ones. And so. Okay. Any comments on agenda item number, section number six, I guess, but I can't see Bill 119521. Any other comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas. O'Brien High. Pacheco I so want I make sure. Gonzalez I. Herbold, I. President Harrell All right. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed show sign it. And then Madam Clerk, just read the item in. And if you need to make comments about an individual individual one just sort of speak up. Otherwise I'm just going to vote on them since Councilmember O'Brien described them all. Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 5: Agenda item five Council Bill 119522 Accepting 20 limited purposes. Easements for public sidewalks, street or Alley Street excuse me. Street and alley turn around. And Traffic Signal Purposes Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Any questions? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill or else.
Speaker 1: O'Brien Pacheco.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Want to make sure. Gonzalez I. Herbold, I. President Arroyo high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and chair of Senate Judiciary. The next one.
Speaker 5: Agenda item six counts about 119 523. Accepting various deeds for street or alley purposes. Can we recommend the bill pass?
Speaker 0: Okay. If there are no questions, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez O'Brien. Pacheco, I. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez Herbold, I. President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passenger assignment. Please read the next one.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 524 Accepting 20 limited purposes easements for public sidewalk, alley or street and alley turnaround purposes committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: There are no questions. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez O'Brien. Pacheco. I saw on fascia. Hi. Gonzales I herbold. Hi. President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and chair of Senate. Please read the next one.
Speaker 5: Agenda item eight Countable 119 525. Accepting various deeds for street or alley purposes, the committee recommends the bill pass through.
Speaker 0: No questions. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez O'Brien I Pacheco.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: So on i Bexar Gonzalez I Herbold President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next one.
Speaker 5: Agenda item nine Accountable 119 526 Accepting various deeds for street your alley purposes committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: The no questions. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I O'Brien I Pacheco.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Sergeant I Bagshaw Gonzalez I Herbold I President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passenger assignment. Please read the next one.
Speaker 5: Constable Constable 119 526 excepting various deeds for street or alley purposes, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: If there are no questions, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I O'Brien, I Pacheco.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Major Gonzalez, i herbold II President Harrell II it in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed. Sure. Sign it. Please be the next one. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE accepting various deeds for street or alley purposes; laying off, opening, widening, extending, and establishing portions of rights-of-way; placing the real property conveyed by said deeds 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 alley in Block 85, D. T. Denny’s Home Addition to the City of Seattle; the alley in Block J, Bell’s 5th Addition to the City of Seattle; the alley in Block 34, Second Addition to the Town of Seattle as laid off by the Heirs of Sarah A. Bell (deceased) (Commonly known as Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s 2nd Addition to the City of Seattle); the alley in Block 4, Pettit’s University Addition to the City of Seattle; the alley in Block 106, David T. Denny’s First Addition to North Seattle; the alley in Block 12, North Seattle; the alley in Block 4, South Park; the alley in Block “G,” 4th Addn to the City of Seattle as laid off by Wm. N. Bell; the alley in Block 5, Denny-Fuhrman Addition to the City of Seattle; North 135th Str | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_CB 119527 | Speaker 5: Constable 119 527 vacating the alley and block 19 areas of Sara Bell's second addition in the block, bounded by Sixth Avenue, Blanchard Street, Seventh Avenue, Leonard Street and the Petitioner ACORN Development LLC Committee recommends the Bell Pass.
Speaker 7: Brian, thank you very much, colleagues. This is the final action on Ali vacation that we consensually approved a number of years ago. This is one of the three of the first three Amazon blocks in the Denny Triangle area. This particular block is the block with the spheres on it. As you may recall, a number of years ago, we did an Ali vacation for each of those three blocks. We combined public benefit and included accessible open space and an additional streetcar for the South Lake Union, plus operating money for that. Once the conceptual approval is done, the projects move forward with construction according to those designs. When the project is completed and this project has been complete for a couple of years, they eventually come back to the city to confirm that they did in fact build the project as designed, including the public benefits. We have checked that off and the recommendation to committee was to support this. So this is the second of the two blocks that we're finalizing the revocation on the third parcel is projected to open up for occupancy sometime in the next couple of months, and we will likely see that either by the end of this year or possibly early next year.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Brian. Any questions or comments now? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Maurice O'Brien.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: Pacheco.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: So want I make sure. Gonzalez I Herbold President Harrell high ed in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed sure sign please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 11 and spoke on 195 12 relating to the city's 2019 budget authorizing acceptance of funding from non city sources. Committee recommends the bill passes amended. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE vacating the alley in Block 19, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition, in the block bounded by 6th Avenue, Blanchard Street, 7th Avenue, and Lenora Street, on the petition of Acorn Development LLC (Clerk File 312261). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_CB 119512 | Speaker 5: Agenda item 11 and spoke on 195 12 relating to the city's 2019 budget authorizing acceptance of funding from non city sources. Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Amend Brian.
Speaker 7: Thank you for the public just let folks know the city goes through our budget process every year and we approve spending authority for the things that are in our budget. But in addition to that, throughout the year the Department of Transportation and other departments will go out to try to get grant funding for projects, specifically in the transportation area. We're often competing for federal grants, state grants or local or regional grants, and including from the Puget Sound Regional Council. As those grants come in, it requires it come back to council for us to amend the budget to approve that they accept and can spend that money. And so that's what this ordinance does. It's typically good news when we hear from when we hear from our start on this thing that we have been successful at winning other funding for projects that are already on our capital project list. I will say that in addition to accepting grants, how we do traditionally we did make an amendment in committee to this which is fairly unique. There is a project on I think that's going to be east marginal way that we are looking to break into two separate projects. One part of the heavy haul corridor and then also a bike facility on the that would be the east side of east marginal way. And there is a chance that we may get some additional funding from Puget Sound Regional Council as that project is currently on the top of their contingent list. And so in addition to approving grants that we have already won and received, we're also we also amended this legislation to offer conditional approval to ask not to accept that grant if in fact, they do win that. And we would likely know in the next few weeks if that comes through. I mentioned that just because it's a project that for folks commuting by bicycle across the West Seattle Bridge into downtown Seattle, it's it's a major route and it is not a very friendly route. There's a lot of heavy traffic on that. The lanes are the road is not in great shape because of the traffic. Folks are often trying to get around people and the delineation for both bicyclists and cars and the big rigs that are down there is complex and it feels very unsafe. So even moving forward is just a portion of this project which this would do for a successful will allow for a much safer experience for folks bicycling, you know, also I believe improve the condition for all roadway users because there will be a clear delineation, delineation where cars and big rigs are supposed to be and where bicyclists are supposed to be. So hope coming fingers crossed that something will happen. A PSC will that funding will come through and we may get to final design later this year and construction shortly after.
Speaker 0: Very good thing because from Brian, any questions or comments on this bill? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Flores O'Brien I. Pacheco I want I make sure. Gonzalez I. Herbold, I. President Harrell, I. It in favor and in post.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 12 Clerk File 314 380 Petition at Trinity Trail LLC for the vacation portion Northeast 40th Street Line between 24th Avenue, Northeast and the Perkiomen Trail. The committee recommends that the petition be granted as conditioned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City’s 2019 Budget; authorizing acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Seattle Department of Transportation and Seattle Center to accept specified grants and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, including the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation in various budget control levels, and from various funds in the 2019 Budget; adding new projects to the 2019-2024 CIP; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2019-2024 CIP; making cash transfers between the General Fund and the Transportation Fund; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_CF 314380 | Speaker 5: Agenda item 12 Clerk File 314 380 Petition at Trinity Trail LLC for the vacation portion Northeast 40th Street Line between 24th Avenue, Northeast and the Perkiomen Trail. The committee recommends that the petition be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Castro O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Thanks. We're back to street vacations. This one is the conceptual approval. So we heard from the project, which is just to the let's see, just to the east of the Berkman Trail, just east of University of Washington campus, and to the west of University Village. The there is a street there, 24th Avenue Northeast. That is a dead end at that ends at the trail. And it previously accessed apartment buildings that are being cleared for this new project, which is a few hundred units of private student housing to go in there. The street was is no longer necessary. It would only access this project. And so they are asking to vacate that and paying the fee for that. And as part of the public benefit there, we're going to produce a new connection between the Berkman Trail and and the University Village. I'm sorry, I mentioned 24th Avenue Northeast. The streamer vacating is for Northeast 48th Street. This would access 24th Avenue Northeast for folks that are familiar with the Berkman Trail up there, the trails heading north. This is where there's a number of overpasses that cross over to to check out pavilion signs that Alaska Council president of Alaska Airlines cartoon court.
Speaker 0: Known as the Heck Edmonds Pavilion.
Speaker 7: And then to the parking lots to the further north of that. As you get further north on the Berkman Trail, if you're if you're running her by calling or whatever, you can kind of sense that the university village is off to your right there. But there's really no good way to get there. There's a little footpath that winds down through the dirt there and then you wait around to the north. What this would do is we create a very visible and open graded trail. It would be ADA accessible that has all the way down to 24th Avenue Northeast. There's another project that will be making improvements in 24th Avenue Northeast to make a much safer pedestrian crossing over to University Village. In addition to providing that new public trail access, they'll be providing a bicycle repair station like we see. It's a number of places and also a water bottle refilling station there. In addition to some seating. Actually, it seems like a really great public benefit for this location. I really appreciate the proponents coming up with some creative ideas. And of course, thanks to the folks at our start, in particular Beverly Barnette, for her work on helping them guide them through the process and making sure that the project came up with public benefits that are in the interest of the whole city. This is the conceptual approval. So this is where we essentially give our thumbs up. It's just a clerk file. But we will be committing to grant the ultimate vacation likely in a couple of years when the project is complete. And they've built this according to these plans.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments on this Clark file? Those in favor of granting the petition as conditions. Please vote I. I would oppose vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as condition chair was signed the conditions of the City Council approved. Please read the next gen item.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 13 Appointment 1353 Appointment of Brice Colton as Members Cell Transit Advisory Board for Term two August 2nd, 2020. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of Trinity Trailside, LLC, for the vacation of a portion of Northeast 48th Street lying between 24th Avenue Northeast and the Burke Gilman Trail. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05202019_CF 314425 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Clerk file 314425. Remand of the approval granted through clerk file 3143564a contract rezone application of 17th and Greenwood Avenue, LLC C Terry Zone An approximate 12,000 188 square foot site located at 7009 Greenwood Avenue North from neighborhood commercial two with a 40 foot height limit to neighborhood commercial two with a 55 foot height limit and a mandatory housing affordability suffix. The committee recommends the council grant the application as conditioned and the report of City Council of the City Council Council Bill 119511 an ordinance relating to land use and zoning affirming the reason approved ordinance 125640 and accepting and amending property use and development agreement as condition as a condition of the zone approval introduced May six, 2019.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Brian.
Speaker 4: Thank you, colleagues. If you recall, last fall, we we had a process where we went through this and made an approval of the contract free zone that was appealed to King County Superior Court. King County Superior Court remanded it for to address the issue of the transition that came to the committee about a month ago. In the committee, we had 5 minutes of what's the right word, testimony, I guess, from both sides, and then made a recommendation. That recommendation was giving direction to staff on how to proceed. They revised the the puta, the property use development agreement and we have those now before us today. There's the clerk file, which is the findings, conclusions and decision, and I'll talk to that first. And then the second item is an ordinance which brings in the the powder highlight just on page three of the clerk file, the what the Superior Court directed us to do pursuant to R.S. W 36.7 3.140. The contract rezoning, approval and Property Use and Development Agreement are hereby remanded to the City Council to address compliance with SM c23 .34.009 Deed two, which requires that a gradual transition in height and scale and level of activity between zones shall be provided unless major physical buffers, as described in subsection, are present in the area where the commercial lot 287710-4100 shares the rear boundary line with the single family residential lot at 7010 Palatine Avenue North. We discussed a couple of options in committee and ultimately chose to set aside the rear lot of the lot defined there as the buffer in the findings of fact for the this click file. I want to read the second one in particular. It says The rear yard of the single family residential lot at 7010, Palatine Avenue North can be modified to provide a landscaped open space that could be integrated into the landscaped open space on single family residential lot. And then it lists a lot number, which I believe is the lot immediately to the south of it. And then in our conclusions we add a conclusion section. This is also on page four that says a landscaped open space in the rear yard of the single family residential lot of 7010 Palatine Avenue North provides a physical open space buffer between land use, between land uses and allows for a gradual transition between the height and scale of the neighborhood commercial zone on either side of the property and the single family zone on the west side of the property. That's about all I have to say on this. If folks have questions, I'm more than happy to move forward. I should say that we'll need to substitute version two of the file for version one, so maybe I'll go ahead and move the substitution.
Speaker 0: Now let's take the substitution first. That's the easiest one. So go ahead and formally move the substitution. I guess I could take that as your form of motion informal movement there a second. It's been moved to second and you make the substitution as. Stated by Councilmember O'Brien. This is a subscription only all those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So the bill is substituted. Cosmo O'Brien Did you have any more words to say on the clerk file or the bill itself?
Speaker 4: I do not.
Speaker 0: Read any questions for many of our colleagues on this matter. Okay. CHEERING Then I want to thank everyone for testifying and thank you for doing the committee work on this and listening testimony, I think on more than one occasion. So that being said, we will move to to vote those in favor of granting the application as condition. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council on the Council Bill. I will move it past council. Bill 11951. I'm sorry. Let's go. Councilmember Brian is pointing in. That means hold.
Speaker 4: Up. I believe the puta as amended. I'm looking at kettle here. Do I need to just substitute the updated puter as the attachment? So I will move to update to amend the ordinance to update the attached to the with the one that has been completed and in front of us in our packet today.
Speaker 0: Just so I'm clear before it's second and you're basically amending the council bill 119511, correct? Correct. Okay. Their second. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment adding the puta two counts. Bill 119511. Say I, I oppose the ayes have it. And now we have an amended council. Bill, any further words to say on this one? Okay. At this point I'll move to Kath to pass counts bill 119511 as amended. All those in favor say please call the roll on the passenger bill. Let's do it that way.
Speaker 1: Herbold, I. Or as Mr. O'Brien. Hi, Jacob. I Sergeant Gonzalez. Hi, President Harrell. I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed. I'm sure I'll sign it. Okay. We're going to take items. Just one sec. Let me get my bearings here. Let's do take the next. Items individually. The appointments. Okay. Thank you. | Clerk File (CF) | Remand of the Approval Granted through CF 314356 for a Contract Rezone: Application of 70th & Greenwood Ave, LLC to rezone an approximately 12,188 square foot site located at 7009 Greenwood Avenue North from Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 40-foot height limit (NC2-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 55-foot height limit and M Mandatory Housing Affordability suffix (NC2-55 (M)) (Project No. 3023260; Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05132019_CB 119509 | Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the first agenda item.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities New Americans in Education Committee Agenda Item one Capsule 119509 relating to a mobile integrated health pilot. Many Ordinance 125 724, which adopted the 2018 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, lifting a proviso in red flag confirming search and paradoxically recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Castro and Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council president. I'm going to go ahead and describe the bill that full council will consider today. And then I will hand it over to Councilmember Bagshaw, who is the prime sponsor of this effort. Council Bill 119509 amends the 2019 adopted budget by lifting a proviso on $475,000 held in finance general and appropriating those funds to the Seattle Fire Department for the purpose of implementing the Mobile Integrated Health Unit Pilot Program. These funds were originally proviso and held in Finance General Reserve in accordance with Green Sheet 13. Dash 40. Dash eight. Dash three. This green. She was sponsored by Councilmember Bagshaw, who has been advocating for the piloting of this program for several years. And for that we really want to thank her. Councilmember Bagshaw Green. She directed the executive to develop and report back to the Council on the implementation plan for this proposed pilot program. And last week, on May 8th, my committee received a briefing on that proposed plan. This council bill allows the Seattle Fire Department to operationalize the Mobile Integrated Health Unit by the third quarter of this year, 2019. The unit will be comprised of two firefighter EMTs and one social worker or mental health professional. The unit will operate primarily in the urban core and is intended to reduce the low acuity call volume and preserve it preserve at 911 services while better meeting the needs of 911 callers. The executive and the Seattle Fire Department studied similar models in other jurisdictions, both locally and nationally, and coordinated with the Seattle Police Department, the Human Services Department, and the Seattle King County Public Health Agency in developing the implementation plan for this pilot program. The bill was amended in my committee to add additional layers to data collection and reporting requirements. The base bill came already with requirements around data collection, evaluation and reporting. I advance through committee a particular amendment that would ensure that the Seattle Fire Department, as part of the overall evaluation, would develop evaluate additional measures that might help the city determine if the pilot program, as we take it to scale, should be modified to include not supplant firefighters and EMTs or the social workers or behavioral health professionals , but to add to those services by including a registered nurse, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who could provide on site immediate care in the event that that is needed. These measures would evaluate whether a low acuity patient could have benefited from in-field care, as I just mentioned, and treatment, including suturing of minor wounds, the prescribing of pain , relief medication and onsite psychosocial assessment. This in-field treatment model exists in L.A., as well as Kent Washington. And our central staff analyst Greg Doss has communicated with US jurisdictions regarding their operations, which is why I advanced that particular moment. It's a wait and see study, evaluate and see how and if the pilot program could be modified in the future. Again, not by replacing the firefighter EMTs and the social worker mental health professional that will already be on the unit. But to add to the suite of services that those individuals might already be providing, so that is the amended. Version of the bill that is in front of us for consideration at committee and with. I was really excited to have the committee unanimously recommend that the City Council adopt Council Bill 119509 as amended.
Speaker 0: Great concern, Bexar.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. I really appreciated just what you had to say. Councilmember Herbold, I appreciated your write up. I saw the email that you had sent. And I really want to acknowledge Chief Scoggins and John Ehrenfeld from the downtown local offices of our Seattle Fire Department, and recognize what the mayor has done as well, pulling together not only the fire department, but police department, our Human Services Department, and also working closely with public health and, of course, with our budget office to make sure we stay within budget. But this is such an important step in the right direction, as Councilmember Gonzales has stated. We reach out to other cities, not just L.A., but Mesa, Arizona, Colorado Springs, Colorado, to to learn and our own Kent Washington have done projects like this. We know that the kinds of complaints that our firefighters routinely respond to are not the high acuity ones for which they have been trained, such as a fire or a traffic accident or the kinds of things where it requires fast action and quick decision making. Many of the complaints, in fact, I believe that the fire chief had said a good 40% of the responses that they're sent out to with ladder trucks, sometimes two ladder trucks, sometimes two ladder trucks, plus an ambulance, a medic, one plus police officers are really for people that have perhaps their minor injury or illness, like it's really more of a social issue. They're feeling cold or feeling lonely, they're feeling abandoned. They don't have the support around them that they need, but they certainly don't need 12 people responding to a911 call. So this pilot proposal, it's what we started off calling a more mobile integrated health unit. Now we're calling it Health One. I love that title because something we all can remember, it does build on national and regional examples, but it's also capitalizing on our fire department's core strengths with having immediate response, flexible decision making. They'll be adaptable on site. It's really a team based work, and it's going to provide improved patient experience for the individuals who are on our sidewalks and calling or inside a facility and needing help. But it also will provide some support for our fire department that they're not going to have to respond with eight people, and certainly the taxpayers are going to have an opportunity to see their money used wisely as well. So I think that this is a triple win. I'm very pleased that we've gotten there. I'm glad we had $475,000 that we put in the budget last year. But also we are coordinating with Ally Franklin in our community connections in Northgate. And I also want to acknowledge Sue McLaughlin McLaughlin and the work that her group is doing around healthier here. All this connects and I'm very thankful and appreciative of the amended language going forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you Casper and bake casserole and Gonzales.
Speaker 4: I think you. Council president and thank you Councilman Bagshaw for those remarks and sort of the broader framing besides the granular detail of the actual legislation. I failed to mention one small thing, which is that the proviso is on $475,000 in our budget. We have heard from the executive, both in committee and and in media reports that the total cost of this initial pilot project is actually $500,000. Again, only $475,000 is subject to a proviso in committee. Chief Scoggins mentioned to us that the delta of $25,000 is coming from surplus in the fire department, so there will not be a gap. And wanted to make sure that councilmembers understood that that that there is a disparity in terms of the 475 versus the $500,000 cost that has been estimated by the executive. But it's our understanding that that $25,000 difference will be achievable for the department without a huge inconvenience to them or the general fund.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any other questions or comments before we vote? Customer Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to also put this.
Speaker 4: In an even broader concept context of resources for the fire department. Generally, the need to respond to emergency calls is a big driver of their budget, and historically best practices were that when they when the response is. As to individual units replaced 3500 a year, they would look at adding additional resources, whereas what we're seeing now is that individual units have four, five, six, 7000 annual responses for individual units. And this again, this this effort, I think, is within the context of trying to address that large volume of emergency responses that they're dealing with.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thanks for the comments. I think we're ready to proceed. Okay. No further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez Herbal. Hi, Suarez. O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 2: PACHECO All right.
Speaker 1: So on High President Harrell.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show senate. Please read the next agenda. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to a Mobile Integrated Health pilot; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04292019_CB 119502 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Customer Turbo. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 4: Agenda item to cancel 119502 relating to the Cedar River Municipal Watershed, amending the secondary use policies adopted by Ordinance 114 632 to provide for the limited application of the herbicide and as a power to treat invasive knotweed species. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Because consumer herbal.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So this is an ordinance related to the application of the herbicide superior to treat treat the invasive knotweed in the Cedar River watershed. This ordinance would allow for three additional years through 2021 of limited spraying of a massive pier with the goal of eradicating knotweed. The legislation would amend a 1989 ordinance that banned herbicide use in the Cedar River watershed and extended the authority described in ordinances from each 2010, 2013 and 2015. So each of those three years, we have amended the 1989 ordinance to extend the authority to allow very limited application of this herbicide, and has appeared in order specifically and only to treat knotweed. Knotweed poses the greatest risk of any invasive plant in the watershed. The plant takes over habitats near water, displacing native plant species, degrading habitat for salmon and other fish, and threatening water quality by destabilizing stream banks. Herbicide has declined. Herbicide use has declined every year since 2011, and the amount used to treat knotweed throughout the watershed reached a low of 2.4 ounces per acre treated in 2018. This is a 95% reduction in the use of of this of this herbicide. And it's also the Seattle Public Utilities has gone to great lengths to adjust its application practices, specifically to minimize potential impacts to pollinators.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? Catherine and Brian.
Speaker 2: Just a quick comment. Thanks for your work on this council, Councilmember Herbold. I will be clear. I'm frustrated that we are still allowing this, but my frustration lies solely with the persistence of knotweed. I was part of the works under the original piece of legislation in 2010 to create this exemption. And I will say that I am convinced that Wspu has done some amazing work to continue to reduce the footprint and the amount of pesticides herbicides are using. And it's an amazingly invasive, pervasive, persistent beast to this knotweed. And it may be a number of years until we can say that they're confident that it is completely gone and will not come back. But I also want to say that this is part of an overall strategy all the way down to see the river, not just in the watershed, the scale of public utility where we get our water from, but all the way down to the lowlands. And King County and other partners have been working collaboratively to remove that along the bank because it does transfer by water, too. So I'm happy to support this, and I think Espey is doing a really great job in a really difficult situation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer and brand. Customer.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw Councilmember Herbold, without asking for you to give me any numbers, do we know whether or not the acreage has been reduced greatly? And can you talk a little bit about, if you know, how much left that spew is focused on?
Speaker 5: So they are anticipating being able to move more into a maintenance stage. But the the amount of area that they have to cover has greatly reduced over the years that they've been doing this application. And as I mentioned before, they are very careful to not apply them as a peer on knotweed plans when they're flowering, specifically to address folks concerns about the impact on on pollinators. And when I say they're anticipating being able to move into sort of more of a a maintenance approach there, they although their goal is to eradicate knotweed, they are still anticipating that even in a maintenance approach, they are still going to have to go out and spray because and it will be spraying more to deal with the the buds that come out of the ground while they're still there are still routes. They've tried doing manual eradication of knotweed, but just because of how invasive it is and how it travels, the manual eradication doesn't isn't effective. But at some point they feel that the root system is going to degrade so much that that the the the threat of larger plants is going to be greatly reduced or continue to be greatly reduced.
Speaker 2: And my recollection from the presentation was it was about a 95% reduction also in the in the acres of where it is. So and I believe they haven't seen any any new places where it's popped up, sort of still dealing with the same areas that they have. And they're just going back there on a regular basis, checking it. And when little pieces pop up, they're going to treat them until they win the battle over the energy left in the root system injections. I don't know if that's true. They used to do injections where they would go break the plants. Here they're doing they're now switched to spray. And I forget I don't know if that's the reality of the maturity of the plants they're dealing with is much different. Or if it's a different technology or that's evolved.
Speaker 5: I'm not sure.
Speaker 0: Okay. Everything you need to know about knotweed. Here you go. Okay. If there's no further questions or comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: So on I make sure Gonzalez Herbold, I macheda I.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN All right. PACHECO Hi.
Speaker 1: President. Harrell Hi, Aiden.
Speaker 0: Favorite unopposed bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 4: Agenda items four and five appointments of Alice Kurihara Day as member of Pioneer Square Preservation Board for Term two March 1st, 2021. Excuse me, excuse me. The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Cancel 119 493 relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the first quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance, designating positions as exempt from | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Cedar River Municipal Watershed; amending the Secondary Use Policies, adopted by Ordinance 114632, to provide for the limited application of the herbicide imazapyr to treat invasive knotweed species. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04292019_CB 119493 | Speaker 4: Agenda items four and five appointments of Alice Kurihara Day as member of Pioneer Square Preservation Board for Term two March 1st, 2021. Excuse me, excuse me. The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Cancel 119 493 relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the first quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance, designating positions as exempt from the Civil Service authorizing payment of the employee's 2019 premium share into the Washington State, paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program and ratifying, confirming certain prior acts all by two thirds vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: It's from Beck.
Speaker 1: Show. Thank you very much. So we've got two subjects in this ordinance. And the first is designating three positions as exempt from the civil service system. Two in our information. Technology Department and the third in the Human Resources Department. And this is typical of the quarterly report. There's just these three that will be made exempt and there's no other changes. The second section in this ordinance authorizes payment completely separate from the first items, which is that the city will pay into the Washington State Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program, the employees premium share beginning January 1st of this year and up to December 31st, 2019. So those separate subjects are both incorporated in this ordinance and committee recommends do pass.
Speaker 0: Very good. Is there any questions or comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Saline i bagshaw high Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: High Herbold High.
Speaker 1: Mosquera I O'Brien.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 1: Pacheco High President Harrell High eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed Cheryl Senate District Items four and five.
Speaker 4: Agenda items four and five appointment at 1307 and 1308 Appointment of Elise Kurihara Day as member of Pioneer Square Preservation Board for Term two March 1st, 2021 and appointment Audrey Horton Morton Waite as member of Pioneer Square Preservation Board for term to March 1st, 2022, the committee recommends the appointment to be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the First Quarter 2019 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from the civil service system; authorizing payment of the employee’s 2019 premium share into the Washington State paid family and medical leave insurance program; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04292019_CB 119472 | Speaker 4: The report at the Sustainability in Transportation Committee Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 119 472 Relating to land use and zoning of many sections 23.2 2.0 62. 23.20 4.0 4520 3.40 9.0. 1920 3.50 4.0 30 and 23.84 8.0 ten of the same as for code adding a new requirement relating to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Customer Brian.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Very excited about this. This is something that's been in the works for over a year to create this EV readiness ordinance. This legislation will require that all new construction in the city meet certain standards for making sure that any parking spaces that are already going to be provided in that building or even in a lot if it's not a structured parking, provide a certain level of readiness for adapting to electric vehicles. The main standard for residential is that in single family homes or in small multifamily developments like townhomes or real houses would require that each parking spot have a EV ready outlet, ready to go. And then as we get larger structures where you have structured parking that shared spaces eventually phases to about 20% of the are actually exactly 20% of the spaces need to be electric vehicle ready meaning that there is wire pulled there is panel capacity everything ready to go to hook up essentially an electric vehicle charging station relatively easily . As I mentioned in this morning's meeting, the technology now exists so that as people put in charging stations, you put in a charging station per outlet. Charging stations are capable of balancing loads and charging up to five vehicles. Procession. So a policy that has 20% of those spaces EV ready could effectively through that technology be 100% of the spaces could be EVs charging simultaneously over the course of a night. It's really I think it's some of the best legislation in the country that builds on what other jurisdictions have done and takes the strongest parts of various cities and combines it in this. I'm sure that in the coming months and years, other jurisdictions will leapfrog us to the next level. But I'm proud to say that I think Seattle will be at the moment, at the leading edge of requirements for electric vehicle residents and new construction.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comes from Brian. Any questions or comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi, Sarah. O'Brien. Hi, Chico.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: President Herrell high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Let's move to adoption of other resolutions. And can you read? Will you read? All three resolutions will vote on them separately, just into the record. They're all interrelated. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.22.062, 23.24.045, 23.49.019, 23.54.030, and 23.84A.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; adding new requirements related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04292019_Res 31883 | Speaker 4: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda item 17 through 19 Resolution 31883 relating to committee structure and membership meeting times and duties of the Standing Committees of the Seattle City Council for 2018 19 and superseding Resolution 31859 Resolution 3188 for designee the monthly pro president pro tem of the City Council of the City of Seattle for 2018 through 2019 and superseding Resolution 31790 Resolution 31885 relating to the Seattle City Councilmember participation for 2018 and 2019 on King County Committees, Regional Committee, State Committees and City of Seattle Committees and Superseding Resolution 317 82.
Speaker 0: Very good. As I described to you this morning, these three resolutions basically revolve around the appointment of Councilmember Abel Pacheco to council position number four, the first resolution number 17. Basically, these are standing committee structure with Councilmember Pacheco's name in the place of former Councilmember Robert Rob Johnson. He's now chair of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee, Vice Chair of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee and a member of the Gender Equity Safe Communities New Americans in Education Committee and is also an alternate on the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Resolution Number eight. 18 Reestablishes the pro tem schedule, designating Councilmember Pacheco as president pro tem for the month of October and November 19. Resolution Number 19 updates the assignments to King County Committees and regional communities and state committees. I'll just name a few that Councilmember Pacheco replaces Councilmember Johnson on the Growth Management Planning Council of King County, the Growth Management Planning Council Executive Committee, as well as the Puget Sound Regional Council, Executive Board and other boards. I just want list them all. Councilmember Whereas I replaces, according to this resolution, former councilman Rob Johnson, the following committees, the Sound Transit Board and the Sound Transit Elected Leadership Group. So those are your three sort of transition resolutions describing the change. Are there any questions or comments? Customer in particular, you'd like to say a few words.
Speaker 2: I just want to take a brief moment and address my colleagues. I'm sure all of you remember how crazy the first few days on the council were, but I've been impressed by everyone in my first week here at City Hall. I'm inspired by the high level of civil service displayed by both my council colleagues and all those who worked behind the scenes to make sure the legislative body doesn't miss a beat. I want to give a big shout out to the central staffers, our clerk's office, and the different department directors I've had a chance to meet with so far. You've all been very generous with your time and imparting your knowledge as well with Bring Me Up to Speed so quickly during my onboarding. It's felt a bit like drinking from a fire hose at times, and I want to make sure I say thanks. I'm excited to serve the constituents of D4 and to work with all of you and the mayor's office and to identify areas of common ground to benefit this beautiful city we all love and go home. I look forward to working on the close. I look forward to working closely with all of you to identify places where we can make a meaningful impact. As I assume former Council Member Johnson's committee appointments, it's an honor to serve the Emerald City.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Pacheco. Any other comments or concerns or questions before we take a vote on the resolutions? Okay. So those in favor of adopting Resolution 31883. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution adopt and show a sign that those in favor of adopting resolution 31884. Please say I I those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopt and show sign it. And those in favor of adopting resolution 31885. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution dropped. And, Cheryl, sign it. Just one moment. You. Okay. Other business. The City Council will now consider an administrative appeal to an exclusion issued to Avram. Avram. Alex Zimmerman on April 18th, 2019. The question is, shall the decision to exclude this individual from council meetings through May 14th, 2019 be sustained? | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to committee structure, membership, meeting times, and duties of the standing committees of the Seattle City Council for 2018 and 2019; and superseding Resolution 31859. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04222019_Res 31878 | Speaker 5: The report of the City Council. Agenda Item one Resolution 31878. A resolution providing an honorary designation of 72nd Avenue Northwest between Northwest 56th and Northwest 57th streets as Rob Madsen Way introduced day April 15th, 2019.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Council President, colleagues. I'm excited to pass this designations today. This would designate the 22nd Avenue between Northwest 56th and Northwest 57th. So that's the block between or on the west side of the Ballard branch of the Seattle Library as Rob Madsen Way. Rob passed away last year. He retired in 2013 from the city of Seattle, having worked for the city for 42 years in 1973 and or Mayor Wes Holman. He was appointed the the director of the Ballard Little City Hall at the time as head of the Ballard Neighborhood Service Center and founder of the Ballard District Council. Rob continued his work, connecting residents of Ballard with each other in the city services through most of his career. In later years, Rob was often referred to as the mayor of Ballard. By introducing this resolution, Mayor Durkan, along with his family and friends, intends to honor Rob with this honorary street station. There will be a celebration as the signs go up in the neighborhood at a date to be named in the future. But Rob was someone I didn't get to work with a whole lot, but someone who I know is respected by just about everyone in the community. Amazing person.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper and Brian. Any other comments or questions on this resolution? Actually my honor in supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Bryan, for bringing the full council's attention. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote. I, i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolutions adopted, and Cher will sign it. I don't know. He had some fans out there and given a longer speech. Okay, please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of 22nd Avenue NW between NW 56th and NW 57th Streets as “Rob Mattson Way.” | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04222019_CB 119491 | Speaker 5: The report of a Select Committee on the Library Levy Agenda Item five Council Bill 119491 An ordinance relating to regular property taxes providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city and an election to be held on August six, 2019. A proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under Chapter 84.55 RTW and authorize the city to levy additional taxes for up to seven years for the purpose of sustaining investments in library. The committee recommends a bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President So you know, this has been a quite a process. I'm glad we're finally here. In 2012, Salem voters approved access to critical educational literacy resources for every resident by passing a seven year $120 million library levy levy funds concluded by the end of this year. Hence the creation of the Select Committee of the Library Levy to possess a proposed renewal to continue services. I was I am proud and honored to have chaired this committee regarding one of the city's most valuable institutions and assets, our public libraries. As a committee, we closely examine the mayor's proposal, which slated to continue baseline services while keeping up with the demands of a growing city sale. Public libraries invested in priorities and values set by our constituents, all of our constituents, residents across the city of Seattle and users of the library who have said which include I'm sorry, the for are the open hours and access collections, technology, online services, safety and maintenance maintenance meaning that we are protected from earthquakes. Because you all know I can't say that word. Seismic. Seismic libraries are the People's University. They are the most public of institutions since our country's founding. The library, the 21st century, provides more, more services than ever. And these past decades, they are neighborhood centers that give greater access to learning books like. Tronox Media Equipment Conference Space Lecture Series and much, much more, including library time for little ones, for reading and for English as a second language. At its at its core, libraries have been serving millions of people and transforming lives. To that end, build a stronger, more democratic society. I hope that we continue to look at libraries as we do with other institutions as evolve. Last week, the committee approved three amendments that strengthen the proposal in addition to the mayor's proposal. Number one, I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for her amendment to the expansion of play and learn from 0 to 5 years old, 0 to 5 years for education. Second, I want to thank Councilmember O'Brien for his amendment for the proposal, the additional open hours at 26 libraries. And finally, I want to thank Councilmember Mosquito, who worked very closely with our office and adding the expanded community resource specialist program for use. Thank all of you for working with our office and the mayor's office to move this important levy forward. The total committee has presented from the mayor's proposal is an estimated $219 million. The Select Committee and Library Levy recommended that the City Council Pass Council Bill 119491 as amended and hopefully or I hope that this will be on the August six, 2019 ballot. I again want to thank central staff. That would be Asher for doing a phenomenal job in briefing us and drafting the amendments and again in my office, who worked closely not only with the executive but with Asher and put together much of the framework and the analysis. And of course, I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this very important levy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Walls. Any other comments or questions on this legislation? Customer Beck Show.
Speaker 2: Thank you. President Herald. Councilmember Suarez. Thank you for your leadership on this. Just as in some of the previous items, I appreciate very much your organization. Getting that information to us early and keeping the notebooks updated. Marcellus Turner, thank you for being here. We really appreciate your leadership in this as well. I don't know whether our library foundation or friends of the library are here, but having that kind of a robust community engagement on the front end is really helpful. So I'm fully supportive of this. I think it's a good package, one that is tempered but still addresses the needs of the People's University. Council President.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilman. Whereas I just.
Speaker 2: Want to add one thing. I want to thank Marcellus versus I'm sorry, I did not see you sitting out there, but thank you so much and your staff for getting all the material back to us. And I know we pushed a lot of deadlines on you and asked you for tons of information, statistics and trends and more information. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Okay for the comments. Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Madam Chair, for who helped shepherd this lamprey levy through the process. It was a great to be able to work with Chair Juarez and the Select Committee and all of my colleagues to help strengthen the levy package that we're bringing to voters this August. I want to specifically thank the folks on the front line, our librarians and the folks who are working in the libraries who came up with some of the strategies that we floated during this last few weeks. I'm very, very honored to have been able to work with you to get into this levy, the ability to make sure that we have community service officers who are serving our youth across the city in more locations, especially for those who are self-identifying as homeless. Making sure that we're connecting them to housing services, health services and educational and job opportunities. We heard from folks who came to testify that sometimes our libraries are unintentionally being used as data centers. And while the reality is we need to continue to scale up our housing and shelter services, the librarians, the folks who are working on the front line, you all are providing tremendous service to the community at large. And we want to make sure that there's community service officers there to help make sure that we're connecting those who are self-identifying as being without shelter into appropriate shelter and services. So I see this as a huge compliment to the work that you all are already doing and an additional need that was identified by folks on the front line. I look forward to working with the council and the Budget Chair as we think about some of the other opportunities going forward around child care and greater security for our folks who are both patrons and workers at the library. So thank you and thanks to your team and to the board for all that you do and to our frontline staff. Thank you to our suarez for your work with us on this issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman shader. And I'll just say a few parting words. Thank you again for your leadership council and worse thing for shepherding this through and you and your board, your various boards and volunteers and employees. You know, the library has always been very personal to me. My my mother's, I think you well know, spent most of her career at the library and retired from the library. And so I just think it's so critical for this to pass. And so the sometimes difficult conversations we had looking at the finances of this, of what we're trying to do, were good conversations because at the end of the day, our library system is so much more than just brick and mortar. I mean, particularly given all of the issues that are facing our underserved communities, are youth people on fixed income. The libraries are just one of our most treasured gems. And so I think the hard work will begin after this to make sure that everyone understands that. And so it's going to be my pleasure and actually supporting this legislation, I think all of the hard work that went into it. So. So having said that, please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien by Sergeant Bagshaw i. Gonzalez Herbold. I was I macheda I President Harrell I favor favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show sign it gladly. Okay. Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 119494 An Ordinance relating to King County Conservation Features Levy proceeds. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City at an election to be held on August 6, 2019, a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under chapter 84.55 RCW and authorize the City to levy additional taxes for up to seven years for the purpose of sustaining investments in Library operating hours, collections, technology, and maintenance while expanding access to opportunity through additional hours, Library materials, and technology and undertaking seismic retrofits of three Library facilities; authorizing creation of a new fund; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04222019_CB 119494 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 119494 An Ordinance relating to King County Conservation Features Levy proceeds. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Council member US.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President The proposed ordinance will significantly streamline the conservation future levy the CFL, the Interlocal Agreement Amendment Process. This upgraded process will allow faster reimbursement for Seattle's CFL projects that have been awarded funding by the King County Council. The Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities discuss these items. Last week. Last Wednesday, voted out of committee and we recommend that city council pass this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further questions or comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: So aren't I make sure I. GONZALEZ Hi. Herbold Hi, Warriors. Mascara Right. President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passenger will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds; authorizing the Mayor to amend the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between The City of Seattle and King County authorized by City of Seattle Ordinance 114978 to allow for the acceptance of Conservation Futures Levy funds without City Council approval; and authorizing the use of a new amendment template for future amendments to that Agreement. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04222019_CB 119497 | Speaker 0: The bill passenger will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119497 An ordinance related to monitoring and inspecting vacant buildings for compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Building Maintenance Code. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Just really briefly, this ordinance would implement a new set of rules for inspecting vacant buildings. But I'm going to hand over to my colleague, Councilmember Herbold, who did a lot of work on this.
Speaker 0: As a member. Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. So this is legislation that I sponsored post budget cycle last year. During the budget, the council acted on an amendment to the existing mandatory I'm sorry, not mandatory, a vacant building monitoring program. And these recommendations came out of a couple of years process that council had engaged in. We both hired or funded the hiring of a staff person at SDC to make some recommendations for how to improve the monitoring of the vacant building monitoring program. And we also indicated in a prior piece of legislation that we intended to.
Speaker 4: Make these changes in.
Speaker 2: Last year's budget cycle because of the concerns that the executive had about those changes. We agreed to have them not go into effect until the beginning of June, and we addressed some of the concerns that they had prior to it going in effect. So the changes to the program will modify fees for buildings found to meet the requirements of the code to better reflect the cost of the inspection to the Department of Construction and inspections. Fees would change from $171 to to 61. Again, this is intended to be a fee neutral program. The fees associated with inspecting these buildings are intended to pay for the inspections themselves. It also allows buildings to fall off of the monitoring list. In other words, no longer be in enrolled in the monitoring program when there have been three consecutive inspections without violation. And then finally, the amendments allow the city to enroll buildings after one violation. If that violation is not remedied by the compliance date established in the note of violation, or if there are subsequent violations within 365 days from the date of the first notice. Again, just this sort of big picture, the reason why this is really important is we've seen how much damage can be done to a.
Speaker 4: Vacant building that is.
Speaker 2: Not being maintained.
Speaker 4: In a way that is.
Speaker 2: Consistent with the city's existing vacant building code. Those are requirements that really are focused on boarding up the property so that.
Speaker 4: People cannot.
Speaker 2: Access it.
Speaker 4: And so that, frankly, they can't be.
Speaker 2: Magnets for.
Speaker 4: For crime and other.
Speaker 2: Unlawful activity. We found through our review of the existing program that police and fire are often having to go out to these properties hundreds of times.
Speaker 4: And that is.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 4: Is being paid.
Speaker 2: For with public tax dollars instead of.
Speaker 4: Being paid for.
Speaker 2: By the.
Speaker 4: The property.
Speaker 2: Owners who are choosing to keep these.
Speaker 4: Buildings vacant rather than.
Speaker 2: Either maintaining them as occupied buildings for people to.
Speaker 4: Live in or.
Speaker 2: Moving forward with.
Speaker 4: Their development projects, because many of these properties.
Speaker 2: Are within the development, redevelopment process and cycle.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Are there any other questions or comments on this bill? Customer Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 4: And I might need it later on because I just pulled a bunch of water on my keyboard. Oops. I just wanted to say that I was one of the councilmembers during the budget process that expressed some reservations and concerns about this particular program as it was being proposed, and wanting to make sure that whatever approach the city took was one that was going to be responsive to the realities around the implementation of the program and really want to appreciate the work that Councilmember Herbold has done as their prime sponsor on this bill to make sure that those the flexibility is going to continue to exist within the program, but also making sure that we're managing community neighbors expectations about the city's obligations to respond to what are real, real concerns within the community. So I really do appreciate your your hard work over a long period of time to be responsive to those what I think were reasonable concerns around implementation. And I am excited to be at a place now where I am supportive of this legislation.
Speaker 0: Those comments, any other questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzalez, I Herbold. Hi, Suarez. Let's get to President Harrell. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed. And, Cheryl, sign it. Please read the next agenda item into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to monitoring and inspecting vacant buildings for compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Building Maintenance Code; amending Section 22.900F.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Ordinance 125704 and Ordinance 125727 to modify monitoring fees and monitoring program requirements. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04222019_Res 31879 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item 16 Resolution 31879a resolution supporting a safe and responsive workplace in the city of Seattle's Legislative Department and providing guidance to update Legislative Department policies, including Policy 100 on workplace expectations. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Speaker 7: Customer ROSQUETA Thank you very much, Mr. President. Over the last year and a half since arriving and before that, even when working at the Washington State Labor Council, the AFL-CIO, I've been constantly working to try to make sure that we're creating safe workplaces. That means not just safe from hazards and injury, but also safe from intimidation, harassment and retaliation. I'm really excited that this council and the city at large has been engaged in a conversation to respond to the MeToo movement and to make sure that those who are speaking up and speaking their truth to power, that those who are sharing their experiences of retaliation or intimidation or even assault and harassment are having their words met with action. Today, I'm excited to move for forward the resolution that looks internal to our department, in the Legislative Department and our smaller affiliated departments. Externally, from the executive branch, we have made a commitment to supporting policy changes within our legislative branch, to changing our policy, to updating our training, to making sure that we are learning from the stories directly from frontline workers and incorporating anti-harassment and prevention training on the front end. I've been excited to participate and learn from the folks on the interdepartmental task force, as we've talked about ways in which we can change the city's response to creating an inclusive and welcoming workplace. And now, as we move forward with looking at our own department policies, we have such an incredible opportunity to build on that, work on the leadership of our department leaders and making sure that we have a responsive resolution. This incorporates the voice of city workers on the front line from silence breakers, from change team makers and from labor unions. We asked them directly what they would like to see in terms of amending our policies and procedures so that we can not only ensure that those who are getting elected adhere to these requirements for a safe and respectful workplace, but that we're also making sure that our staff we're more responsive and creating a safe place for people to come and share comments here. And that as electeds and staff, that we have a decorum that we expect of our communication with the public at large as well. I'm excited to make sure that the folks who've engaged with us from the very beginning of this resolution will continue to have a role in helping us shape what the policy changes will be going forward, and that our workplace resolution is about setting the table, making sure that those who've had direct experiences of intimidation or harassment are helping us understand better what we can do to update our personnel policies. We're reaffirming our commitment today that staff should be treated with respect by members of the public and by any bosses and middle management, also making sure that we're stepping up and creating not just a place for one time advice to be given, but an ongoing work group so that we can continue to advise us as electeds and our department leaders on policies and practices. I want to thank you, Mr. President, for your support on this. I want to thank Monica Simmons for her support and work with our office on this as well, and specifically to the frontline workers who provided feedback and ideas. We again here in public office are hoping to lead by example. As public employers. We want to show across the city what it means to stand up and be responsive and good employers, high road employers, as we respond to the MeToo movement. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We'd love to have the full council support as we move this resolution forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Maceda. Any questions or comments from any of the colleagues on the dais? The Casper customer. I just want to thank you for for your leadership and for working all the the the constituents and the issues and making sure that we are leading by example. And certainly your commitment as a as a leader, we should all follow. So thank you very much for your leadership. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee.
Speaker 2: On.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119 480 An Ordinance relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION supporting a safe and responsive workplace in The City of Seattle’s Legislative Department and providing guidance to update Legislative Department Policies, including POL-LD-100 on Workplace Expectations. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04222019_CB 119480 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119 480 An Ordinance relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy.
Speaker 4: Catherine Gonzalez Council President Harrell, if I may request that the clerk also read Agenda Items 18 and 19 into the record. I'd like to speak to all three of them at once.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Please do that.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 18 Resolution 31881a resolution relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy approving a partnership agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle College District and Agenda Item 19 Resolution 31882a resolution relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy approving a partnership between the City of Seattle and the Seattle School District . Number one, the committee recommends the resolutions be approved.
Speaker 2: Adopted.
Speaker 0: We will vote on them individually, of course. Councilmember Gonzalez, lead us through these.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Harrell I spoke to all three of these pieces of legislation during council briefing today. I won't rehash all of the remarks that I made this morning, since I know that I spent quite some time going through all of the details of the amended version of the Council, Bill and I walked us through the bare components of the partnership agreements with our partners. I do just want to say that the bill, the underlying bill, which was originally transmitted by the mayor's office, the city council in this particular version of the bill is it includes nine different amendments from committee work in my committee. All all really centered around making sure that the implementation and evaluation plan, as presented in this Council Bill is in alignment with the the priorities of the City Council as adopted both in the ordinance and in the resolution that we all considered last year before the levy went to two voters for their consideration in the fall. And again, I won't belabor those points. I went through them pretty thoroughly this morning during a council briefing, but I'm very excited about having the council bill in front of us at this juncture, which will effectively provide appropriations to the Department of Education and Early Learning in order for Diehl to be able to begin the process of contracting out with partners, to begin the process of investing taxpayer dollars in the various areas of education, both from preschool to the K-through-12 system. And, of course, by establishing a sustainable revenue stream for the Seattle Promise Program, which will provide two free years of college for high school graduates of our public schools. And so Council Bill 119480 would accomplish all of those things consistent with the levy as adopted and approved by the voters. And of course, our Levy Oversight Committee also considered the bill and the resolutions that I'm about to talk to and recommends that the city council approve all of the above. The two resolutions that we will consider 3181 and 31882. Our resolutions that would approve the partnership agreements between Seattle School District Number one and the Seattle College District. These are our first two identified partners as it relates to the K through 12 Investments and the Seattle Promise Program. And again, the FAP Levy Oversight Committee reviewed those partnership agreements and approved or recommends that the City Council adopt those resolutions. I will also note that as it relates to the Seattle school district there, the Seattle School Board did review and consider the partnership agreements and they approved those partnership that partnership agreement last week during their Seattle school board meeting. I will just end by saying a few thank you's. There are some folks in the audience today and some folks who couldn't be here today. But I do want to thank some folks before we take a final vote. On advancing the implementation and evaluation plan and the accompanying partnership agreements. I'd like to thank Chancellor Pan from the Seattle Colleges. Thank you so much for being with us this afternoon. And Dr. Sheila Edwards Lang also here from Seattle Colleges. Thank you so much to both of you for your ongoing partnership and making sure that we got the model just right and that we're centering the Seattle Promise program on on those students who have the least amount of access and opportunity to pursue a college degree or a certification for a career after after graduating from high school . So really thank you. Thank you to both of you for all of the work that you've been doing us and for your ongoing commitment to making college accessible and affordable for as many students as as we possibly can. So thank you both. I also wanted to thank Superintendent Denise Juneau and her staff over at the Seattle Public School District, number one for all of their ongoing partnership and cooperation in structuring our education investments in a way that will really, really wrap around a student who has additional needs to be able to learn and and be successful in their academics. I've really enjoyed getting to know and work with Superintendent Juneau on these really critically important issues and have just been really honored to be able to share that space with her and to really see her center. The academic performance of our students that are furthest away from educational justice within the Seattle Public School System. So thank you all for your partnership. Equal thanks. Go out to the Seattle School Board and their members really appreciate their insight as we continue to develop these investments. And again, making sure that these partnership agreements are workable for the Seattle school district is really, really important to making sure that the investments are being leveraged as as efficiently and as strongly as possible as they continue to look at their budget as well. And then I would also like to thank the Department Education Early Learning director Dwayne Chappelle and all of his staff for all of their really hard work on shepherding this along. Over the last a year and a half or so, we've actually all collectively have been working on the families and Education, Preschool and Promise Levy proposal and now implementation evaluation plan since 2017. So it has been a long road and I'm really excited to be able to be at this juncture when we can finally give our final vote of approval to the Department of Education and Early Learning to begin deploying the dollars and investing in our kids through our partners. So thank you so much to Director Chappelle, who just happened to walk in. It's like he heard me and to all of his staff for really being so committed to to this work and ultimately to the kids of our city. So thank you all so much. I also want to thank Mayor Jenny Durkan for her cooperation and her steadfast commitment to working with my office and with City Council on advancing these really important areas of investment. Especially want to thank Chris Delano from her office, who's here with us and serves as a representative on the FAP Levy Oversight Committee. Thank you all so much for your ongoing partnership in and wanting to continue to work in a spirit of collaboration to make sure we give our kids the best opportunity they can have. And then lastly in my office, wanted to thank V Nguyen, who really worked very hard and diligently on shepherding through a lot of my policy priorities in this implementation and evaluation plan and the overall levy as a whole. I also want to thank her for shepherding through a lot of her own priorities in this levy to continue to invest in English language learners and diversifying our teachers and educators within the Seattle Public School System. And in really making sure that we are continuously centering our work on those students who again, are furthest away from opportunity. And then, last but not least, wanted to thank our former colleague, Rob Johnson, who was my co-chair on the Select Committee on Education and really worked closely with me and my staff and my office to just continue to champion the needs of kids, particularly in the K through 12 system. So he is missed because he's not here with us in in in the in the physical sense. But his legacy will continue to live on in the work that he did on this particular levy. So I want to give him a shout out also for all of his partnership on the Families and Education Preschool Levy, including this implementation evaluation plan. I think the only thing he didn't get to do was take a final vote in committee. So I know he's watching. So I want to thank him. I thank him for that. And. And with that being said, I would like to move for the council to adopt Council Bill 119480.
Speaker 0: It doesn't have to be moved because.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, then I won't move it, but I'll just encourage you all to support it.
Speaker 0: Very good. Well done. Any other comments or questions? Customer mosquito.
Speaker 7: Well, I was ready to second that because I'm very excited about the work that you've done. And I just want to congratulate you. Councilmember Gonzalez, you mentioned you and your co-chair have been working on this for years. And as we talked about it in your committee, there was a round of applause and murmurs as people had talked about how long they had been waiting for this to happen. So just a huge amount of congratulations to you and everything that you got accomplished in this levy. You had a good document to start with and you made it even better. Thank you for all the work that you did to include race and social justice, especially trying to think about alternative career pathways, good living wage jobs, making sure that we had a focus on our earliest learners. You mention a legacy as we think about our former colleague, Councilmember Johnson, and I think you should also give yourself a pat on the back for what did that for you, for the legacy that you've also included in this legislation. I also want to thank our colleagues, and especially you as the chair, for your support for the amendment that we were able to work in to make sure that our public dollars are being used to really support our institutions that are adhering to labor laws and a commitment to labor harmony. The amendment that we got in, as you read this morning, item number eight ensures that our city dollars makes ensure that our city dollars are providing a baseline protection for the labor policies that the city has already passed and that we don't further erode labor protections or collective worker voice. And I just think that this is really important to lift up, especially in the era of the Janice and the attacks on labor nationally, that we continue in this city to stand up and show what it means to be a strong Union City, to support workers across the board, whether or not they have a collective bargaining agreement or not. And I applaud you for including this in there. We were really excited to make sure that our amendment was included because we wanted to make sure that we we applaud the fact that when we have higher unionization rates, we see higher retention, less turnover, less stress and improved health outcomes. And all of these things are good for our kiddos and our city at large. I also think that it's important that we continue to applaud the good work that our public schools are doing just by recognizing the hard task that you all have in front of you to to raise our youngest learners all the way through now the Seattle Promise Program. So thank you for everything that you do and to your frontline staff for helping to raise and grow our kiddos in the in this community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember skater Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Carol. This resolution adopts the implementation plan detailing how the funding from the education levy will be distributed to schools and programs. When the mayor first sent it to council, my office was concerned to see that the mayor explicitly put in the implementation plan that funding might go to charter schools in Seattle. I do not support charter schools as an institution. They are cynically used to disempower teachers and their unions. They remove democratic community oversight of schools and they drain resources from the already deeply underfunded district schools. Ever since labor movements have won public education, they have been relentless, profit driven forces trying to privatize it. In the nineties, these forces tried to push for vouchers that would take public education funds and put them towards private schools. When they failed to win support for that. They started pushing for charter schools, which in many states do not. In Washington state are operated by for profit companies with devastating impacts for both children and our teachers unions. The Waltons, the owners of Walmart and the Gates Foundation. Both are examples of institutions that pour money into charter schools, even in cases where charter schools may be well run. They siphon off funding from the district schools, hurting the education of other students. And of course, we know the most adversely affected are very low income and poverty stricken communities with no accountability. Seattle's charter schools are nonprofit, which is good, but they are all run by charter school chains out of California. I hope these problems are considered when funding awards are made so that Seattle Public Schools does not lose out. I will vote in favor of this implement implementation plan because I support the overwhelming majority of it. But I just wanted to state for the record that I do not support funds being taken from our public schools to fund charter schools. Ultimately, educators are charter schools will need to unionize to push back against the privatization and austerity agenda of the so-called school reformers. And it is encouraging that charter school teachers in cities like Chicago are starting to move towards this. As a member of an educator Union American Federation of Teachers Local 1789. I know firsthand how important unions are. Adjunct professors will tell you. You know, I join professors who cobble together a living by teaching courses, and different universities will tell you that they are paid more in introductions where they have a union than in universities where they don't. Even though the universities don't have unions and may actually have larger resources simply because when you have a union, you have better wages and benefits. If only educators at Seattle charter schools would want to unionize. I would urge you to contact the Seattle Educators Union or my office so that we can make sure that all charter schools are unionized and then ultimately brought into the public purview. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Swan. There's no further comments. I'll say a few words and then I'll ask Councilman Bizarre if she'd like to close. I just want to thank Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Gonzalez basically for doing their job so well, that this is a time where the Legislative Department will do a very deep dove, almost very granular in its approach to make sure that the investments are exactly where our priorities are. And that's not easy. Work is thorough work. And I want to thank you and commend you for the level of detail that this legislation presents. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Gonzales, would you like to see any closing remarks before we vote?
Speaker 4: Just really quickly, I want to thank Councilmember and want for her remarks. I think it is important for us as an institution, an agency that continues to invest in education, to make sure that we are centering the children that we are investing in at the center of that work. And and I also think that our investments in the area of educator diversity really signals to potential partners that those are the things that we really value. So even though charter schools will be allowed to apply for levy dollars, it doesn't mean that they're guaranteed funding. And it is my expectation, I think the city council's expectation that deal will be taking our priorities very seriously, seriously in evaluating any applications for funding of public dollars in the space of education. So it is not it is very common for us to invest in nonprofit organizations. You know, our Seattle preschool promise I'm sorry, Seattle Preschool program relies on nonprofit agencies that are not public entities to deliver preschool and early learning opportunities. We also have a similar partnership with Seattle school districts in terms of co-locating preschool classrooms with K through 12 rooms. And again, I think my expectation and this council's expectation is that we will continue to work. With partners in the area of education that really fundamentally understand and have a strong commitment to race and social justice, equity and to educational justice, and at the same time, with partners who are willing to commit to transparency, accountability, reporting, data sharing and also to their workforce. We know that when we invest in our educators and when our educators look like the students they are serving, we do well in terms of reducing the opportunity and achievement gap for our students of color in particular. And and I have full faith in deal that they will figure out how to tread the line of complying with the law of the land while also continuing to center our investments on the students who need the most investment in order to be able to succeed in school and and beyond. And there is some work that is left to be done through the implementation and evaluation plan. For example, figuring out how to connect students who are graduating from charter schools, figuring out how to connect them to the opportunity of Seattle. Promise is something that still needs to be done. Again, those are dollars that go directly to and opportunities that go directly to students. And that's a good example of when I think this council would be supportive in general of making sure that those partnerships exist for purposes of connecting with the actual student and not punishing the student for having gone through a charter school process but could still benefit from Seattle promise. And the last thing that I'll say that I learned in terms of Council President's comments around the granular details in this space. One of the things I found most astonishing is when you dig into the demographics of who is attending the three charter schools in Seattle, it is a predominantly majority demographic of students, of color, of students and children who are on free and reduced lunch. And I think that's exactly the kind of population we want to be helping in the future. So my hope is that we've been able to thread the needle well enough here to be able to comply with state law while at the same time continuing to center our work on the students who need it the most. And, and I'm looking forward to continuing to, to do that hard work with deal and with community partners to make sure that we continue to get it right. So with that being said, thank you so much. Really appreciate my colleagues engagement on this, somewhat wonky but very important policy area and really look forward to continuing this work in my committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. I think we're ready to vote. We're going to vote separately on three different piece of legislation. We'll take the bill. First, please call the role on the passage of Bill. Constable 119480.
Speaker 2: O'Brien I want I make sure I.
Speaker 4: Gonzalez I.
Speaker 2: Herbold, i. Whereas to by president narrow high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show sign it. We're going to vote on resolution 31881. Those in favor of adopting resolution 31881. Please vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopt and share with Senate and those in favor of adopting resolution 3188 to please vote. I. I. There's little work on those eyes. Please, Lord, I. There you go. Now we're now in rhythm. Those vote no. The motion carries a resolution of Adobe and the chair will sign it. Just one moment. I need a just a quick second.
Speaker 4: Can we applaud? Yes, we can. Yay! I was standing between the end and identifying a new colleague. So thank you so much for allowing me an extended period of commentary on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Filibustering and I may have to do that as well. Okay. We will move to the adoption of other resolutions. I don't believe we have any resolutions for introduction. Adoptions will move to other business, which of course is our council vacancy position. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy; approving an implementation and evaluation plan as required by Ordinance 125604; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget; changing appropriations to the Department of Education and Early Learning and various budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04152019_CB 119487 | Speaker 0: That. So we are doing it. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution. Resolution is adopted. Chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.
Speaker 2: The Report The Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item to cancel 119 47 to public accommodations requiring persons owning or managing a place of public accommodations to activate closed captioning on television receivers and adding a new Chapter 14.05 to this out of respect, the committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Member Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Like to first get the amendment before the council and so Amendment One adds a new section two in re numbers. The remaining sections numbers accordingly. Thank you. Speaking to the amendment, the amendment itself is one that my staff worked with the Office of Civil Rights to specifically focus that we get more detail in the form of a report on the racial equity impact within the 180 day outreach and education period, specifically detailing the impact of enforcement of this ordinance on immigrant and or refugee run businesses. The law itself goes into effect 30 days after the mayor signs, but the enforcement of the law does not go into effect for 180 days . And so this amendment, as it's written, allows us to get that information before SOCOM begins enforcement. And just as a as a reminder, the enforcement mechanism and approach that OCR is going to be using for this ordinance is very similar to that used for the all gender restroom ordinance. So it's much more of a an education and outreach approach, seeking compliance rather than seeking violence, the issuance of violations and fines.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you for that. This is just the amendment only. Are there any comments on the amendments articulated by Councilor Herbold to a vote on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote i i those opposed vote no or nay. The nos have the ayes have it. So we have an a minute piece of legislation. We would like to describe the base legislation as a minute customer.
Speaker 6: Well, please. Thank you. So this ordinance basically puts into law what is currently arguably a already a required accommodation as it relates specifically to to a public accommodation obligation under the ADA. And so what this does is that it shifts the onus, which currently exists in the ADA, where people have to request an accommodation. And instead what it does is it shifts that onus from the individual in the deaf or hearing loss community to request closed captioning as the public accommodation, to instead have the expectation that it be provided in a in advance. And this is again the objective is to shift norms so that people are better able to engage in public life. And so the ordinance itself is modeled in some ways better than similar ordinances in other jurisdictions. Some cities, some states have similar similar ordinances. Portland's Law Passed in 2015. Ann Arbor, Michigan's ordinance took effect in 2017. And there's a similar bill in Rhode Island. And basically what it would require is it would require that in public places that the closed captioning on a television be basically turned on. One of the things I learned through deliberations on this bill is TVs all have the ability to simply turn on the closed captioning with their remote. So this is a simple and easy thing for for businesses to do. The background on this is that the Commission with People with Disabilities adopted a resolution last November to support this ordinance. They identified it as a a priority in their work plan with the intent, again, to ensure full participation and inclusion for members of the hearing loss and deaf community to take place in public activities. The again, the Office of Civil Rights will be the enforcement mechanism, and enforcement will consist of a report of violation and an investigation notification to the business and a request for a written response. And the again, the model is very much replicating that of the all gender bathroom ordinance. The the other benefits of of this bill are there are also benefits not just to the hearing loss community, but folks who are have English as a second language and the really appreciated the opportunity to work with the business community in introducing some amendments that that they had requested. One requested amendment was to create some exceptions for programing that. Is not that is already exempt under state and federal law. Another amendment clarifies that if multiple televisions are for sale in a public area, that at least one of each model must have closed captioning turned on. And, you know, one of the again, one of the things that I've learned through through working with the disabilities community on this is that the, the, the need to have to request a public accommodation really has a psychological impact on groups that have been historically marginalized. And some of some of those studies have been some some of that that experience has been captured in studies that are academic studies and that point to the fact that internalized bias and inferiority inhibit the ability for people to be confident and take advantage of opportunities and activities available for the rest of the public. And I know that we here in Seattle want to make sure that we're removing those barriers whenever we can. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very much. Any further comments on the legislation as described by Councilmember Herbold? Okay. If not, please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda O'Brien High School. John Major Gonzalez Herbold. I was President Harrell high eight in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item into the record show title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to public accommodations; requiring persons owning or managing a place of public accommodations to activate closed captioning on television receivers; and adding a new Chapter 14.05 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04152019_CB 119490 | Speaker 0: Unopposed bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item into the record show title.
Speaker 2: The Report The Finance Name Prince Committee Agenda Item three Cancel 1194 980 Relating to the Central Waterfront Improvement Program Authorized Director of the Office of Waterfront and Civic Projects to execute an agreement with the Washington State Ferry System for the construction of facilities to support electrification of ferry vessels at the Common Ferry Terminal Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Let's bring back.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. This will affect our 2019 waterfront budget and it authorizes our director of waterfront and civic projects US, Marshall Foster, to accept non city funds for capital costs and expenses relating to our waterfront. There will be an opportunity for the office to enter into a contract with Washington State Ferries, to construct electrical improvements, to support hybrid ferries on the common dock, and also adds external funding and the tune of $2 million from Washington around design funding and $10 million for the public benefit on the pine corridor. And that's part of the money that comes from the convention center. And it also updates are adopted 2019 2024. Copy to be consistent with the revised local improvement district committee recommends do pass.
Speaker 0: Any comments or questions for us.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. First of all, I think Councilmember Bagshaw, my vice chair, my committee, I've only been working on some of these issues for the last three years, but she's been working on it for almost a decade. I echo Councilmember Bagshaw comments regarding the well, in fact, the information ordinance and the waterfront agreement were authorized by city council this past January. So that is nothing new. This ordinance confirms those stipulations. Thank you to the Office of Waterfront. Dori, thank you for being here, for working diligently and thoroughly through each phase so we can soon connect our new waterfront to the rest of Seattle for everyone to enjoy. And for hopefully the first time in many, many decades, we will be reconnected to the Salish Sea. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember words for those comments. Okay. If there are no further comments, please call the rule on the passage of the bill whatsoever.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN Sergeant Major Gonzalez I verbal high whereas President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and chair of the Senate. We're going to move to other business. And I believe Councilmember Gonzalez has something she'd like to say on the other business part of the agenda.
Speaker 2: I do. So this morning at council briefing, I mentioned during our briefing from the Office of Governmental Relations that we were working on a letter in support of the Senate Bill 5163, which would modify existing wrongful death statutes to eliminate the ban on nonresident parents so that they can bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves for the loss of an adult child. So it's both for nonresident parents, but also for just current resident parents to be able to have that equitable access to our court system in the event that they have an adult child who does not have any survivors, beneficiary, legal beneficiaries under the law to be able to file suit and have the loss of their children and the loss of the parent child relationship be acknowledged within our legal system. So this has been a priority of mine for a long time, since I was a trial lawyer and continues to be a really important legislative fix in my mind, to correct a lot of wrongs in our existing system that really do treat nonresident parents, meaning immigrants who live in the country or live outside of this country. If they have a child who is an adult who is killed as a result of a negligent action, they are legally prohibited currently from bringing a lawsuit and holding the entity that is responsible for that death, accountable for their actions in causing causing that death. And likewise, same thing applies for for resident parents who currently live in the country. So super important, really large equity issue. And this letter would signal to our state legislators and the House of Representatives that we support a clean bill on Senate Bill 5163 without two amendments that would, if passed, those amendments would actually water down the bill and and not correct these fundamental issues that I've just described. So I'm going to pass this letter around consistent with council rules, since we have to sign letters by the full council in open session. So I'm circulating it now for signature.
Speaker 0: Very good. While you pass it, let's filibuster a little bit because that's going to take a while. Thanks for for addressing it in open session customer and back show.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales, for bringing this forward. Can you talk to me about the retroactive application, if any?
Speaker 2: I don't believe this is retroactive. It would just be for ongoing, is my understanding.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And as Councilman Gonzalez has pointed out, we will sign this in open session. Thank you for your leadership on this and making sure we support SB 5163 and certainly oppose and encourage the rejection of the amendments. 511 683 Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, in light of your suggestion to help filibuster, I would like to be excused, if I may, on April 5th. Sorry. May 13th. That may be a motion to be excused.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let me ask, is there any further business to come for the council? And what we heard is that Kashmir Mosquito Lake, to be excused on May 13th is their second. All those in favor of council very scared of being excused on May 13th. See, I am opposed. The ayes have it. And along those lines.
Speaker 1: I know it's so annoying.
Speaker 0: Is there any further business to come before the council? And we'll just take a moment to. We have to wait for the signatures in open session and deal with that awkward moment of silence that we have to deal with on occasion.
Speaker 1: You tell a joke.
Speaker 0: I've learned better not to tell jokes. Trust me, I learned the hard way. Okay. We made it down there. And everyone. Have a great rest of the day. And with that will stand adjourned.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 6: That's his assessment, right? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Waterfront Improvement Program; authorizing the Director of the Office of the Waterfront and Civic Projects to execute an agreement with the Washington State Ferry system for the construction of facilities to support electrification of ferry vessels at the Colman Ferry Terminal; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, including the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising revenue allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2019-2024 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04012019_CB 119485 | Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments on this appointment? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The appointment is confirmed. Please read the report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.
Speaker 2: Report to the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Council Vote 119 45 Authorizing the Superintendent of Parks Recreation to execute a lease agreement between the City of Seattle and Selick Holdings Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company for office space in the building located 300 Elliott Avenue West, commonly known as the Elliot Bay Office Park in Rhode Island, confirming certain prior acts committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Gonzalez And thanks for filling in for Councilmember Bagshaw, councilman, because I would set the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 119485 would authorize the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a 15 year lease for office space at 300 Elliott Avenue West. This lease can be renewed two additional years for five year terms for a total of up to 25 years. The total space being leased is 28,000 square feet, which again can be increased by up to 4000 square feet within the first five years of the lease, the lease rate is at $33 a square foot or $924,000 a year. The lease rate will increase annually by $1 a square foot starting in 2021. This new lease signifies the moving of 113 staff members of the Parks and Recreation Department that will be moved from the current office space in the RTA building in the Chinatown International District. The current lease in that particular building in the current building expires in November of this year. So there is a sense of urgency around timeliness of action on the City Council bill to allow for this move to begin to occur. The location of this new office space is also very close to the main Parks Administration building in Denny Park, which, in addition to the favorable lease rate terms, made this a good choice for the new space. This ordinance was considered in the Financing Neighborhoods Committee on March 22nd, and it is the committee's unanimous recommendation that this that the city council pass this council bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: Herbold by Johnson Misgender O'Brien.
Speaker 3: So John Gonzalez I President.
Speaker 2: Area high seven in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed the bill passed and Cheryl sign it. Please read the report of the Human Services Secretary, the Parliament and Renters Rights Committee, both both items four and five Police. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute a lease agreement between the City of Seattle and Selig Holdings Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for office space in the building located at 300 Elliott Avenue West, commonly known as the Elliott Bay Office Park; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04012019_Res 31875 | Speaker 2: For adoption of other resolutions and agenda item number six Resolution 318 75 Written, retiring, introduced and referred Council Bills, Resolutions, Click Files and appointments that have received no further action.
Speaker 0: Thank you. As I describe this morning, this is just sort of our administrative legislation where we have the process according to Rule 186, where we retire, legislation that has been in a standing committee or before the city council for at least one year. And again, this refers to bills, resolutions, clerk files and appointments. And we've made this a list, of course, publicly available as attachment one to this resolution, and it's something we do every year. Any questions or concerns, if not those? In fact, I will move to adopt resolution 31875. Okay. Has been moved in second. In those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopt and Cheryl, sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION retiring introduced and referred Council Bills, Resolutions, Clerk Files, and Appointments that have received no further action. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03252019_Res 31872 | Speaker 4: The report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee and Item seven opposes Resolution 318 72 approving the proposed budget framework of the Environment Endowment Commission for its fiscal year 2019 through 2023. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. As I described this morning in council briefing, we have an opportunity to advance a resolution today that is really about an international treaty. I handed out a central staff memo from Eric McConaughey. Thank you again for providing that comprehensive analysis for our full committee partner or county council partners. Just very briefly, this is regarding the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission or the CBC, which was established as part of the Ross Lake Seven Mile Reservoir Treaty, signed in 1984 between British Columbia and the city of Seattle. The SCC is made up of eight commissioners appointed by the Mayor of Seattle and eight appointed by the premier of British Columbia. The SEC's mission is the preservation and protection of natural and cultural resources and recreational opportunities of the Upper Skagit watershed through advocacy, international cooperation and strategic partnerships. Again, I want to thank my committee colleagues, Councilmember Suarez and Councilmember Bagshaw, for raising the question specifically about tribal relations and more importantly, tribal representation on this important board, which we're going to get more information about, I believe. The CDC administers the Skagit Environmental Endowment Fund Compromise of International I'm sorry, a compromise of initial contributions from Seattle and B.C. of 4,000,001 million, respectively, and annual supplemental payments from both parties based on power sales. The CSA prepares a budget on a five year cycle, which requires approval by the B.C. government and the city of Seattle. Finally, the CDC funds projects ranging from recreational enhancement to educational and ecosystem science. That's what we're funding today. And we will be getting more information to compare the projected five year budget going forward with what was expended in the last five years, which will be critical to help answer the questions that the Council currently has. Thanks so much for the approval of the Budget and 2015 to 2018 via resolution 31568 in 2015. This resolution approves the 2019 2013 budget and we recommend it for the full council passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Get any questions or comments? If not, let's vote those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolution is dropped and she will sign it. Please read the report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee.
Speaker 4: Report on the Civic Development of Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item eight Council 119 475 Relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities transferring partial jurisdiction over a portion of the West Wing mini park from the Seattle Department of Parks Recreation to the Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION approving the proposed budget framework of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission for its fiscal years 2019 through 2023. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03252019_CB 119475 | Speaker 4: Report on the Civic Development of Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item eight Council 119 475 Relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities transferring partial jurisdiction over a portion of the West Wing mini park from the Seattle Department of Parks Recreation to the Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass
Speaker 0: . Councilmember words.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President I believe on the agenda, items 8 to 12 are all mine and they're all very riveting. So everybody pay attention as a joke, everybody. Item number eight This legislation would transfer partial jurisdiction for the subsurface area of parking, recreating in landscape portion of the West Wing mini park from Seattle, Department of Parks and Recreation to Seattle Public Utilities. This allows the construction of a combined sewer underground micro tunnel from Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford and North Queen n neighborhoods. The storage tunnel would be 2.7 miles long between Ballard and Wallingford to temporarily hold peak combined sewage flows that exceed system capacity. In addition, the transfer means the requirements of Seattle meets the requirements of Seattle missile code and federal water quality regulations. This is necessary because there is no reasonable and practical alternative location for the Underground Micro Tunnel and associated internal facilities. And if the city does not utilize the West Union mini park parcel for the alignment of this micro tunnel, it would require significant engineering and redesign and an capital costs for a new alignment. The committee passed unanimously and we recommend that the City Council pass this bill today.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments? Nat, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I herbold i johnson suarez I must get to the where I am. So what, major? President Harrell.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: None opposed to the bill passed and chair of the senate please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities; transferring partial jurisdiction of a portion of the West Ewing Mini Park from the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation to Seattle Public Utilities for installation, maintenance, repair, and operation of a combined sewer underground microtunnel and associated internal underground pipes, ducts, and electrical lines; and finding that transfer of partial jurisdiction meets the requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03252019_CB 119482 | Speaker 4: Agenda item ten Council Bill 119 42 authorizing the Superintendent Parks and Recreation to execute and except for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the City of Seattle in watery permit for Waterway three A in the Washington Park Arboretum Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Whereas again, as stated, this is another waterway permit in the arboretum. And as stated, the legislation authorizes parks to execute a waterway permit with the State Department of Natural Resources. The term of this permit, again, as the former permit, is five years and the committee recommends its passage today.
Speaker 0: Which any questions or comments not? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gonzales. I.
Speaker 2: Oh. Sorry. Somebody sent her.
Speaker 1: Suarez. I must get to Orion Swann. Big shot. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: None opposed. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number 11. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of The City of Seattle a waterway permit for Waterway 3A in the Washington Park Arboretum. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03252019_CF 314403 | Speaker 0: None opposed. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number 11.
Speaker 4: Agenda item 11. Clerk File 314403. Council Lenny's Action to modify development standards for a city facility to allow the installation of seven athletic fields light poles at the Soundview playfield to the committee recommends that the council land use action be granted as Condition two.
Speaker 0: Council worse.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President This Soundview light are the same view park project has been. We've been working on it for a while and I'm actually pretty excited that this is going to finally happen. The proposed facility is a city facility as defined by SEAL Municipal Code 2384 A The C l City Council has the authority to waive or modify a development standard for a city facility under the code. Parks has demonstrated that a proposed light pole height is necessary to light the playfield sufficiently and that the height of the poles will reduce light, spillage and glare. Parks has demonstrated that the light, spillage and glare to the adjacent residential properties will be further mitigated by shielded light fixtures and existing mature trees. I should add that there are ten other improvements that are going to go on in this park, including the removal and laying down of new turf. A construction management plan approved by the sale Department of Transportation would address construction impacts related to construction, traffic, parking noise and the Committee on Cirque developed public assets in their communities passed unanimously and we asked that the city council today adopt Clarke file 314403 as granted.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? Councilmember Johnson, just.
Speaker 6: Want to say thanks to Councilmember Walls for getting this one across the finish line. We first put this in the budget in 2016, folks.
Speaker 2: And now it's in 2019.
Speaker 6: Simple little things like this sometimes take a lot longer than we want them to, but an exciting investment for folks who are anxious to get access to our play fields all throughout the city.
Speaker 3: And I just want to add to. Thank you. Councilman Johnson, that besides the turf and the new lights, there's so many other amenities, including making it ADA accessible, which those are all things that we pushed hard for so we're happy about.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any other questions or comments before we. We will file this file. This is a clerk file. So those in favor of granting the council land use action as conditioned, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the council. Land use action is granted as conditioned and the chair was signed the findings, conclusions and decisions of the Council. Please read agenda item number 12. | Clerk File (CF) | Council Land Use Action to modify development standards for a city facility to allow the installation of seven athletic field light poles at the Soundview playfield (Project No. 3029885, Type V). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03252019_Res 31874 | Speaker 4: Resolution 318 74, providing an honorary designation of university way northeast from Northeast 50th Street to Northeast 52nd Street as Chris Curtis Way.
Speaker 0: Council member Johnson.
Speaker 6: Thanks. Colleagues dutifully remember this last August when we had a chance to celebrate the retirement of Chris Curtis, who's the founder of the Neighborhood Farmers Market Alliance. In the early nineties, Chris got together with some neighbors and friends and about 15 different farmers and decided that they wanted to find a way to allow those farmers to sell directly to the public. They sold their produce to 800 shoppers on their first day in 1993, and now the neighborhood Farmer's Market Alliance runs seven outdoor markets, supports over 125 local family farms, and attracts over half a million shoppers a year. Those of us who are in those farmer's markets know what a wonderful place it is to build community and the district. Farmer's market is one of, if not the oldest ongoing neighborhood farmer's market in the United States. The District four nomenclature here for Chris Curtis Way was applied to a two block section of the AV between 50th and 52nd. Even though that's only one block long, it doesn't change the name of the street. It just installs one of those great honorary Brown signs and gives Chris the recognition that I think she rightly deserves for her 25 years worth of service on behalf of folks in small family farms and those of us who want to get access to their good work and good goods from around the city. As I mentioned this morning, our friends of the Neighborhood Farmer's Market Alliance are really hoping that Chris doesn't spend her retirement watching the Seattle Channel. So they're trying to keep this on the low down. So when you run into Chris around town, please don't mention it to her. But it's not going to take too long for us to unveil this at some Saturday morning at the User Farmers Market. And I'm grateful to you all for your support.
Speaker 0: Like you, are there any further comments or questions? I look forward to supporting Chris as well. What a treasure. Okay, I'll move to adopt resolution 31874. Second is removed and second, the resolution be adopted. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote. I. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution stopped and chair was sign it. Is there any further business coming for the council? Herring. Then we stand adjourned. And everyone have a great rest of the afternoon. Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of University Way NE, from NE 50th Street to NE 52nd Street, as “Chris Curtis Way.” | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_CB 119443 | Speaker 3: Any comments or questions before we take this appointment? Okay. Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Congratulations, Mr. Short. I'll please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 8: The Report of the Select Committee on Citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability Agenda Item three Constable 119443 relating to land use amending the sale a comprehensive plan to incorporate changes related to mandatory housing affordability as proposed as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process. The Committee recommends of a pass as amended.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilmember Johnson, I know we have some amendments that you will make, so we'll just sort of let you walk us through it. But, Councilman Johnson, you have the floor.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. So we have four items related to the citywide image today. And in sequence, we're going to start with the first council bill which amends the comprehensive plan or move to the second council bill which amends the Seattle Municipal Code to implement city wide image. A third will have a solo bill that implements a major on a tiered side and Northgate. And finally, a resolution which is a companion resolution which is consistent to what we've done and all of our other image zoning changes. There are individual amendments for several of those, so I'll address those as we get up to it. But I wanted to start, if you'll indulge me, the council president, by just reflecting a little bit on the four plus year process that has gotten us to this point. And then after those prepared remarks, walk people through some of those individual and please. So, folks, today we're voting on legislation that addresses a very personal issue, I think, for everyone in Seattle. And that issue is change. We all have stories to dramatize how our city has changed over the last decade. Being something is where it is now struggling to make rent in Seattle's brutally expensive housing market to something as wasteful as missing our favorite neighborhood haunts because it's closed down. For my part, I missed dailies and Eastlake with its great shakes and low key charm. But Eastlake is a great example of how urbanism can work. It's a neighborhood without single family zoning, but with a lot of character. It's the place where I met and married the girl who lived across the hall from me and our little five unit apartment building. And it's where we had our twins and where we'd still be today if we hadn't realized that after doing the math, we were going to be paying more in rent than we would have if we bought that little house and rent it. But that's not an option for many Seattleites now, a majority of whom are renters. Ultimately, too many of our stories are about struggling and struggling to make the cost of living, struggling with traffic congestion, struggling to make rent or struggling to find affordable housing to begin with. Like many in my little fifth generation cousins who struggle to afford to live in the neighborhood they grew up in, and the source of that change is no mystery. Seattle is growing at a phenomenal rate. Consider that at the beginning of this decade, Seattle was 25th largest city in the United States. But by the end of this decade, we've passed Washington, D.C., Boston and other East Coast cities climbing to 18th biggest in the United States. During this decade, in raw numbers, we've grown from 608,000 to more than 730,000 people, a nearly 20% jump. And whether you're maneuvering your cart in the grocery store or waiting to board a 36 to go to work, whether you're stuck in line at a pharmacy or at a packed restaurant before a show on a Saturday night, it's impossible not to notice Seattle's leap from a mid-sized city to a major metropolitan metro metropolis. Unfortunately, the rules we have in place now have not kept up with that pace of growth. And in fact, the status quo policy, which bars us from building townhouses and low rise condos in most of Seattle, has undermined, which should be a real boon to us as a city economic success and population growth. But for too many of us, has turned success into a source of disenchantment. But it's time for city government to step in and change that status quo. I'm proud to say my colleagues have risen to the occasion. My colleagues, Councilmembers Misgender and Suarez have been rightfully getting credit for their work to highlight urbanism as a critical social justice issue. My district two colleagues have worked hard to build winning coalitions neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block to implement major in their districts. And three different mayors work to get us to this point, starting with Mayor Murray's 2015 proposal to Mayor Burgess, who sent MHL a major bill to council in 2017, to Mayor Durkan, who has helped us get the bill here to the finish line. Countless city staff from OPEC. dd0nohs TCI, the planning commission, the law department, the mayor's office put in long hours to make this moment possible. And I'd like to thank some of those folks this afternoon. Directors Sarah Stouffer, Kathleen Ireland, Diane Sycamore, Steve Walker, Andrés Mantilla and Nathan Torgerson. Thank you for your leadership. Staff numbers including Sarah Mac, Santa. Jeff Wendland. Robert Feldstein. Michelle Chan. Nick Welch. Jessica Brand. Susie Phillips. Laura Hewitt. Walker. Jason Kelly. Jim Petro, Lindsay Masters, Mike Podolski, Dave Clark, Jeff Weber, Leslie Price, Emily Alvarado, and many others who I've left off. Thank you for your long nights and many tears that we've all sat around DiMaggio. I want to thank John Howell, who facilitated the hall committee and the council's community design workshops for your leadership. John. And I want to thank the thousands of neighbors who participated in our community engagement events. We relied on the help of our clerk's office and our council communications team. Our central staff land use team has been critical in the last few years. And I want to thank Ali, panicky Kito Freeman, Les Woodson, Yolanda Ho and Eric McConaghy for their good work. I also want to thank my team who's worked on this legislation since the Hall recommendations were released on the same day the ballots were mailed out in 2015. Amy Gaw, Noah and Spencer Williams. Jerry Morris, Patty Camacho. Maya Elisha couldn't have done this without you guys and I'm so grateful. I want to say a quick thank you to Katie and our girls who spent a lot of nights on their own because of the number of public hearings that we took to get us here. And finally, I want to send extra thanks to my vice chair, Councilmember Gonzalez. You've been a champion, confidence and passionate advocate for the program. And Lorena. If if I'm allowed to do so, I'd like to bestow upon you an honorary master's degree in land use planning. For all of your meticulous work over the last three and a half years. I am really passionate about zoning. It seems like a trivial thing that makes for boring meetings and migraines. But however, I think my colleagues have realized that within the finicky zoning formulas for low rise one, low rise two and residential small lot housing, there's a formula for equity. And today we passed that formula, a formula that provides for growth and affordable housing. It does this by creating more opportunities for multifamily stock while tying that new development to an affordable housing fund. And the mandatory housing affordability program will create 6000 new units of affordable housing in the next decade. That growth should be synonymous with creating a sense of place, a place for everyone to live. And that place should be building more housing. Housing for single moms like Jessica, a service worker who moved back here to pursue her sociology degree when she found affordable housing and a tiered project on the light rail line housing for graduate students like Marlen, who couldn't afford Seattle without a subsidized apartment in a new affordable housing building in the Central District. Housing for young parents like Laura and Matt, who live in an affordable housing townhome on first sell with their three kids. Housing for social workers like Natasha Hanley, who lives in Bellwethers, housing on Stone Way. And she said she wouldn't be able to attend good public schools in Wallingford if it wasn't for that affordable housing. In short, we're embracing growth by embracing inclusion, and today we're embracing inclusion by updating plans that were drafted 25 years ago, largely by single family neighborhoods. And we're acknowledging what we've learned in those last 25 years or more, so even in the last five years, that effectively planning for growth means sharing space to make room for everyone who wants to find their place in Seattle. So for a while we were able to get by without original approach, one that maybe didn't fully embrace equity because Seattle was growing only incrementally and many of us didn't notice something unfair was happening. But while King County has grown by 13% in the last eight years, Seattle has grown by 20%, while our fastest growing cities such as Redmond, Kent and Bellevue have added about 2000 people in the last year. We've added nearly 17,000 people, so we've had to jump into action. And to create a proactive housing policy, we had to get proactive about engaging the community. And to create that policy, we had to engage more of Seattle. So we did that by hosting more than 200 meetings. And I met Jay when it was first proposed since 2015. We've knocked on more than 10,000 doors. The city council itself has hosted more than 40 public meetings, including community design workshops, open houses and public hearings. We drafted and considered more than 80 amendments to create more childcare space and new buildings, more affordable small business spaces to protect trees and historic buildings to incentivize more affordable homeownership opportunities and allowed for taller buildings to be built near frequent transit service without mandate, without mandating unnecessary and unaffordable parking requirements. To my deep satisfaction, that outreach has been accompanied by something policymakers in the city haven't seen in the past. And that's a surge of pro housing activism from a diverse coalition of stakeholders more representative of the city's housing needs. This coalition reflected what solutions can look like when we all work together. We've regularly had the MLK Junior County Labor Council show up to. Support building more housing for their union members. The Chamber of Commerce often stood by their side. Groups like the Sierra Club and 350 Seattle recognized this is an environmental issue and join the cause. Traditional housing advocates like DC Future Ys and the Seattle Transit blog were joined by new groups like Welcoming Wallingford, Seattle for Everyone. Seattle Greenways. Seattle Tech for Housing Share the Cities. The Miller Park Weber's. The Capitol Hill Renters Initiative and the Urbanist. And they all helped us frame this policy with one guiding question Who is this city for? Our new mandatory housing affordability policy answers that question by saying the city is for people like Jessica and Marlin and Laura and Matt and Natasha. And with that, I'm proud to introduce this legislation, Councilperson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Christine Johnson.
Speaker 5: So I would like to move. We have got one technical amendment which would require adoption of an amendment to attachment one. It would reflect changes to the urban center and urban village boundaries that were adopted by the Select Committee on February the 25th. And that amendment has shown an attachment of the central staff memo. So with your permission, Council President, I'd move to amend Council Bill 119443 Attachment one by submitting version two for version 1/2.
Speaker 3: Has been moved in second. And this is just the amendment attached from one, as Councilmember Johnson described. Any questions on the amendment only? All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. It is amended. Did any other council members want to speak on item three? We have several companion items to follow, but we're on item three as amended right now. Everybody good on this one? Pretty good. Okay.
Speaker 5: The next one's the next one.
Speaker 3: The big one.
Speaker 5: The next one's the big one.
Speaker 3: So we have and we have four amendments, I think, scheduled for the next item. So why don't we pass this 1/1? Okay. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the amended Bill.
Speaker 0: Bagshaw High Gonzalez High. Purple High.
Speaker 5: Johnson High.
Speaker 0: Juarez Macheda O'Brien. So on President Harrell High nine in favor and.
Speaker 3: Unopposed, the bill passes and the chair signage. Please read agenda item number four the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use; amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes related to Mandatory Housing Affordability as proposed as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_CB 119444 | Speaker 8: Agenda item for Constable 119444 relating to mandatory housing affordability, rezoning certain land and modifying development standards throughout the city, implementing major requirements, modifying existing development strategies to improve livability. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 3: So, Councilmember Johnson, you have the floor. I'm aware that there are I believe there's four amendments. And so I'll just sort of let you lead us through the amendment process you have it right now with regarding the base legislation.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President So this is the main citywide image legislation. The previous bill adopted the comprehensive plan changes to incorporate changes related to MJ. This is the implementation bill of the citywide zoning changes in the 27 neighborhoods. There are three amendments proposed. I believe Amendment one is a substitute version of the bill that reflects technical and clarifying amendments to maintain consistency with other parts of the legislation, including fixing typos and drafting errors to ensure the code language is consistent with the council intent. It retains some provisions of the code related to incentive zoning and adds language, clarifying that the requirement to dedicate 5% of energy payments to homeownership projects can be dedicated over multiple years. So in order to effectuate those changes, I would move to amend Council Bill 119444 by substituting version D nine for version eight A and by substituting version four for version three of attachment one and by substituting version four for version three of attachment two as presented on the agenda second.
Speaker 3: Okay, everyone follow that councilman words. Could you repeat that, please? Okay. This is just sort of a technical amendment to incorporate the changes described by Councilmember Johnson. All those in favor of the amendment, please. What I, I oppose vote nay. Okay. We have an amendment, the first amendment.
Speaker 5: So we had a couple more accounts presented. So this next amendment, Amendment two, would amend attachment two to remove areas that were studied in the university district. This from the city wide image bill. It would also remove a requirement for upper level setbacks along the AV, giving that no zoning changes on the AV will be part of the legislation. Those reasons in the district are going to be considered as part of a separate council bill that was introduced in today's introduction for calendar. So I would move to amend the Council Bill 119444 by amending Section 50 by deleting 23.40 7.9..3 and by adding a new map age to attachment two as presented on the agenda
Speaker 3: . Very good. The moved in second amendment number two has been moved to second. And any further comments, all those in favor of amendment number two say i. I. Although the polls say nay the I passed it to amendment number two is passed.
Speaker 5: So this next amendment, I'd like to turn it over to our colleague, Councilmember O'Brien, for an amendment related to the Phinney Ridge Greenwood neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. This is references amend Amendment five. I'll move it and then I'll speak to it. I moved to amend Council Bill 119444 Attachment two by substituting version five for version four of the reference map and by adding a new map, a I that excludes a site located at 7009 Greenwood from the zone as presented on the Distributed Amendment 5/2.
Speaker 3: Moved in second to pass amendment number five comes from Brown. I'd like to explain a little.
Speaker 2: More about thank you. This refers to a project that's going through a contract zone process. Colleagues, you may recall last year we proved that contact free zone as part of a quasi judicial process. Most of the contract reasons I believe that are currently underway have been excluded from the maturity bill to allow them to be the additional height and the affordable housing requirement to be required as part of those negotiated deals. This this particular parcel was actually left out of that pattern. So this would put that back in here. The the project is still quasi judicial. It has our decision last last year has been was appealed to the superior court and that has since been remanded to us just last. Last week. So we will be likely taking something up in the next few weeks by excluding it from MHRA with that allows us to continue to do is to address the affordability and height changes along with other design standards that we previously had addressed in the property use and Development Agreement. And my recommendation would be to continue down that path, since that path is what we've been exploring to date and I think makes the most sense for this particular process puzzle.
Speaker 3: Very good. Thank you for that explanation. And any other comments on amendment number five? All those in favor of amendment number five, vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The ayes have it. Councilman Johnson, do you have any other amendments?
Speaker 5: Just one more. This amendment, Amendment four, went out of finding of fact, which would recite the background and legislative history related to images implementation. Describe the planning and context for the rezone and implementation of energy and the zone area and address the relationship of the ordinance to RTW. 36.7 .54 Amendment four as shown in attachment E of the Central Staff Memo. And this would again just add some findings of fact. So I would move to amend Council Bill 119444 by adding a new Section 124 which adds a new attachment three funding as a fact as presented on the agenda.
Speaker 3: Second has been moved and Second Amendment number four has been moved in second hand. Describe it, Councilor, and just any further comments. All those in favor of amendment number four say I buy those, oppose vote, no emotion carries and that amendment is approved.
Speaker 5: Council President I will now defer to others that might want to make closing remarks and I'd ask for the privilege to close out those closing remarks before we take final action on this bill.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. So we have an amended counts bill, 119444 and within it comes from would like to speak on the. The the overall amended legislation. Now. I'll outwait you. This would be the time. So, Councilmember O'Brien, please lead us.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, I want to start by thanking you for your leadership and your dedication to this quite thorough process over the past few years. And I appreciate the remarks he made. And so many people, both city staff and citizens, members of the community who live and work here, have worked hard on this. There's a lot of work and compromise that's done. I want to just speak to to my involvement of this around affordable housing, which goes back even a few years prior to that. In the spring of 2013, the city was considering up zones to South Lake Union. And as part of that process, we had previously received a report from a consultant who did some analysis on the incentive zoning process at the time. And that report pointed out that we could charge higher fees for incentive zoning at the time without impacting the amount of housing that was being built or other construction that was happening as a result of that process. There was a lot of deliberation on the floor at this time, ultimately resulting, and my recollection was a54 vote to increase the incentive zoning and the amount re the amount of the additional housing we required was limited by the analysis we had done in the ability to get to five votes on that. But simultaneously, the Council passed a resolution, resolution 31444 in May of 2013 that passed unanimously and established a work program for us to upgrade update our city's affordable housing incentive program. From that, we went and hired consultants three different sets of consultants who worked through to 2014, ultimately releasing reports that talked about a linkage fee program . And in October of 2014, the council passed Resolution 31551, indicating their intent to pass a linkage fee program. Our program outlined different tiers similar to the legislation we see today, high, low and medium tiers and different levels of requirements for affordable housing at that point. The soon to be new mayor, Mayor Murray, I guess he was the new mayor at that point, formed his own group to come up with a counterproposal. And I'll tell you that personally, I was committed to the linkage fee program because it produced significant number of housing's, significant affordable affordability levels. And in the back and forth, I said I was continue to be open to new proposals if they produced more affordable housing at deeper affordability levels. And the agreement that Mayor Murray brought forward back in summer of 2015 was the program that we are looking at today. Now, that program, the commitment was to pass that 18 months ago. That has been delayed significantly for a variety of reasons. But I'm really thrilled that we have a comprehensive program today, that I have the support colleagues, current and past. It's been a pleasure working on this with all of you. I'm really proud of the piece of legislation we have today. And again, Councilmember Johnson, I want to just reiterate the amount of work you've done in the past few years to get us where we are today. It's no small feat. You were not on the council when I remember Councilmember Murray said, we will do this and it will require up zoning in every single neighborhood. And I said, I do not know how that will happen in that timeframe. And frankly, Councilmember Johnson, we wouldn't be here without your leadership to get us here. And thank you for that work.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Beck shall.
Speaker 4: Thank you. A number of people have already been recognized by my colleagues, but I also want to say that there are people that are hiding in the back. FELDSTEIN You got us started. Thank you, Steve Walker. I think you were there as well. And I appreciate that. There are so many. Emily Alvarado, you're back there as well. This has been a long journey, as Councilmember O'Brien said, we got started on this really very much in the beginning of our terms. At the beginning of 2010, people were talking about this. There were some fisticuffs at that point. And we've really made a lot of progress here. We all know why we're doing this. We're trying to link getting more affordable housing to keep up with the growth. We've had thousands and thousands of new jobs in our area, which is great. We need thousands and thousands. In fact, we'll be talking about the number I think is 244,000 across our region is what we're going to need. You're going forward. I regard this as a very important drop in the bucket. Frankly, we've done some great things, but there's something about this process that's made me grumpy. And I'm going to tell you about that in just a moment. But again, I want to acknowledge Councilmember Johnson. Thank you and your staff, Amy, who's there? Noah, Jerry and our council central staff. Thanks to Ali Pucci, Kyle Freeman and Lish Witz and Eric McCarney and Yolanda Yau. Thank you all because you've made a huge difference. Now, here's what here's where I am. Yesterday in Seattle Times, Councilmember Johnson wrote a pro article I thought was great, explained why we're doing what we were doing and the number of times that we have been meeting. You've already heard a lot of that. I don't need to repeat it all. But here's what's made me grumpy. There have been so many things that have been said on the con side of this that I just think have gotten in our way and repeating untruths over and over again simply doesn't make something. So at the beginning of yesterday's Seattle Times con article, it said, Railroading neighborhoods is not the way and the dictionary definition of railroading. We all know what it is. It's to force somebody to do something or to force an action especially quickly. I don't think four and a half years worth of meetings and 200 community engagement meetings and 20 meetings of the select committee in any way qualifies. We also have reached a point where there's things have gotten conflated, and I want to acknowledge something that I think is really important. I personally supported up zoning in that our downtown, my neighborhood years ago. I feel that across our city and certainly across our region, we have need we really need to be making space for our kids and grandkids. My kids want to come here and it is a struggle with a college education to be able to afford something . And it's so difficult if you are behind the eight ball in any way. So I want to say thank you to all of you who have shown up over and over again and block by block with the 80 amendments. But here was a statement in yesterday's paper. This is this will eliminate all single family zoning. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. We are going to be retaining 94% of single family zones. That's remaining short of 6% of single family zones is going to be changed to our MHC. But that's existing and proposed. Urban villages and thousands of units are going to be added for rent restricted units across our city over the next decade. We have heard complaints, pro and con, about the in lieu fees. People said you don't do enough. People say you do too much. But what we know is that thousands of units are going to be added. The in lieu fee allows us to leverage the money that the city puts in. Three really great examples and I want to say I think Daniel Beekman is here. You've done some great reporting on this and the three items that you brought up were our three projects, the Liberty Bank building, where we're leveraging almost 3 to 1, the Hirabayashi Building in the international district, almost 5 to 1. We're leveraging in the Arbor a court in the U. District, almost 6 to 1. This is going to make a huge number of difference. Another argument that was brought up in the con side of the article yesterday is that we are eliminating single family housing regulations and we're going to have a new legislation today that is going to destroy all of this. The two legislation isn't even part of this today. The hearings are going to start next week. The changes are voluntary. It's going to allow people to make right size choices for their families in the properties that they have owned, in some cases for decades. So also there was some, I think, misstatements about the planning commission not liking these ideas. What we hear is that the planning commission all along has been consistently in favor of both what the MHRA is doing today and the prospective EU legislation, which isn't part of today. So please, let's try to get this straight. And lastly and I want to say, as one of the people that was charged with being a lame duck politician yesterday, I am anything but a lame duck. And my colleagues over here who are also been working so hard, you will see us working through the end of this year . We have been working on this for five years to vote today, and I am actually as pleased as could be with the amount of work that has gone into this and the hard work that you have demonstrated. I want to say. Councilmember Johnson, say say thank you to Katie for me and the girls, the number of nights that you have not been home. But working on this, we are working hard. We are dedicated to making this city as wonderful a city as we possibly can for everybody that is here, people who are coming irrespective of income. So to my colleagues and to all of you who have been part of this, many thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. As I said. A skater.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw, for those words. I think this is such an exciting day. Councilmember Wise and I were over here talking about the amount of work that has gone into making this vote today possible. So thank you. Because today we're able to vote for a more inclusive Seattle. Thank you for helping to respond to Seattle's growing population and the housing crisis. We know that change is inevitable, but change and development is happening right now and it's happening over the last few years because we haven't been able to include MJ. It has not been the change that many of our community members have wanted. In fact, much of what we have heard in terms of concerns about MJ haven't had anything to do with MJ at all. In fact, what they've been asking for are things that we are now able to say are on the books such as child care and new buildings, such as health care clinics and new buildings such as set back. So there's greater green space, such as the ability to make sure that we have more pedestrian zones. These are things that you have wanted to do, Mr. Chair Johnson, for a very long time and have been stymied and today were able to take the steps to make sure that development is done right, that MJ ensures that we grow, and as we grow, we do it more inclusive. MJ now requires, because of the amendments that this Council has put forward, because of the feedback that many in the community have asked for, not just affordable housing and income and rent, restricted housing, but creating more homes overall. And it includes the vision that you all have put forward after years of making sure that it's not just homes that we are building, but we're creating truly inclusive units or buildings. We're talking about buildings now are transportation centers, child care centers, open spaces, grocery stores. This is what we need to thrive in our city, not just survive and have a home to go from place of work to home. We want communities that will be thriving centers and through MJ, we have begun to build the building blocks of what a truly inclusive Seattle and neighborhoods look like. This helps make sure that as we're developing, we're meeting the needs and the values of our community. I was really excited to work with Councilmember Lorena Gonzalez as we worked on creating inclusive space for child care facilities. This is the number one thing we hear of not just from families who need childcare, but from business owners who say that their workers have to commute 90 minutes, 2 hours to get to their homes and their kiddos place of childcare when we ought to be able to create affordable housing in the city that includes childcare. This is why I'm really excited to vote today, because we've included setbacks and additional greenspace. We've included opportunities so that we're creating healthy pedestrian environments so that people can really commute on foot or by bike or by scooter or by bus and have the opportunity to have a healthy environment. I'm really excited today because we've included additional commercial space on the ground floors and we've included set back so that people can have seating areas outside. We know that small business owners need affordable places to start their own businesses, and right now they're getting the size of a unit that's good for the next five years when we really need the size for the next two tacos. Like my family started 60 years ago in a small hole in the wall. We need small commercial spaces that are affordable so that people can truly get out of generational poverty. We know that this is not about buildings. Today we're making a vote about people. We're taking a step to make sure that we can actually live our values. And Councilmember Johnson, I want to say thank you again so much for your help to champion this through here. I've only had the chance to work with you on this, specifically sitting on council over the last year and a half. But I know many in the audience have had the chance to work with you over the last few years. I want to thank your staff as well for their intense work on this. You already mentioned the central staff. I want to thank my staff. Erin House appropriately named in the back for fighting for additional affordable housing and my former staffers as well. This is really an incredible process here is of intense policy development, extensive community engagement, the most extensive earth analysis ever conducted on Seattle's land use policy in our history, a legal battle that lasted an entire year. And even though we struggled through some of the amendments and I didn't end up supporting some of those, what you have today is a comprehensive package that includes the vision directly from the community involved and what's happened in the meantime, since we've waited for for five years now to actually pass this legislation, we've seen that people have been displaced. People have been pushed into the streets. Our community members have had to leave the city because there's not enough affordable housing. We have seen because of the delay, upward pressure on the cost of housing, because we have failed to be able to create enough affordable housing. We haven't rezone to create the density that we need to not only respond to those who are coming, but to create the affordable housing for those who are here. I talked to the firefighters the other day that said, you know, I do want to make sure that we welcome new folks that are coming. But I'm concerned about the folks who are here. We're not building enough affordable housing like. Remember, Bagshaw said. So that our kiddos can afford to stay. Or that we can take care of our elders in place in the city. The consequence has been that there's been a dramatic increase in the cost of rent, and we know that a $100 increase in the cost of rent equals a 15% increase in homelessness. In fact, the Chamber of Commerce, thank you for testifying today. Your own report said that there was a 96% correlation between the cost of housing and homelessness. This is part of our response to the crisis that we see every single day. And for the folks who are asking what we are doing and how we are trying to respond to the crisis of housing and homelessness. This is one element. But we've been delayed for years, and today we finally get to move forward. Obviously, we need additional housing, shelter and health, but this is one component. So we're going to continue to work collaboratively, aggressively, collaboratively with our friends at the state and the regional level to make sure that we're building affordable housing, that we get additional funding in place to create that housing, and that we get the zoning changes that we need also at the state level to match what we haven't been able to do at the city level. I applaud Representative Fitzgibbon, a Senator Palumbo, Representative Gregerson, Representative Macri who are really working hard to try to lift that floor at the state level. And I am I'm sad that we're not actually having a conversation about city wide changes. I think that is the next conversation to have. I think some of those amendments that we were talking about wouldn't have been so challenging for me if we were talking about larger changes that really create a more inclusive Seattle. Well, again, this is just an effort to look at 6% of the single family zoning in our in our city. And I want to pass out again for the viewing public and for our colleagues here that this is an effort to truly right the wrongs in our city. What we have done over the last few decades is we have zoned our city backwards. We have actually expanded the amount of land that we have included in the city for single family use. Now we have two thirds of our residential area throughout the city of Seattle that is included exclusively for detached single family homes. Basically blocking or prohibiting the type of apartment that I currently live in a 1902 beautiful brick building, as you've heard me talk about before, only four storeys high that has eight units in it. We are prohibited from building that kind of gentle infill density because we have actually scaled back. So as we talked about before, we are trying to actually look at the fabric of our city, look at the history of how we've created an inclusive city in the past and try to right some wrongs. In the 1920s, as the Housing Commissioners Seattle Planning Commission report said, some residential areas began establishing racially discriminatory covenants to prevent people of color and other ethnic and religious groups from buying houses. In 1923, Seattle's first zoning ordinance is passed, which establishes two residential district. One allows detached single household structures, and the other that allows apartment types. These are the types of historic wrongs that we're trying to correct today. The report goes on to say Seattle's popularity and existing zoning is resulting in the construction of large, expensive homes at a time when more people need more affordable places to live. They say this is not just an issue of addressing the legacy of discriminatory housing and land use practices. It is about building an equitable Seattle for the present and future generations. So today, I think as we've talked about before, this is our effort to try to right some of those historic wrongs. But again, it's just the beginning of that effort. We're going to continue to work in my committee, and I believe in the planning committee on greater inclusive opportunities, homeownership opportunities, which we just amended today, so that more folks can actually have the chance to live in the city, to thrive and not just survive. Thank you so much for all your work on this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Katherine. In the state of. Thank you for those words. Okay. A cancer herbal.
Speaker 1: Get my stuff together here. So I want to just underscore a little bit of what we heard in public comment today. The history of this legislation dates back further than than five years, further than 2013. It actually dates back to 2007 when the city started passing incentive zoning programs throughout the city. And many people at that time, when we were doing incentive zoning, that's when not when you provide the up zones and then require the the housing affordability requirement. It's when the additional zoning capacity is available. And in exchange, the developer invests in affordable housing even at that time in 2007. Many of the people in this room today, including the Housing Development Consortium in Puget Sound Sage, were advocating for a mandatory program so that we could capture an increment of the value of additional zoning and devoted to housing. That call from committee members and former councilmembers then helped pave the.
Speaker 0: Way for where we are today.
Speaker 1: I am going to share some of my concerns, but it doesn't. It shouldn't be interpreted as lack of support for inclusionary zoning. My concerns are based on what's happening in high cost cities across the country, including cities that have inclusionary zoning. We all see the same problem the lack of affordable housing. But we have disagreement on the impacts of our approach to deal with that lack of affordable housing. I don't believe it's just fear of change. I believe it's legitimate concern that this bill won't raise enough affordable housing. And too much will be torn down to make way for new buildings that are actually out of range of most renters to afford an average two bedroom apartment in Seattle. Two workers need to earn $20 an hour, or one earner $40 an hour. A recent study cited in the Seattle Times reports that 85% of new housing built in this region is luxury housing. With this legislation today, we're going to we're going to shift that a little bit. We're going to it's not I probably won't be 85%, but it's still a lot of housing being built for folks who can't afford to pay their rent. We talked so much about making it possible for people to live where they work, but are we making sure that low income people will also be able to live where they work?
Speaker 0: We refer every day to the.
Speaker 1: Thousand people a week.
Speaker 0: That moved to this.
Speaker 1: Region. But as Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, we don't talk enough about the people who have been pushed out of Seattle. Heck, we don't even count them. I wish. I wish the affordable housing contribution was more 5 to 11% of units as well as the payment in lieu fees does seem low when compared to other cities. But to my knowledge, no other city ensures inclusionary zoning in all residential and commercial development. So I'm hoping that the comprehensive nature of our bill can counterbalance that the developer obligation per project seems rather low. We've also heard concern about the division between performance and pay in lieu. As you know, we've set the.
Speaker 0: Goal for the the.
Speaker 1: Split between number of developers who pay in lieu and the number of developers who perform.
Speaker 0: As a as a goal, a 50.
Speaker 1: 50% split. I think we've included in this slide, I know that we've included in this legislation an amendment that requires us to monitor that and to make adjustments if we're not hitting that goal. And then finally, as folks have testified today, I will be continuing deliberations around a bill that would help address and help protect existing housing that might otherwise be redeveloped. And I would really urge the folks up here with me today, as well as members in the public, to take a look at what's happened in California, in the state legislature.
Speaker 0: Over the last.
Speaker 1: Year or so. Last year, Senator Wiener had a bill called Senate Bill 82 seven. And this is a bill that statewide would require all municipalities to do high density development in certain areas, areas like transit areas and within certain watersheds. That bill did not get the support it needed last year because of the concerns of what I refer to as, you know, people who think of themselves as urbanist, but I think of them as social justice urbanist. They are people who are really concerned about just opening the floodgates to development without having measures in place to protect existing housing tenants, organizations, the local Sierra Club, local mayors. We're all really concerned about the impact of this bill. So there's been a new bill that's been brought forward this year and it's called Senate Bill 50, and it's got enshrined in the bill itself a prohibition against using this new authority in areas where there is any housing development. It doesn't make a distinction for affordable housing development, and it actually requires a look back for seven years. So if there has been housing in that location for seven years, and that's that's a that's one way to make sure that landlords don't use other unfair ways of moving people out of out of buildings in order to redevelop them. And as a result, everybody's coming together and supporting it. And so I really think it's really critical that we look at what other cities and states are doing to address this problem. Because, you know, again, simply. Building more housing and earmarking a small amount of it to affordable housing is not sufficient to address the growing need in cities that have extremely high costs of housing. So I look forward to working with my colleagues more on that in the upcoming weeks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Considerable. Because were. So what was it like to speak.
Speaker 0: To.
Speaker 3: The first one when she hands gone up?
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Harrell. I thank the tremendous amount of work that was done by city council central staff on this. On the whole body of work that is represented by the mandatory housing affordability legislations. I grew up in Mumbai, where my family lived in a 450 square foot flat, which was the only affordable housing four available for working people like my parents. I think density is a good thing for cities and metropolitan regions, both for affordability and for sustainability. That is why I am glad to be voting in favor of this legislation. But. It is also my duty to point out the affordability that will be generated through this. Has been described in inaccurately grandiose and greatly exaggerated terms by many of the elected officials. What will be implemented is small, affordable housing mandates on the big real estate speculators and developers who have driven up rents and other housing costs and who are directly responsible for displacing and evicting tens of thousands, or maybe even if you add up hundreds of thousands of our neighbors. The affordable housing requirements in this legislation are totally insufficient to even prevent Seattle's hemorrhaging of affordable housing, never mind actually bringing rents down. However, it is better than nothing and I support every single affordable home we can rent, as I have always said. It is important to remember where MJ comes from and not the Chamber of Commerce's version, but working people's version of where images came from. In 2014, after a grassroots movement won the $15 an hour minimum wage. It became clear that the next big struggle would be and would have to be over the accelerating loss of affordable housing in Seattle, which and the laws had started ballooning in 2010, even though it happened long, it had started happening long before then. To solve the affordable housing crisis. Our movement knew that we would have to fight. And we still do have to fight for a major investment in social housing, which is publicly owned, affordable housing paid for by taxing big business and also for city wide rent control. To undercut that movement that had just begun. Seattle's biggest corporate developers and former Mayor Ed Murray of the Democratic establishment launched the so-called Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda Committee, otherwise known as the Holler Committee. On that committee were some affordable housing advocates, but also big developers. And in the end, as these things go. When you bring. Corporations to the so-called table. The corporations will be given a virtual veto on the recommendations of the committee. At that time, the city council that passed a resolution, as Councilmember O'Brien mentioned, supporting linkage fees, which is basically a type of impact fee that would have required all developers in the city to pay towards affordable housing. The big developers on the whole are committee vetoed that. They vetoed rent control. They vetoed any taxes on big business to fund social housing. MJ came out of the committee because that was the only thing that big developers were willing to accept. And the reason, simple reason that they were willing to accept it is because it is so limited, so very limited in what it accomplishes for affordable housing and it has zero impact on their ever expanding opportunities for profit. MJ was delayed for years during the development boom and as a legal mechanism is extremely limited, especially in how it is done in Seattle. On how much affordable housing it can generate. But big developers scored their biggest victory through the fact that when Hala was brought forward, they were successful in disorienting the movement for rent control by getting affordable housing advocates to well-meaning, affordable housing advocates on both sides to fight each other over whether the zoning changes will result in more or fewer affordable units. Some excellent affordable housing advocates have subsumed their demands into the support for the energy hub zones binding to Seattle's population growth, and suggesting that the market will bring rents back down once developers are encouraged to build enough zoning. Let me be very clear. As an economist, there is zero zero evidence from anywhere, anywhere in the country, anywhere in the world that that would prove the hypothesis that you led for the for profit market, expand construction, and at some point in the future, rents will come down. There is no such case. I. I if you can. If you can find out. Show it to me. And I'm happy to. I'm happy to correct my position. But my position is based on hard evidence that there is nothing no no hypothesis of no such hypothesis has been proven. Rents don't go down because forward profit development continues. There is no such case in the past and I doubt that there will be in the future. As a matter of fact, at the same time, you know, just to give you a snapshot, since 2010, construction has boomed in this city. At that same time, rents have skyrocketed by 69%. Housing has not become more affordable. Affordable, it has become less affordable. And at that same time, the same time that people are being evicted from their city, you know, economically evicted because they can't afford the rising rents. There have been double digit vacancy rates in many neighborhoods. Why is that? If there are empty apartments, then why aren't people moving into them? That's because they can't afford. And so let's not let's not buy into fake and mythical supply side arguments by neo liberal economists because there is no evidence to support that that that idea. It is true, undoubtedly, that we need more housing. Absolutely. There is no question about that. But what we need is affordable housing. And the for profit market under capitalism is not interested in producing that. So it is no there's no point in holding our breath that someday the for profit market will make housing affordable. As a matter of fact, Mike Rosenblum of the Seattle Times has already said, and I'm quoting him, because I want to quote a non socialist who said that it is, it is, you know, it is, it is. You know, it's imaginary thinking, medical thinking to think that rents will come back down because that has never happened. What is happening is real estate, speculative speculators getting a better return on their investment, building luxury units. And by luxury, I mean not necessarily high quality. I mean, they may or may not be, but what I mean is expensive units, units that are out of the reach of ordinary working people. Seattle has been the construction green capital of the world. And at that and during that time, rents have gone down and the MJ payments that this legislation will require of developers will be available to build publicly affordable housing. Yes. So some publicly affordable housing will be will be the result of this, a major, but nowhere at a scale sufficient to address the massive need. And not to mention that there is no accounting, there is no statistical accounting of market available, affordable homes that are going to be lost in the same process. And again, to be precise, market available, affordable housing is going to be a major or not a major because of the for profit market. It is not because ah, despite a major, it is because of the for profit market. And to the extent that a major state to the for profit market, it has the same limitations and failures. The Regional Affordable Housing Task Force recommendations that will be voted on in today's meeting show that 156,000 affordable homes are needed to meet the city, meet the need countywide, and the need is 244,000 affordable homes by 2040. This is an official study by King County. The couple hundred each year built by Seattle will literally never solve the problem. The problem will keep increasing in size. Working people will keep getting this place, and Seattle will continue to be a place where only rich people can live. And that is why we need massive policy, you know, and bold, bold policy to fight like rent control and taxing big business, to have a massive expansion of social housing, which is publicly on permanently affordable housing so that people, working families, no longer have to remain at the whim of for profit developers. And so I think that, you know, when you look at every piece of evidence, it shows that MJ is not far from the solution that we need. I will be supporting it because I support density. But I want to be very clear our real fight for our movement. If you are interested in fighting for affordable housing for yourselves and your neighbors and other working people, then we need both. But we need to fight for rent control and social housing. Affordable housing advocates are correct to warn that, and I just want to clarify that for profit development is not going to solve the affordable housing crisis . But we should also I don't agree with opposing the MJ zones either, because it's not you know, it's not the main problem here. The main problem is the for profit market. At least with the MJ, the developers will have to pay a small amount towards affordable housing. And as I said, I want a for every affordable home we can win. And that is why I have and continue to support the image absence. But at the same time, it is crucial that we now as affordable housing advocates, we avoid falling into the corporate rat trap of thinking that this is any kind of fundamental solution to the massive affordable housing crisis in Seattle. A focus on MJ has been used to disrupt the most impactful demands of the affordable housing movement. As I said, particularly social housing, by taxing big businesses like Amazon and rent control. And I can guarantee you big business is not going to support either of those demands. And you know what? That's a rule of thumb. If big business does not support it, you're probably on the right track to do something good for ordinary working people. So I am glad to be voting yes. Yes on this legislation. I vote yes because it will you know, it is pro density and I and I favor density. And for working people, I vote yes because it will help raise some funds for affordable housing. But I am also glad with this vote that I and I hope that now affordable housing advocates can and will focus on the real fight, which is for rent control and for taxing big business, for massively expanding social housing.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much once. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So before I give my remarks, I just wanted to thank approximately 75% of the city of Seattle staff who worked on the mandatory housing affordability legislation over the last four and a half years. I really appreciate all of the work that our staff across the city family has contributed to getting us to this point today . I hope that you all are proud of the work that you have done. And and I hope that you hear from us up here that we're proud of the work that you have done and indeed spent a lot of time away from your own families and friends to dedicate yourself to this work. So thank you so much to the entire city family for all of the work you have been putting into this and all the sacrifices you have made both in the in the Legislative Department and on the executive side to get us to this point. So. As I usually do in my tradition, I'd like for us to thank the city staff with a round of applause for getting us this far. And. Council President Harold colleagues and members of the public. Today is a significant day. After four long years of legislative, legal and community engagement processes. We have arrived at a place where I believe it is time for us to say yes to more density, yes to more affordable housing, and yes to more neighbors in 27 additional neighborhoods throughout the city of Seattle. For some, this mandatory housing affordability legislation goes too far. For others, this mandatory affordable housing legislation does not go far enough. So let's chat a little bit about that dynamic. Contrary to the name of the Select Committee on Citywide Energy, this legislation is not even close to citywide. There are approximately 127 neighborhoods in the city of Seattle. This legislation only relates to 27 of those 127 neighborhoods, impacting a total of only 6% of existing areas currently and strictly zoned as single family homes zones adjacent to existing urban villages. That means that even with the passage of the mandatory housing affordability legislation, approximately 60% of the city of Seattle is still under the cloud of exclusionary zoning laws. So let's talk a little bit about this city's history with exclusionary land use and zoning laws across the country, including right here in Seattle. Racially restrictive housing covenants became common in the 1920s. Those covenants were challenged in the courts. And in 1926, our U.S. Supreme Court put a stamp of approval as a stamp of approval on those racially restrictive covenants. Layered on top of these covenants were financial lending policies that prevented the sale of single family homes located in a racially restricted area from being sold to a nonwhite person. This is how redlining came to be in Seattle and across the country. According to our own City of Seattle archives, a typical racially restrictive housing income covenant reads as follows No person or persons of insert your race, blood, lineage or extraction shall be permitted to occupy a portion of said property, except a domestic servant or servants who may actually and in good faith, be employed by white occupants. Check your deed of trust. That language is still there. The effect of these widespread, racially motivated practices is still felt in every major city across the country today. In Seattle, it meant African-Americans, Native Americans and Asian-Americans were prohibited from living in neighborhoods outside of southeast Seattle, the Central District, and the international district. Meanwhile, neighborhoods like Ballard, Broadmoor, Green Lake, Laurelhurst, Magnolia and Queen Anne were historically off limits to people of color. 22 years after the Supreme Court said yes to racially restrictive housing covenants in 1948, the Supreme Court held that these covenants were not enforceable. It was not until 1968, an additional 20 years later, that the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 was passed and that law prohibited, quote, discrimination of sale, rental and financing of dwellings and other housing related transactions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, close quote. This law officially made the use of racially restrictive covenants in housing illegal 1968. And in 1968, the city of Seattle followed suit with the passage of the Seattle Open Housing Ordinance. After a hard fought grassroots civil rights movement that spanned from 1959 to 1968. So let me be clear. I'm not calling anyone a racist. I am, however, calling out the reality that we are living in a city that has a history of implementing and preserving housing laws, design designed to keep certain people out of certain areas of the city. And as a policymaker, it is my duty to understand this history and to support legislation that will begin the process of dismantling exclusionary zoning laws that are historically rooted in the intention to exclude people who look like me from owning or living in a single family home. I acknowledge that these covenants are no longer enforceable, but the vestiges of segregated Seattle surround us. The question is, what are we willing to do about it? Seattle is home to some of the richest people in the world. I don't have to name them by name. You know them. But that prosperity is not equally accessible to all. Equitable access to home ownership and housing stability is not a reality for many in our city, and this is in part due to increasing income inequality. And this makes it harder for everyday people to afford to live in the city they work in. People are housing insecure or experiencing homelessness, in part because we have a housing shortage crisis, especially for our residents that are that are in the extremely low income category. According to a National Low Income Housing Coalition report released just last week profiling the housing gap in Washington. Across the state, 234,362 renter households are extremely low income, and 71% of those renter households are severely cost burdened. Across the state, there's a shortage of 165,345 affordable and available rental homes for extremely low income renters. Seattle, Tacoma and Bellevue are experiencing the brunt of that shortage, with an estimated shortage of 89,000 affordable and available rental homes. Increasing development capacity is just one policy tool available to this City Council. To address the housing gap for people across the income spectrum, we must build more affordable housing and market rate housing to meet the demands of the people currently here and those that are still coming here. This mandatory housing legislation is one tool in our toolbox to both incentivize the construction of affordable multifamily housing or capturing precious and limited dollars to provide our nonprofit housing developer community the tools they need to meet the demand to construct more affordable multifamily housing throughout our city, and especially in neighborhoods of high opportunity. This legislation, in my mind, does not destroy neighborhoods. This legislation will enhance neighborhoods by creating a path for families, workers, students and others to call our urban villages home. I want the thousands of Jessica's marlins, Natasha's, Laurens and Mats to be able to call Seattle home. For four years, we have listened to concerns regarding livability by taking into consideration issues related to bulk and scale and consistent with the environmental laws and where it makes sense, make those modifications into this proposal. So what we have before us now is the policy that not only impacts a total of 6% of single family home zones , zoning around the edges of existing urban villages, and increases development capacity within those proposed boundaries. This is good for Seattle. In 2010, I rented a condo in the West Seattle Junction, Orange Village. In 2011, I bought one of the few condos on the market, literally at the end of the block where I'd been renting for a year . It seemed like a miracle. It still seems like a miracle to me. Would it be possible for me to own a small piece of the junction and call it my own? I was thrilled then, and I'm still thrilled today to be able to call Seattle and The Junction my home. Every morning I catch the 55 right in front of my condo building, or I can walk a block to catch the sea line or the free shuttle to the water taxi. I live within two blocks of multiple grocery stores Safeway, QVC, Trader Joe's. My husband, he's a service worker. He works in a restaurant. He serves expensive food to people in our neighborhood. He makes minimum wage plus tips. He walks 3 minutes to get to work and sometimes takes his bike. We get to enjoy bike rides to Lincoln Park or down to Alki. This is the Seattle that I want to see built. It's the Seattle I believe we can build if we do it together. It is the Seattle that I think is possible for far too few people. And through this legislation, we take a step towards allowing this to be an opportunity for more people in our great city. DeLay doing nothing, stopping development. All of those things take us backwards, not forward. All of those options ask us to pretend as though growth will magically stop or delay. Today we have a chance to move, finally move forward as one unified city and as a Seattle that can be for everyone who chooses to live here. So today, I look forward to voting yes for the mandatory housing affordability legislation. And I want to express my deep gratitude for the leadership of Councilmember Johnson and for the sacrifices that your family has had to make in order to allow you to lead this city council and our entire city through what has been an exhaustive and intensive process to put forth in front of us as your colleagues an opportunity to correct some of those historic wrongs and to make space for new neighbors and new families. So thank you so much, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilman. Or worse.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President. I'll be brief. I just want to say that I will be voting yes today. And I want to thank Councilmember Johnson for all the hard work. A lot of these means have been contentious, difficult, emotional. We've had them all over the city. And I'm glad that we're coming to a close. And thank you, Councilmember Gonzales, for reminding us of what our what what the history was of how this city was deliberately planned. And I'm glad we're moving forward in an enlightened way and in a good way. I want to end this on one note with words Councilmember Johnson left us with when he asked us the question, who is this city for? This city is for all of us. Every one of us. Long after I'm long gone. And my kids, who are 28 and 25, have children and I have grandchildren. That's what we're looking at today. And is it perfect? No. Do we have more work to do? You bet. We'll learn more about our neighborhoods and the density and when light rail comes in. But I just, again, want to say thank you, not only to staff, but again to Councilmember Johnson and all his hard work. The times that he's been in my office, the times I've been in his office, the times we talked about amendments. And I can just say that I'm really proud of my city today. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman, where is. Councilman Johnson would like to close debate.
Speaker 5: So I want to say how grateful I am colleagues for those very kind words. This has been a labor of love for many of us, and I am proud to have helped shepherd this important piece of legislation across the finish line. For me, the idea of a major is a simple one. We want to give everyone in Seattle access to neighborhoods with great parks, reliable transit, outstanding schools, green playgrounds, affordable housing, quality groceries, robust infrastructure, and a health and sustainable environment. And passing image begins the job of creating that universal access for people throughout our city. Two years ago, we passed some specific images of zones. They're working. They're generating thousands of new units. And in 2018 alone generated more than $13 million for affordable housing. If we've been able to implement the program a year earlier, we would have been generating $90 million for affordable housing, affordable housing that at a time when we desperately need it. Where Steve Walker would desperately love to be able to fund more of the bellwethers and the Merce's and the Capitol Hill housings of the worlds who want to be building more of our affordable housing units all throughout the city. But now, by taking the zones citywide, we're starting the process of dismantling walls around our neighborhoods that have given exclusive groups so access to the resource rich communities around our city. And as Councilmember Gonzalez so eloquently reminded us, the hard data shows us that that privileged group has been predominantly white, and the ugly history of redlining and racial segregation shows that that exclusionary approach was sometimes intentional. It's out of sync with Seattle's values. And so I think this is a city wide zone for citywide equity. Yard signs around our town say that we're a welcoming city and we don't support walls, while zoning is both a metaphorical and a literal wall around our communities. And today we begin to take those walls down. Given the broad consensus we've reached on MJ, it's clear to me the council is poised to create even more city wide equality. Cities such as Minneapolis are already eliminating their exclusionary zoning altogether, and our city needs to take a look at that policy. As the councilmembers shepherded this legislation across the Council finish line. It's my sincere hope that today's vote is a vote not just to embrace growth and a proactive housing policy, but a policy that's intent on undoing barriers to universal equity, a policy that's intent on allowing more and much more housing for everybody in our city. Throughout this process, we've talked about allowing more housing in Seattle's transit rich neighborhoods, in our asset rich neighborhoods and in our resource rich neighborhoods. But today, by passing this legislation, we're recognizing that there's something more important than transit rich neighborhoods and resource rich neighborhoods. It's housing rich neighborhoods. The only way for us to create that universal access to housing is by building a housing rich city. And that means allowing a wider variety of housing types, such as townhouses and mid-rise condos and low rise buildings. Buildings that are known as missing middle housing can really help ensure that Seattle values, like inclusion don't ever go missing. So let's simply stop talking about moving people to transit rich or resource rich neighborhoods and talk instead about giving people housing rich neighborhoods. Because a housing rich city is a city that welcomes multifamily housing, not a city that's wary of it. A housing rich city is a city that supports multifamily development. Not a city that's segregated housing rich cities, a city that shares its neighborhoods, and not a city that sequesters its neighborhoods. And mandatory housing affordability is the first step in establishing a housing rich Seattle. And I believe that housing rich Seattle is adjusts. Yeah. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Okay. I think we are ready to vote. Call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119444 as amended.
Speaker 0: By Shanghai Gonzalez Herbold. JOHNSON Suarez must get a high. O'BRIEN So on. President HARRELL All right. Nine in favor, nine opposed. But that.
Speaker 7: Was. No sense.
Speaker 3: Please read agenda item number five, the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA); rezoning certain land and modifying development standards throughout the City, implementing MHA requirements, and modifying existing development standards to improve livability; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) at pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 200, 203, 205, 206, 208, 215, 216, 217, 218, and 219 | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_CB 119445 | Speaker 8: Constable 119445 relating to land use and zoning in many chapters, 23.32 incidents occurred at page 28 of the official land use map Theresa Land in the Northgate Urban Center. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This would rise on land to implement imagery on a TOD site in the north neighborhood. There is one technical amendment that's necessary which updates the base code language to reflect changes to the land use code made in the bill that we just adopted. This amendment is shown in attachment of the Central Staff Memo, so I would move to amend accountable 11944 or five by substituting version two for version one B as presented on the agenda.
Speaker 3: Second Move the second act to amend Council Bill 11944445 by the substitution scribe. It comes from Johnson and it questions all those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose vote no. The ayes have it. It is amended. Catherine Johnson.
Speaker 5: I have nothing to add.
Speaker 3: Any comments before we take a vote on this agenda? Item number five, as amended, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank John Gonzalez I Herbold II Johnson Suarez Machado O'Brien sowhat president Harrell I nine in favor not.
Speaker 3: Oppose the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the agenda. Item number six. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 28 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone land in the Northgate Urban Center; amending Sections 23.30.010, 23.48.002, 23.48.040, 23.48.055, 23.48.085, 23.58B.040, 23.58B.050, 23.58C.040, 23.58C.050, 23.71.004, 23.84A.025, 23.84A.038, 23.84A.048, and 25.05.800 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Subchapter VII to Chapter 23.48 of the Seattle Municipal Code, consisting of Sections 23.48.802, 23.48.805, 23.48.820, 23.48.825, 23.48.827, 23.48.835, 23.48.840, 23.48.841, 23.48.845, 23.48.846, 23.48.847, 23.48.850, 23.48.852, 23.48.880, and 23.48.885. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_Res 31870 | Speaker 8: The report of the City Council. Agenda Item six, Resolution 318 17 calling for additional measures by the city and its partners that complement mandatory housing affordability implementation to promote the livability and equitable development and mitigated displacement and address challenges and opportunities raised by community members during the major public engagement process.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Johnson, Thank you.
Speaker 5: Throughout all of our zoning processes of the last couple of years to implement the mandatory housing affordability program, we've traditionally adopted a companion resolution that identifies additional work that the Council would like to have city staff, city departments work on. This is the companion resolution for the Citywide Image Program. There was one amendment to incorporate minor additions requested by council members after the resolution was introduced as summarized in the central staff memo and shown an attachment to that memo. They add a reference to child care requests, further analysis of zoning anomalies and zoning artifacts, including example parcels and requests, further analysis of the proposed density increases within the new district. This is also the place where many of my colleagues who have unfortunately not been allowed to include proposed amendments for individual parcels inside the base legislation. This is the resolution where those suggestions live, I think about affordable housing opportunities. For example, in Councilmember O'Brien's district, which we've talked about at length, where our Boys and Girls Club is interested in redeveloping to allow for more affordable housing on top. But because they're outside of an urban village, they were not studied in this environmental impact statement for our previous legislation. This resolution calls on that property, as well as dozens of other properties around the city, to continue to be analyzed by the planning department so that they can be included in future legislation. So without further ado, I'd move to amend Resolution 31870 by substituting version six for version five point A and by substituting version two for version one of attachment 1/2.
Speaker 3: Okay, this is just for the amendment. It's been moved in second. And to amend the resolution as described by Councilwoman Johnson, all those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose vote no. The amendment is passed. Katherine Johnson, anything to add?
Speaker 5: I have nothing here.
Speaker 3: Any comments on this resolution before we take vote comes from Mesquita.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say thanks to the chair again for his work with our office to make some of the amendments. We're really excited about some of the language that we were able to include in the companion resolution to not only recognize but prioritize and include communities most at risk of displacement and thinking through how we do implementation and how we do next steps. Again, echoing what we said earlier, recognizing that MHR is one element of how we will make sure that we're creating more affordable housing. There's a few pieces. There's actually three that I'd just like to highlight, and again, thank him for his work with our office to get these included. One is we're calling for an increase enrollment in the property tax relief program for seniors and individuals with disabilities so that those homeowners can have additional relief. Currently, we only have about one third of those who are qualified for household are qualified for the program, actually enrolled in King County. We know we can do better. Interested in working with the city and the county assessor's office to help increase enrollment in that program? The second thing we worked on is to include language specifically to enhance our community priorities and ensure that new development includes elements such as childcare, art and cultural space. This is one of the issues, and I'm looking at our friends in Biggin Hill where we heard repeatedly how challenging it was to include, for example, art on their outside on the facade of the Roberto Massa Plaza as we create new buildings that are intended to be for not just houses but for community space and plazas and green areas. We want to make sure that we're listening to the community and how we incorporate some of the ideas for how to truly create, place and create a sense of neighborhood. And then the last thing is excited about some of the work that we're going to be doing that's mentioned in the resolution around community preference and affirmative marketing to ensure that longtime community members in areas in high risk of displacement are prioritized for building more homes. I think we've all said it and I'll repeat again. Creating additional housing is a key element to helping to address displacement. We also want to make sure that as new housing is created, as those affordable units go online, those who've been in the neighborhood have the first chance to get back in and through the community preference policies that our friends at the Office of Housing have been working on for a while with community partners. We're really excited about amping that up, so thank you to the chair for his work with our office and getting some of those pieces in.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Mesquita, could we have in a minute resolution or anything you'd like to speak on, Castro Herbold.
Speaker 1: I would as well. Thank you. Some items that this resolution commits the city to work on, which I really appreciate again. Commitment to carry out a variety of initiatives identified to address displacement, especially focused in neighborhoods of having a high risk of displacement in the growth and equity analysis. Prioritizing investment in neighborhoods with high displacement risk and neighborhoods where fees were generated, and also to create more family sized housing. We also, in this resolution signal our intent to evaluate the enforcement of ordinance 12 4861 passed with former Council member Burgess's leadership. This is an ordinance that requires owners of certain low income housing to notify the city of the proposed sale of building. This is an ordinance that has been it's been on the books for a while and eager to work with the Office of Housing to look at how we can actually enforce it so we can get some of these properties into into community ownership so that we can have community driven development. We're also interested in looking at expanding this ordinance beyond the scope of multifamily housing. Folks in the Morgan Junction in particular are interested in using this this ordinance or successor ordinance to create a pilot, to incentivize owners of property to make that property available to groups like Homestead Community Land Trust to encourage entry level homeownership opportunities. In addition, this resolution highlights our intent to develop and implement strategies to support and incubates small independent businesses. And as it relates specifically to some of the district wide issues, I just want to highlight a couple. For Admiral, we're asking the Office of Planned Community Development to update neighborhood design guidelines to address transitions between zones along California AV in the Morgan Junction. In addition to the affordable housing pilot that I mentioned earlier, OPIC has requested to collaborate with community stakeholders to determine the conditions for a pedestrian zone and in regards to the West Seattle Junction. We're highlighting the community's interest to begin working with OPD on community planning in conjunction with a future light rail station. OK'd has committed to begin background work in 2019 and planning in earnest in 2020, and the community is eager to get started. And then for Westwood, there is similarly.
Speaker 0: A.
Speaker 1: Request of OPC to bring South Delbridge into the planning for the rest of Dale Ridge. Self-Storage has been a neglected part of Dale Ridge, and we really need to make sure that we're integrating the planning for that part of.
Speaker 0: The corridor with the rest of Dale Ridge.
Speaker 1: And then finally at four four South Park, we're really interested in working on examining the question of whether or not South Park meets the criteria for Urban Village designation, as well as asking the Department of Neighborhoods to support community efforts to protect historic resources in the neighborhood, and then finally working with CCI to see if there are specific public, not private public views of the Duwamish River that should be protected within the bounds of the urban village. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Okay. Any further questions before we vote on the resolution? Okay. This is going to have to be moved. So I will move to adopt resolution 31870 as amended. Okay. All those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolution is adopted in the chair will sign it. Please read the report. Of the Civil Rights, Utility's Economic Development and Arts Committee. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION calling for additional measures by the City and its partners that complement mandatory housing affordability (MHA) implementation to promote livability and equitable development, mitigate displacement, and address challenges and opportunities raised by community members during the MHA public engagement process. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_CB 119476 | Speaker 8: Three part of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill 119 476 relating to the Pike Place Market, authorizing renewal of the agreement with the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority, commonly known as the HILT Lakota Agreement for a term of ten years, committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Beck.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. And after all of what we've been going through over the last couple of hours, I've got four items. We'll try to get through them quickly. The first is the Hilt Lakota agreement that it comes up every ten years. It lays out the rules and regulations and stipulations regarding use and priority of the Pike Place Market space. And at our committee last Wednesday, I was very impressed. And Mary Beth Corella was there. She's the executive director of the market, as well as her staff, as well as a couple of vendors who talked about just how well the process went. They spent a good portion of the last year discussing the process, the new agreement, and it was very clear that the groups had worked together and there was much more positivity than there was ten years ago. So I want to say thanks to all. And finally, thanks to Kenny Pittman of our Office of Inter-Government Relations and linguists in our central staff who helped shepherd this ordinance through. So we recommend adoption of this renewal.
Speaker 3: Very good. Any other questions or comments? Here. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: John Gonzalez. Purple Johnson whereas. Let's get to I. O'BRIEN So what? Gordon Harrow. I ain't in favor.
Speaker 3: And unopposed the bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda and you can read the short title.
Speaker 8: Agenda item nine Cancel 119478. Amending Ordinance 125 724, which adopted the 2018 budget, including the 2018 three 2024 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pike Place Market, authorizing a renewal of the agreement with the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority commonly known as the “Hildt-Licata Agreement,” for a term of ten years. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_Res 31869 | Speaker 8: Agenda item 11 Resolution 31869 Revising Resolution 318 49, which endorsed a budget for the city of Seattle for 2020 by substituting a new attachment eight that corrects technical omissions and errors. Committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 3: Casper Pet Shop. Good.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This resolution continues to make a number of technical corrections to the entry to the endorsed 2020 budget, and it will make the following projected appropriation changes. First, a technical correction to reflect future double appropriations of $50,000 from the General Fund to Arts and Culture Fund associated with Council budget actions, and a $175,000 reduction in the fix at first budget summary level of the rate to capital projects. I know you're excited about this. I do want to say thank you to Councilmember Gonzales once again for hanging in there with me. And again, as I mentioned this morning, that we were very pleased with Allie, said Lisa Kay's work. Thank you. I know things got a little complicated, but we got through it just fine. So in recognition of all that, we recommend adoption of resolution 31869.
Speaker 3: Very good. Any questions or comments? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote I II Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolutions adopted in chair. Simon, please read the report of the full City Council. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION revising Resolution 31849, which endorsed a budget for The City of Seattle for 2020, by substituting a new Attachment A that corrects technical omissions and errors. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03112019_CB 119460 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Congratulations. Yay! It was a close vote, buddy. And just so you know that. So we will move to item number two. You want to go out and read to the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda item to your council. 11946. To read the 2008 parks and Greenspaces Levy, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: This comes out of our committee. And so let me give a little background information. There are four funding categories, including the Acquisitions Environment and the Opportunity Fund, a development from the 2008 Park and Greenspaces Levy, which and the levy provided inflation contingencies for projects in the acquisition, environment and development categories, but not the opportunity fund inflation categories . In the acquisition and environment categories are fully spent, but they remain for projects in the development category. Of the total 14 million inflation contingency for the development category, 11.6 million has been spent. This legislation appropriates 2.4 million and remaining contingency for the remaining active projects in the development category. Example projects include Gasworks Park, the Gasworks Park Play Area, Nomura, Desmond Desmond Park Development and the Magnuson Park Building, the 406 Park Building 406 I'm sorry, the roof. So with that, are there any comments? No. All right. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Swan Lake Bagshaw. Hi.
Speaker 4: Gonzalez Herbold. Hi.
Speaker 0: Johnson O'Brien. Hi. President Suarez, high seven, in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign. Please read the second and third item into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy; utilizing the resources provided by the taxpayers within the Development Category Inflation Adjustment and the Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds subcategory; increasing appropriations to the Department of Parks and Recreation in the 2019 Adopted Budget; and amending the 2019-2024 Adopted Capital Improvement Program; all by a three-fourths vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03112019_CB 119466 | Speaker 4: Agenda item three Cancel 119 466 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the acceptance of a gift of a timber pavilion structure from the Seattle Parks Foundation to be installed in Occidentale Square Park for public use. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So as you heard, council bill 119466 authorizes the acceptance of a gift of a timber pavilion structure from SEAL Parks Foundation to be installed in Occidentale Square Park for public use. Sale Parks Foundation will be making the timber pavilion and making the timber pavilion a gift to million dollar value to the city of Seattle and the Seattle Department of Parks and Rec. The timber pavilion will replace the current kiosk building and function as an information and concierge station for Park and Pioneer Square visitors. A large grass roof will I love this sit gracefully above the structure and extend into the park, providing opportunities for play, performance and classes in a beautiful covered space , the new pavilion will provide for enhanced park activation. The SEAL Parks Foundation is working in partnership with the Alliance for Pioneer Square and I believe Friends of the Waterfront. So with that, are there any comments? All right. Please call on the passage of the bill. Sergeant Major Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Herbold. Hi.
Speaker 0: Johnson O'Brien. Hi. President. Whereas I seven and favorite nine oppose the bill passes and the chair will sign. So let's play. We have four appointments. You want to read items four through seven to the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acceptance of a gift of a timber pavilion structure from the Seattle Parks Foundation to be installed in Occidental Square Park for public use. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03112019_CB 119473 | Speaker 4: Agenda item nine Constable 119 473 Granting the University of Washington permission to maintain and operate a pedestrian tunnel under an across northeast Pacific Street west of Montlake Boulevard. Northeast Committee recommends a bill pass.
Speaker 1: To this is legislation that will allow the city to renew a permit for the University of Washington to operate a tunnel connecting the parking garage under the triangle between Montlake and Pacific excuse me, across from University Hospital to the hospital. The tunnel has been around over 30 years and the previous permit has expired. So this would give authority for a ten year permit dating back starting to 2015 and then two more ten year extensions that could be approved without council approval. The permit fee for this is 16 $1,680 for 2015. It gets adjusted based on property values going forward.
Speaker 0: Any more comments? All right, please. About the passage of the bill. Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Herbold by.
Speaker 0: Johnson O'Brien, President Suarez I seven in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: All right, let's make sure Councilmember Johnson can catch his bus. Any other business? Another for a business before the council. All right. That we are adjourned here. No further business ticket. Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting the University of Washington permission to maintain and operate a pedestrian tunnel under and across Northeast Pacific Street, west of Montlake Boulevard Northeast, 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_03042019_Res 31862 | Speaker 0: Right. Can you please read that into the do we have read into the record? And then I believe Councilmember Samant has agenda items two, three, four and five. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: The report, the Human Services.
Speaker 2: Equitable Development and Renters Rights.
Speaker 3: Committee turned that into your resolution 318 62, a resolution to delay consideration of the mayor's nomination with Jason Johnson to be director of the Human Services Department until a formal search process can be completed, and to convene a search committee representing all Human Services Department stakeholders to define qualifications, skills and attributes for an appointee and recommend two finalists for appointment. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted with abstentions from councilmembers Harrell and Herbold.
Speaker 0: All right with that. Councilmember So what?
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Maros. I will make opening remarks and I would like to make closing comments as the sponsor of the resolution.
Speaker 0: And please remind me to leave to have you do closing remarks in case I forget.
Speaker 1: There is no reasonable justification for the controversy around this resolution. When my office first discussed and was invited to discuss the appointment with human service providers, Human Services employees and other community members, we heard very serious concerns and as the many speakers today and in previous meetings of the Committee of the City Council where Human Services issues are discussed. What they have said is a very reasonable position, which is asking for an inclusive and transparent search for the leadership of a department, which is ground zero for the most emergent problem in our city, which is the housing affordability crisis and the homelessness crisis. In my view, this is an entirely reasonable proposition from the employees of the department and also from community members and human service providers. And as speakers today have said, the city of Seattle has agreed upon a reasoned social justice approach to the work of the department and that that be upheld in all the work that the mayor carries out. And that not that they not that the politicians do not engage in cherry picking where they will apply race and social justice and where they will not approach race and social justice. So from that standpoint, I think that there is nothing controversial about this resolution because it merely expresses what we have heard from hundreds of people in our community. This resolution is only controversial because the mayor has decided to go nuclear over it, writing threatening letters, refusing to send representatives to council meetings, threatening to close homeless shelters and so on. Our city faces an unprecedented housing affordability and homelessness homelessness crisis. Therefore, I do not think that issues are being conflated here. The issue of the leadership of the department is very intricately tied to the work that the department employees do in dealing with the crises faced by our most vulnerable community members. And so, in my opinion, behind a mayor's attempt to bypass a transparent and inclusive appointment search and to sideline the overwhelming and numerous voices of those who oppose her choice for Human Services Director position is a broader attempt to silence opposition to our under-funded and punitive approach to the housing and homelessness crisis. The mayor's strategy effectively ignores the deeply embedded economic inequality, unaffordable rents, racism, sexism and social inequalities built into the fabric of capitalism. Problems that in this situation have been dramatically worsened by City Hall's longstanding support for and reliance on the for profit market. Human Services workers understand that the human and humanitarian crisis in our city falls disproportionately on people of color, immigrants, women and the LGBTQ community. And they want a city leadership that also understands that. Unfortunately, despite the deputy mayor promising Human Services employees in fall 2018 of a transparent and inclusive search, the mayor did not engage with the community all year. Last year, while my office was asking her what she was going to do with the appointment, and immediately and on December 19th, we heard that we heard about her election. And immediately after my office began hearing from Human Services staff, the union that represents most of them protect 17 and human services providers and community members in I've been in office in City Hall since the beginning of 2014. So in my time in the Council, I have been asked to vote on any number of appointments of leadership in city departments. I have never seen a case where there has been such widespread concern about a director appointment. This is a petition signed by 130 members of Protect 17 Union who work in the Human Services Department asking for the Council to send the nomination back to the mayor to conduct an inclusive search. They also turned out in large numbers to their union meetings, to the changing meetings of the department to discuss how to respond. Dozens of Human Services employees have turned out to both the committee meetings, and these were committee meetings where we had over 100 people join us at these meetings. I would urge council members to think for a moment how much courage it would take for a Human Services employee to speak up on this issue and openly oppose the mayor's choice of the acting director of their department. I wanted to say to you all, I have the deepest respect for your resolve and for your solidarity among yourselves. And if there is any question of harassment or retaliation on the basis of the courageous position you have taken, I wanted to publicly state that I will stand with you and please let my office know if there is any such case. This is the letter from the Human Services Department Change team who, among other things, advocate for Seattle's race and social justice principles and urge the council to send the nomination back to the mayor for an inclusive candidate search. This is a letter from the Seattle Silence Breakers that also does the same. This is a letter from the Seattle Human Services Coalition making the same request. The coalition represents 182 nonprofit social services agencies in Seattle. They are the agencies that the Human Services Department contracts with to provide food, shelter, supportive housing, health care and services for people with disabilities, elderly community members, youth and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. These are community partners that the director of the Human Services Department must have a trusting and collaborative relationship with to be effective. Councils should also take their input very seriously and should consider their courage in writing a letter demanding a truly inclusive director search because they also fear retaliation. I also want you to share an important letter sent by the Transit Riders Union in solidarity with the Human Services employees and social service providers for demanding an inclusive search. I also wanted to comment on the fact that Cher and we have received a letter, I think two days after they testified in the committee in chambers that they are that that their contract from a year long contract will be cut to one terminating at the end of June. And in that letter, the mayor the letter says, quote, The mayor wishes to convey that she is happy with improved exit access to housing and and hopes that the revisited award will provide incentive for improved utilization, which could result in extension of the contract. I mean, it's a very technical way of saying you've done a good job and we are going to reward you by yanking your longer contract and making you fight for it every month. That's like telling an employee. I mean, this is Orwellian doublespeak and it's like telling you're telling an employee, you're not being fired, you're just being laid off. I think it is important that those of us who stand for human services stand with share and will, because they provide much needed basic shelters. And there's been repeated attempts by the mayor's office and by some councilmembers to take their funding away on the basis of not having numbers. But the mayor herself has admitted she doesn't have numbers for transitions to permanent housing. So why are we holding one small service provider accountable for that as a whole? If you repeal the Amazon tags and if you if you stand as an obstacle to any possible measure to expand housing affordability, then you're not in a position to tell individual service providers that they're not doing enough. I think the timing of this was very questionable. The timing of this announcement was very questionable. But whether or not it is retaliation, I will say the bottom line is, given the crisis that our city is reeling under, it is unconscionable to make any cuts to funding for social services and homeless services. And the Select Committee on Homelessness, which I will be chairing on March 12th at 2 p.m., will take up this issue to make sure that shelters are not closed. I also wanted to make sure that everybody knows that Project 17, the union that represents, I think half of the workers in the Human Services Department has signed a letter out in which they are clarifying that the union, as Melissa McClure said, the union stands with the membership in asking for a meaningful engagement with external and internal stakeholders. And it says Project 17 membership maintains the firm position that a transparent process that embeds the race and social justice principles and values of the city and department is required to establish accountability and leadership. So in other words, what this letter says is that whatever the mayor and the council may promise about the future is a separate question. Don't make promises about the future if you're not going to uphold this resolution today. So it's really meaningless for council members to say we will support a resolution that talks about what we will do in the future when the promises that were made about this are not being upheld. Why should HST employees and service providers trust promises of the future when current promises are not being kept? I will say in closing that that. This nomination is much more than about an individual. It's about the choice that council members have about whether they will listen to the hundreds of community members who have spoken and do the right thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customers who want. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Thanks. I'm going to be speaking against this resolution today. You know, in the the conversation and I think it's happened in community, this has become a proxy for the confirmation of the individual who currently serves as the interim director for the department. Jason Johnson So I want to go forward for the record that there have been dozens, if not hundreds of emails that we've gotten in support of Jason as the permanent director. Here are some of the qualities that people have expressed when talking about Jason. He's qualified. He's got a true concern for all Seattle residents. He's trusted, admired and competent. He's got a grasp of the complexity on a wide range of human service departments programs. He's got a commitment to positive solutions. He's an asset to Seattle. He's committed to accountability. He's got a continuity of leadership that's important in this time. He's committed to reform and continual review and improvement. He's a people focused leader and people oriented. He's a person with integrity. And these have come from individuals, not to mention the letters that we've received from organizations as diverse as solid ground, the Pride Foundation Chief Seattle Club, Accelerator, YMCA, Catholic Community Services, and others who have asked for us to quickly confirm Director Johnson. So while I know that much has been made about this being about a process, I think that this is really not about a process. This is about a person. And I will be voting no today in the hopes that we can actually take up the confirmation of this individual.
Speaker 0: And the other by the colleagues. Oh. Councilman Ryan.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you. I'll be voting in support of this resolution. I wanted to speak briefly to my thinking on it. I'm I want to be clear that I've had a good working relationship with Jason Johnson as both deputy and interim or what's the proper term, interim and acting. Thank you. And I and I don't oppose his appointment ultimately, but I do believe that a process is important. I think there's an important role, and I think the request from community members and that there be a transparent, inclusive process and a chance to compare candidates and get them to vet some of their opinions, I think is a really important thing to do.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilor Mosquito.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I think I want to be very clear up here. We understand fully that the mayor gets to nominate whomever she chooses for department directors. And also, I think we all understand that it's the council's job to run a confirmation process. There's a few things that are clear to me as we have this conversation today. Many of the people who work at HST and including those in the bargaining unit, including those from the change team, including those who are members of the Silence Breakers, as well as others who are contracted providers, don't feel like their voices were heard or that there was a thoughtful selection process in which they could make sure that their issues and their values were represented. Number two, we know that we can't go back and fix a process, but we can indicate that we wanted to see what we expected to see didn't happen. And at this point, without enough time to make sure that those who are frontline staff and providers feel like their voices have been heard at the table, it is imperative, I believe, to go back and ask for a more inclusive process. And I also think that we need to work together as a city to ensure that we focus on big picture policy issues and pressing issues. But this process should not be interfering either politically or policy wise, with the important role that HST has to play. We are very, very lucky to have all of the individuals who work at HST. We know we have a homelessness and housing crisis that is pressing and is getting worse every single day. And I, like Councilmember O'Brien, have had very positive interactions with the individual, Jason Johnson and his leadership team, as well as the incredible folks on the front line. But to me, the purpose of the resolution in front of us is to say that we need a process that is inclusive, that represents our commitment to race and social justice, that ensures that frontline staff and those who are being served by the department have had a chance to either be at the table or to make sure that their values are represented at the table. So we understand, I believe, that our our job is not to run the process, but as we look at the process that's in front of us, we don't have the right tools to evaluate whether or not individuals questions have been answered, whether or not they feel like their issues and their values have been heard, and whether or not there's a plan of action to ensure that the director and the new director will listen to those concerns and integrate public policy changes to make sure that there's a process moving forward. I also want to be very clear that this is our job. This is our job to evaluate nominees that come down. And I do take some offense with the staff member who wrote to us and said that resolutions aren't our job. It is our job as a council to ensure the impact of communities. Have a seat at the table. It is our job to ensure that there is a public and transparent process to decide on whether candidates are the right choice the to lead the department. And it is our job to be accountable to the people of this city. We don't make decisions in a vacuum. And as elected leaders, we ultimately don't get to decide who gets sent down to us. But it is our job to make sure that the process was inclusive and thoughtful. So from my perspective, regardless of how council members vote on this, on this resolution, I want to reiterate that I do believe that we're doing our job to clearly question whether or not we have the right tools in front of us to make this decision today. And from my perspective, this resolution is not about Jason's leadership or whether he's the right person to lead. This is a question about the process, whether we got it right and whether it was inclusive and saying that we've had other processes that haven't had to go this route or that we've done it this way in the past . You know, we all also don't want business as usual. We have to make some changes. And in the time of MeToo and a time where people courageously speak up and tell their truth and speak truth to power, this means making space at the table and also recognizing that sometimes we do need to hit pause and ask if we've created the table for people to come to. So I'll be voting in support of the resolution in the hopes that we can either have a process that's changed or that we will be able to vote up or down on the nominee and move forward. And in deference to the mayor's office, I have held back the resolution that's forward looking. I do think that that helps provide us with additional additional clarity on what the city council hopes for in terms of a transparent and inclusive process. I do look forward to finding a resolution on that resolution, and I appreciate all of the council members comments throughout this process, regardless which way we vote. We all know that we want to make sure that our human service provider, frontline staff provide organizations and those who are experiencing homelessness get the direct services that they need. We're incredibly proud to work with you on a daily basis. And no matter which way folks vote today. Thank you for your incredible service. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Bagshaw. Colleagues, I want to thank you all for the work that you've done. Councilmember Mesquita, you just outlined some things that I think are actually very important. Before we talk about this a second, I just want to say thank you to all and share and we all for being here. I know that many of you remember very clearly just a few months ago during our budget cycle that you were one of the first groups that came and said keeping people inside is critical. We passed the budget, making sure that you had that money to stay inside and warm. And I want to acknowledge that I will continue to do what I can to make sure that share continues, that the work that you do is supported and funded. So I just I do really do want to acknowledge how much I appreciate what you are doing to keep people inside. And also we need to improve the outcomes. We all know that. And this is the same thing we're trying to do up here. And I also want to acknowledge the concerns that many of you have brought forward about the process. And I'm taking a little different view on this. I was the chair of Human Services for the last couple of years prior to Councilmember Sawant. I know how important getting this right is. But that said, we've got human services to provide. We've got used to care for. We have our aging and disabilities group. We have our age friendly group and the efforts that we're putting to support those who are victims of domestic violence. DeLay is not going to help us. Another year long search is not going to help us. The Human Services Department has called me, service providers have called me, and we've received dozens and dozens of people saying, let's move forward on this. We have a great man that is leading this work. I've worked with Jason for years. I regard him as a man of integrity. I saw him back in Washington, D.C., where he was working very hard with national experts and he is well recognized. And I appreciate the work and experience he brings to this. So rather than saying, let's do another national search, I'd say let's focus on the people we have the excellent people and workers within the Human Services Department. If there's a problem with get that right, but I would like to move forward rather than delaying this. So I'll be voting against this resolution. Okay. Is there any other comments? Cashmere Herbal.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So I attended the last Human Services Committee meeting back on February 20th. I also listened to the testimony at the meeting previous to that, at this last meeting on the 20th, I abstained from voting so that I could continue to consider the thoughts and concerns of individuals about the proposed resolution. I've said before that I do not support maintaining the status quo as it relates to the Council's expectations for how the mayor conducts department search processes. Back in 2007, when the resolution that currently defines the expectations for the nomination and confirmation process was passed. Neither the council mayor nor department are items contemplated utilization of the racial equity toolkit as part of a nomination and confirmation process. I'm really glad that we're in a different and better place today, and I want to formalize the changes to the status quo that address sort of this new expectation. And as we've heard, in some cases, some council members have already made that part of their expectations to the executive for confirmation processes that they have seen that they have overseen. Members of the public are asking today that we change the nomination and confirmation process. I say let's do that. I support a transparent and inclusive process. But I believe that the appropriate time for the council to raise these issues is at the beginning of the nomination process. For that reason, I've requested that Councilmember Mosqueda include specific language related to that process in her resolution, specifically that prior to nomination that the Executive give to the Council a written description of that process, the use of any advisory groups that will be part of that process and the composition of that advisory group that way. The committee chair overseeing that nomination has the ability to engage with the executive about that process before the nomination comes forward. Again, individual council members have worked with the executive in the past and developing these sorts of expectations, as we heard from Councilmember Gonzales this morning. She described asking that the mayor use a racial equity toolkit during the police chief process. I have shared my concern that this did not happen in this particular case. Councilmember want produce emails from her staff that appear to have been unanswered. Asking questions about the unintended consent process that these emails were unanswered is unfortunate, but I'm unaware of any communication from Councilmember Sawant prior to the nomination to the expectation about her specific expectations for that process. If council members who want had made those expectations known prior to nomination and they were ignored, I might feel differently today. We heard at the Human Services Committee meeting on the 20th that the Human Services Coalition had been seeking a meeting with the mayor since the beginning of her term to discuss the Human Services Coalition's hopes for the future of the Human Services Department. The fact that they have not had such a meeting since the mayor has taken office was described by the representative of the Human Services Coalition as unprecedented. The Human Services Coalition represents dozens of providers, hundreds if not thousands of workers and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of recipients of services. I'm glad to report that the mayor's office has let me know today that the mayor will, in fact, be meeting with the Seattle Human Services Coalition as it relates to concerns that we've heard today from Share we'll residents and their supporters. I've spoken with HST about their intent in giving them a six month contract. Specifically in writing and verbally, HST has indicated appreciation for the progress made by share wheel and expectations for continued progress. Last week, Meg Gerberding assured me verbally in person that sheer will is a valued partner and then HST is sincere in its desire to continue to support their services as part of an emergency services continuum. As I have done before, I intend to try and facilitate a meeting with HST and share wheel. I put that request in today with HST about the specific issues that HST has identified as continued areas of improvement, as well as wanting to hear from share wheel about the barriers that they identify to improve completeness in this data. I want to clarify the issues that have been raised are less about outcomes to to permanent housing and more specifically about complete completeness.
Speaker 2: Of data.
Speaker 8: Itself. So these are things that I'm really confident that we can we can work to resolve in time for the the continued provision of the services that the council funded in last year's budget. And that's all I have.
Speaker 0: Thank. Councilmember customers want you want to close for us?
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want first of all, I wanted to say that in for council members who are saying that, oh, they're worried about the delay. I just want to clarify. My office has been asking the mayor since March of last year, which is almost a year ago now, asking them what they intended to do about the agenda nomination. And in fact, the first e-mail that my policy analyst, Edward Jones, sent to the mayor's staff office specifically says that can we have the an idea for who's going to be nominated before the previous director left? Because we didn't want to have any delays. So I think it's disingenuous for council members to say we are, we are, you're voting no against a resolution because you're against delays, but we are against delays also. This is not a question of delay. It's a question of hundreds of people having spoken up. And we're and we have a council that is predominantly, it seems like, going to hide behind process oriented points in order to not respond to and listen to the people that have spoken. And I really appreciate Councilmembers O'Brian and Mosquito supporting this resolution, because voting yes on this resolution says that you as an elected representative are standing up for promises that were made to be fulfilled, as opposed to simply saying, well, let's just roll it over to another promise in the future, and why should people trust that those promises will be kept if these promises weren't kept in the first place? And in response to Councilmember Herbals points that I my office did not state the expectations. I'm sorry. These are very, very basic questions that ordinary people are asking about upholding the race and social justice process and including people. This was a promise that Deputy Mayor Ranganathan herself made in fall 2018 to address the employees. So I do not understand why the mayor's office needs instructions from my office to do the very basic and minimally required actions that are her responsibility. Furthermore. Furthermore, I don't understand why council members would elevate what my office did or didn't do in comparison to the many voices we have heard, regardless of what my office did or didn't do. I think your voices should count for far more than anything else. Anything else? It should count for more than any politician's voice. So given that you all have spoken, that is the most important thing. And that is why I agreed to bring this resolution forward. Based on what you all said, and I also wanted to share with members of the public that I had a meeting with the mayor this morning, and I asked her what she concurred with this resolution. In response to that question, she asked me a question. In response, she said, Will you withdraw this resolution? And I just wanted to let you all know that I said, of course, I cannot withdraw this resolution, because that would be unconscionable, that I have to remain accountable not to her, but to the ordinary people who have spoken. And I urged her to go with the resolution. I also told her, regardless of how right you think about the nomination, you send what matters the most, despite regardless of any other process point you make is that hundreds of people have spoken and you cannot just sideline those voices. I will I will say this. If if this resolution does not get the majority vote, I'm going to urge everybody who has fought for this to know that it's never the end of the road. We can still keep fighting. And furthermore, there are concrete ways that we can keep fighting in this issue. I'm not talking about in the abstract that somebody on the council will still need to move for the appointment of Jason Johnson. And I appeal to you all to not give up and to keep coming and and do for us to keep strategizing. And I will just end by quoting Gretchen wisely. I mean, I'm going to paraphrase paraphrasing, because I didn't write down the actual quote, but something along the lines of let's keep building and organizing so that we can meet every penny of opposition from the mayor or any other politician with a pound of organizing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Hey. Okay. So.
Speaker 0: With that. Thank you. COUNCILMEMBER So what? We will move forward on a vote. Please call the roll on the passage of the resolution.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN All right. So what? I beg your.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: GONZALEZ No. Purple.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 2: JOHNSON must get to Juarez.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Three in favor. Five opposed.
Speaker 0: So the resolution fails. There's nothing for me to sign. Okay, so with that, I understand customers who want you have matters three, four and five that are appointments on the agenda for yours. Or I do have to sign something o number even into the record. 0a3 record. I'm sorry. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION to delay consideration of the Mayor’s nomination of Jason Johnson to be Director of the Human Services Department until a formal search process can be completed; and to convene a search committee representing all Human Services Department stakeholders to define qualifications, skills, and attributes for an appointee and recommend finalists for appointment. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03042019_CB 119468 | Speaker 3: You take these new Americans and Education Committee agenda item six cancel 119468 relating to the Seattle Police Department, creating an incentive program for hiring police officers and repealing obsolete sections 4.20 point by 30.5 40 point end point 557. As Speaker, the committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Clerk. May I Chair. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Bill.
Speaker 2: So I need to move to amend this bill with a substitution version. So I moved to amend Council Bill 119468 by substituting version three for version to.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 7: Library.
Speaker 0: That has been moved and seconded that the substitute may be adopted. Any comments? Hey. It's not a disaster.
Speaker 2: I think we need to vote on the substitute version. Is that correct? The amendment.
Speaker 0: I mean, I'm just not getting the scripting down, man.
Speaker 2: That's okay. I am here to help.
Speaker 0: And I know you are.
Speaker 2: Giving you some gentle prompt.
Speaker 0: You are? Okay, so there we go. Those in favor of the substitute vote, I, I suppose. Vote no. The motion carries in. The substitute is adopted.
Speaker 2: All right. Now I will speak to the substantive no substitution bill 119468. So council bill 119468 creates an incentive program for the hiring of new police officers at the Seattle Police Department. My committee and this council have closely watched the hiring and separations data coming out of the Seattle Police Department since the middle of 2018, when it became apparent that the department was lagging far behind their hiring forecasts. Department has continued to encounter hiring struggles in in recent months, and this is, as we heard in my committee hearing, a reflection of a very challenging landscape nationally in which police departments across the country are struggling to recruit new officers. The Seattle Police Department and the mayor originally proposed this legislation to offer lateral hires from other departments and jurisdictions a signing bonus of $15,000 in total. We have a through my committee process following the initial hearing on this bill in my committee identified several ways that I thought we could strengthen and expand this incentive program, creating additional accountability measures to ensure the strategy's success. So I proposed four changes in total to this legislation, which were adopted unanimously in committee at our last committee hearing on the 27th of February. The first is that my amendments would expand the incentive program to new recruits. The executive's proposal would have authorized a $15,000 hiring bonus exclusively for lateral hires. My amendment, passed in committee authorizes the Seattle Police Department to extend hiring bonuses to new recruits of up to $7,500 per recruits. Lateral hires only make up 20 of the 104 new officer positions in the Seattle Police Department's hiring forecast. So considering that the bulk of new hires, approximately 84 out of 104 the department is seeking in 2018 our new recruits. I believe it's important that Department direct its efforts and resources towards the new recruit strategy, as well as the lateral hiring strategy. In addition, a hiring bonus for new recruits can help reduce barriers to pursuing this profession and could enhance the department's efforts to recruit and hire women and individuals of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds consistent with our police accountability ordinance and in connection with some of the progress that the Department has already made in terms of increasing the number of diverse folks to become police officers. Secondly, the Second Amendment that I advanced in committee was a new data collection, analysis and reporting requirement that will help the Council and the public determine if this program is successful, including data regarding the demographics of new hires and the lateral hires. Third is a sunset date, which would require the executive to seek the City Council's affirmative reauthorization from excuse me that it would seek our reauthorization before renewing or continuing the incentive program. And then lastly, a clause that ensures that new hires who receive the bonus serve the department for three years before leaving the department. Otherwise, they would be required to pay back the bonus to the city of Seattle if they depart before the end of those three years. So following some additional discussions with the Department and the City Budget Office, we agreed on several other updates to my original amendment, which is why I needed a substitute version. Most of that was wordsmithing and technical language, and that's all I have. Happy to answer any questions, but would urge my colleagues to support the passage of this Council bill, which is, as I mentioned this morning, revenue neutral and will be supported through salary savings as a result of ongoing vacancies at the police department in terms of its hiring forecast.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Councilman Muscat, I believe you raise your hand.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. And thanks to the good chair of public safety for her really intense work on this bill. I think when I initially came to your committee, when we discussed this, there was a lot of skepticism that I held about whether or not this was the right way to go, because I know many of us are interested in continuing to ensure that any additional dollars and efforts, programmatic strategies, go into community policing and trying to figure out how we can share some of the funds with our community partners. And what I heard in that committee, because of your leadership, was really about how do we create stability? The numbers spoke for themselves and having a chance to hear directly from the department and community members at large. I think you've really struck a nice balance here. It's important, I think, to underscore what you just ended with again, which is that this is not new money. There's three additional components for me that really make this a powerful piece of legislation in terms of accountability and transparency to ensure that this mechanism works for creating greater stability for our police force. One is the sunset on the duration of the hiring incentive. Two as the reporting requirements that you championed and included here, so that we could actually see whether or not the new dollar or the dollars were truly bringing in new recruits and lateral hires, and that we maintained our commitment to race and social justice by not just focusing on lateral hires, but also recruits for new hires. That would be hopefully younger folks, women, people of color. So thank you for your work to incorporate all of these components into the revised version, and I'll be supporting you in this effort.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 9: Casmir Johnson Just briefly, as a third member of that committee, I wanted to offer my support for the recommendation and highlight two things that we covered in committee that I thought are worthy of repeating. The first of which is the proposal is very consistent with what hiring bonuses are offered by jurisdictions are directly neighboring locales, whether that's the county or the city or Snohomish County or other neighboring cities. So this not having this puts us at a competitive disadvantage. By instituting this, it will put us at least on a level playing field with those other jurisdictions and the kinds of signing bonuses that they offer both to new recruits and lateral hires. And then the second is, I think it's very appropriate for us to highlight that oftentimes there is a rhetoric out there about this council not doing enough to ensure the hiring of new officers. It is a national challenge for the departments around the country to bring in new people into the world of policing. Some folks attribute that to the challenge of constitutional policing, some attributed to the low, historically low unemployment rates. Regardless, I think this council is doing our part to make sure that we are providing all kinds of incentives to ensure that not only are we doing fair and appropriate constitutional policing, but putting the resources necessary to make sure that we have the appropriate level of officers that are necessary to do that work. So I want to thank the Chair for a commitment to this, and I look forward to enthusiastically voting yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Anyone else, councilman or herbal?
Speaker 8: Thank you. I just want to highlight a different element of this effort specifically related to meeting our staffing goals. The mayor's office is convening a hiring workgroup regarding relating to recruitment and hiring, and I know that the Council is a part of that hiring workgroup. I want to raise an issue that I've raised before. In 2017, the Community Policing Commission or the Community Police Commission published a report about specifically this subject. It was entitled Recommendations of Community Police Commission for Recruitment, Hiring and Training. It includes numerous recommendations that can inform this work, and these recommendations have never been implemented. And they serve, as, I believe, as a starting point, including comparisons to policies and studies in other cities, outreach to diverse communities. I've requested that the workgroup not only consider the recommendations of the study, but also find a way to incorporate the involvement of the CPC. They are specifically chartered to advise the city on issues related to recruitment. In addition, I want to highlight some other work.
Speaker 0: Related to.
Speaker 8: Recruitment that Councilmember Gonzales and I have done.
Speaker 7: Over the last.
Speaker 8: Couple of years after the accountability ordinance adopted by the Council included a section on recruitment and hiring related specifically to preference points. The two of us worked to get implementation of language related specifically to preference points to expand the pool of applicants and make it clear that their skill sets are valued. It is true that for all of the qualified applicants who who meet the requirements in the preference points policy, those folks are all being hired. But my hope for the preference points policy is that it will actually send a message to our diverse communities that their skills are valued and actually increase the size of the pool applying . In addition, I've, you know, also had concerns that we're spending a lot of time, although I absolutely support the addition of bonuses for four lateral hires. And I appreciate Councilmember Gonzales, his expansion to the new recruits. I really want to have a laser sharp focus on what our approach is for new recruits of our hiring plan for 2019. I believe 20 of those are supposed to come from lateral hires, whereas 80 or. Most to come from new recruits. And to me, that is a real signal that that's where the lion's share of work really needs to be done. And again, it needs to be done in a way that we do not lose the ground that we've gain on. On hiring a diverse workforce. In 2013, 14% of all police hires were from racially diverse communities. In 2018, we're up to 42%. So again, we want to make sure that we're not losing losing ground in these efforts as as we move forward. But we really want to come up with, I think, new and innovate new and innovative ways to encourage people to want to be a police officer in our city. And then finally, one of the things that we've heard from the Budget Office is that the cost, the reason why there's this discrepancy between.
Speaker 0: What we're.
Speaker 8: Offering new recruits in a hiring bonus versus what we're offering lateral recruits is because there are more costs associated with new recruits. I would really like to see that those costs actually, you know, sort of calculated and put on paper. So we're not just seeing the total academy costs, which I understand we receive, but what the costs are for training, including field training. Understand that this includes overtime. I think that will help guide us on where we want to put our emphasis in, in developing with the department. The staffing plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Counselor's one.
Speaker 1: Thank you. During the budget last fall, I proposed 11 amendments to increase what the city of Seattle spends on affordable housing. One of those amendments was to slow the hiring of new police officers and to free up approximately $12 million to build an additional 75 to 130 affordable homes each year. Studies over decades consistently have shown that decreasing inequality is far more effective in reducing crime and improving public safety than increasing policing, as the majority of the Council did not agree at that time. This Council bill would invest in, rather than investing more money, more funds in addressing inequality by, for example, expanding affordable housing is going to spend more money to speed up officer hiring. And I don't think there's any data to support that. Actually hiring more police officers reduces public improves public safety or reduces crime. It's actually addressing inequality that does that. And for that reason, I will be voting no. And on a side note, I will also mention how come we have not seen hiring bonuses for educators and emergency medical technicians and social service workers or any of the numerous other public jobs that do nonviolent life saving work. And I constantly ask to do so on some of the lowest wages in the city.
Speaker 0: Okay. And what else?
Speaker 2: I'm going to wrap it up. I'm going to try to make some closing remarks here. And so I think I wanted to just respond to Councilmember Herbals suggestions about some of the additional work that can be included as part of the work group. My office will be able to have a seat at that work group, so we'll make sure to loop in your feedback, Councilmember Herbold, to make sure that we are capturing some of that additional data that you've highlighted that I think is absolutely important and critical to this. I also just want to note that in terms of the hiring bonus for laterals versus new recruits, part of the reason why I was motivated to expand this to new recruits and not just be hyper focused on laterals is because laterals are are a very small portion of that of the type of officers that the police department has historically been able to hire to address the the hiring shortage and the staffing issues. And so my my hope is that by offering the new recruit hiring incentive, we will actually see a significant increase in bump of hiring in that particular section, in large part because we're the only jurisdiction that I'm aware of that will be offering a hiring incentive for new recruits. And then lastly, I just wanted to clarify one last fact that I think I, I, I think was misstated by Councilmember Swamp, which is that this is not a budget action. We are not allocating additional dollars to the Seattle Police Department for them to fulfill this hiring bonus. This is a policy shift in the policy change that would allow them within their existing appropriated budget to utilize the dollars that they currently have in their budget for staffing to also include this hiring bonus as a strategy. And if the hiring bonus doesn't work, we won't be paying out any money and there will be absolutely no dollars spent in this space. So the dollars that are going to get spent within existing budget authority of the Seattle Police Department will only be spent if there is success in this area. And if there is not, then that means we need to take corrective action and the data that we are requiring that the police department provide to us and the long term work of the work group to address the ongoing issues of hiring and the staffing models and the forecasting will need to be informed by any lack of success or success in this space with this strategy.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Okay. I think that wraps it up and we'll move. So we already did. The substitute bill was adopted. So right now I move to pass council bill 119468 as amended.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Are there any further comments? No. Seeing none. Will the clerk please call Raul O'Brien?
Speaker 6: I so want know by John Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I herbold. I Johnson must get a I. President Juarez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Seven in favor one.
Speaker 0: Opposed the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: So let's go on to o cancer. Gonzalez, you have another matter for us? An appointment. I'll let you go ahead and tee that up.
Speaker 2: I would love for the clerk to read this again.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item seven Appointment of 59 Re-appointment of Maya Butler as Member, Immigrant and Refugee Commission for Term two January 31st, 2021. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Police Department; creating an incentive program for hiring police officers; and repealing obsolete Sections 4.20.530, 4.20.540, and 4.20.550 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03042019_CB 119464 | Speaker 0: Oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next item into the record.
Speaker 3: Agenda item nine Constable 119 464 Authorizing General Manager, CEO of Seattle.
Speaker 2: Public Utilities to execute a contract with Waste Management in Washington.
Speaker 3: For construction.
Speaker 2: Waste.
Speaker 3: Collection services. And I think Information and Practice Committee recommend to go pass thermal.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Waste Management is the current provider of these services and was selected again after an open RFP request for proposal. The new contract is for 6 to 12 years and will begin in April 2019 if approved by the full council. The contract covers delivery and collection of temporary drop boxes at construction sites for non-recyclable waste. This contract actually covers a little less than 10% of total disposed construction waste, as most waste is actually serviced by independent recyclers or self hauled by large construction firms who basically cut out the middleman by delivering their waste straight to the rail yard. The new contract includes prices that are comparable to the current expiring contract.
Speaker 0: All right. Any comments? Okay, let's go forward then. Please call roll. Call the roll on the passage of the bill o'brien. So want I beg.
Speaker 2: John Gonzalez Herbold Johnson Machado hi president Suarez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Adan favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. And please read the last two items for Councilmember Herbold into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a contract with Waste Management of Washington for construction waste collection services; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03042019_CB 119467 | Speaker 0: I was just going to say that I was just getting ready to see it. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: And the report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 12, Constable 119 467 Building Historic Preservation, Placing controls upon the Broad Street Substation Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So this exciting item, after.
Speaker 1: Everything else.
Speaker 0: We've done, I'm going to move to approve this council bill 119467, which will add to the table of historic landmarks to particular points of light in the broad substation for Seattle City Light. We are looking at the significant aspects both cultural, political and heritage in this area, and there's some controlled features that include the control and queen buildings and the tower itself. So with that, I would like to move adoption of the designation second. Okay. Okay. Any other comments? All right. So please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Swan I beg.
Speaker 2: Shanghai. Gonzalez, purple Johnson Macheda I President Suarez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Eight and favorite nine.
Speaker 0: Opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next letter to the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Broad Street Substation, 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_03042019_Res 31866 | Speaker 0: Opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next letter to the record.
Speaker 3: Pagina 913 Resolution 318 66 Establishing a watch list of large, complex, discrete capital projects that will require enhanced quarterly monitor reports for the 2018 calendar year. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Great. Excellent. Thank you. With much. Thanks to Council member Lisa Herbold at its other end, did you want to bring forward an amendment at this point? I do, actually.
Speaker 8: So we have a proposed amendment to the resolution as as discussed in committee that creates an expectation for where the.
Speaker 0: Quarterly reports.
Speaker 8: On the projects that are included on the watch list will be heard. Part of this enhanced reporting and oversight of large capital projects not only includes having some shared expectations with the executive, but it also requires, I think, a change in focus on the council that we actually agree to find a time and a place at our committee meetings to hear what the what the reports coming out of these specific projects say. And and with the idea that if we hear those reports in committee and we identify problems with projects on the the watch list, we will be able to better hold ourselves accountable for addressing those problems with scope or budget as they are identified. So it's important, I think, to actually embrace the role that the council has by affirmatively stating that we will hear these reports in a council committee. And so that's what this amendment does. Should I read it? Okay. So Amendment one two, Resolution 31866. Basically, like I said, memorializes the city's intent at the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee, review the enhanced quarterly reports, and it states the city Council anticipates that the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee or Successor Committee will review the intent enhanced quarterly reports.
Speaker 0: Any other comments? Oh, okay. So it's been. So are we moving? It was moving. She's moving it. I'm seconding it. It's been moved and seconded and the amendment will be adopted. Any comments? No more comments. Those in favor of the amendment vote. I think those opposed the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Great. And I'll just speak to the underlying bill then as amended. So this resolution establishes a watch list of complex capital projects, something that Councilmember Herbold brought up during budget. And page three of the resolution establishes the initial watch list of the complex projects. Quarterly The mayor will provide us an enhanced list, and the oversight will primarily be focused on scope, schedule and budget of the individual projects. And as noted by this amendment, it will come to the Finance Committee. We will get this started in the next quarter and will invite all who are have any specific projects from their committee. As I mentioned this morning, if it's transportation, we will invite Councilmember O'Brien, give you plenty of notice to know when it's coming up and then if you've got any issues around it, we'll get more information before the vote. So with that, I would like to propose that we adopt this resolution as amendment. So all right, then we're done with that. So those in favor but lightweight to adopt resolution 31866 as amended. I think there's a second already. Yeah, yes. Yes. Okay. And there's any other comments. Oh, Councilor Johnson.
Speaker 9: Thanks. Just sorry about that. That's okay. I understand. I just want to thank Councilmember Herbold for continuing this conversation. I think the a lot of this germinated when we all many of us started on the council in early 2016. And we're faced with the prospect of several major capital projects that were at 100% of their budget, but maybe only 80 or 90% through their scope. And folks were coming to us and asking for forgiveness rather than permission. And and what were we going to do? We were we had left with no choice but to approve additional resources, because the thing that was going to get built or the thing that we were buying was the thing that we needed. And I think that the intention here is to create opportunities for the council to have better communication with these individual departments and individual project managers as the projects move forward so that we have a chance to choose maybe some changes in scope or changes in timeline of deliverable delivery without having to necessarily be the recipients of bad news at the end of a projects budget when the project wasn't still yet complete. So I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out over the next several years. Councilmember O'Brien I wish you luck because 11 of these 18 projects are transportation related. So it seems like you're going to be spending a lot of time and councilmember back sales committee, though you are not necessarily a member of it. And, you know, I just think that this is at a base level a lot of what we should be doing as as government, working closely with those project managers to make sure that they are delivering their projects on time and on budget and making hard policy decisions early in the process as opposed to late. So I'm looking forward to voting yes on this.
Speaker 0: Well, well done. Okay. So let's move to a vote. Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Vote. I was opposed. You know, who knows? The motion carries the resolution as adopted as amendment and the chair will sign it. So before we do that, we have to go on to other business. So is there any other business to come before a council councilmember skater.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. It was an exciting to watch you lead us through today's full council. Thank you for your leadership on that. I'd like to move to be excused next Monday as I will be in Washington DC for the National League of Cities Housing Task Force and convening.
Speaker 0: Okay motion and it's been seconded those all in favor of letting Councilor Mosquito go to Washington DC say I was opposed. No, the ayes have it. Go forward, do good.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Okay, so with that, I think we are adjourned. Good job. Thank God. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION establishing a Watch List of large, complex, discrete capital projects that will require enhanced quarterly monitoring reports for the 2019 calendar year. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02192019_CF 314415 | Speaker 1: The report of the City Council Agenda one clerk 5314415 2019 State of the City address delivered by Mayor Jenny Durkan on February 19th, 2019.
Speaker 0: Just one moment. So this is a just sort of a perfunctory filing of the file, the speech, if you will, and I believe we will vote on it. And we'll place the file on the file before we vote on filing the clerk file. But anyone wish to say any words? No regrets council members want.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Hollande. Just wanted to explain to members of the public that the vote the council is about to take will file into the city's records, the mayor's State of the City address. And of course, it should be on record. So I will be voting yes, but my vote will not be a vote on the content of the speech. However, and I wanted to bring to light something that the mayor said that was, in my view, dangerously inaccurate. Three times in his speech, Mayor Durkan said that Seattle has invested over $710 million in affordable housing during her time in office, adding, however, compare that while the claim to what it actually says in her budget, in the mayor's budget, it lists the funds that she has made available to build affordable housing. It is, and this can be verified by council members. It is less than $50 million per year, not 710 million. And as a matter of fact, if the political establishment was actually willing to spend $710 million on building affordable housing instead of under 50 million, then we could actually begin to seriously address the affordable housing crisis. The problem is that when the mayor exaggerates the investment in affordable housing, it sounds like it is not necessary to tax big business to build affordable housing on a scale big enough to have a real impact. But that would be wrong. In reality, the mayor is not investing 710 million. Really. She is investing less than 1% of the city budget in affordable housing. And regular people will need to continue to get organized to build a movement, to build anything close to affordable housing worth $710 million. And let's remember that ordinary people in New York City just won a massive victory against Amazon in its attempt to get a $3 billion corporate handout, including a helipad for Jeff Bezos. It really shows that when people get organized, we can win. This was assumed to be a done deal by everybody, including business owners, who were surprised by the fact that Amazon had to back off. So I will be voting yes on filing this Clark file, but I do not endorse her false claim about investment in affordable housing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those words, Councilmember. What would anyone else like to say anything before we file the Clark file? And for the viewing public, this is a public document. The facts are, I believe that Councilmember Swan was referring to our Page seven of the published document and I personally wanted to thank the Mayor for giving a speech and creating a vision for what this city could be. Okay, I'll move to file Clark. File 314415. Those in favor of filing the Clark. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries no place. The file is placed on file. So please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee Agenda Item to Council 119 454 Relating to the City of Seattle Smart River Radio Transmitter Facility, the committee recommends Eagle Pass. | Clerk File (CF) | 2019 State of the City Address delivered by Mayor Jenny A. Durkan on February 19, 2019. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02192019_Res 31863 | Speaker 1: Item 3.8 The Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item eight Resolution 318 63 relating to misclassification of workers as independent contractors when they should be designated as employees. Requesting semiannual updates to the Council starting at the end of the third quarter of 2018 on the work on the Office of Labor Standards and Labor Standards Advisory Commission is doing to investigate and correct Ms. Classifications Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 4: Casper Mosquito Thank you, Mr. President. If I might, I might defer to the prime sponsor of the legislation, and I can make a few closing comments at the end. This came through my committee, but it was an honor to work with Councilmember Herbold on this.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Yes, many thanks to the chair of the committee, Councilmember Mosqueda, for allowing me to move this resolution through her committee. The reason why this resolution is so important is that we are seeing that the the definition of employment is changing before our very eyes as we work to pass better labor laws to protect our employees. There are more and more employees who are being categorized as contractors and not eligible to receive access to our labor laws like $15 minimum wage, paid sick and save time, and a whole host of other protections for the workforce. The resolution itself asks the Office of Labor Standards to propose policy solutions to the Council in order to address the issue of misclassification. Misclassification. Misclassification is when an employer.
Speaker 1: Calls.
Speaker 5: Somebody who fits the definition of an employee, a contractor. The resolution asks the Labor Standards Advisory Committee to develop a work program and consider how the committee can work with the Office of Labor Standards to engage stakeholders in addressing this issue. It also directs the Office of Labor Standards to develop strategies that the city should consider based on the findings of a study that is being conducted by the Washington State Department of Commerce with a delivery date of June 1st, 2019. The. I've been corresponding with an Amazon flex driver who over the last year has described evolving practices from that employer. And it has gone from a situation where people were told a week in advance of shifts being available at the same time and individuals having the opportunity to compete for those that shift to what the practice is now is that shifts are offered at any different times of the day, different times of the week, and literally those shifts are gone within within a minute. So this means that people are actually having to spend large amounts of time at their computer, that they're not being compensated for waiting for these shifts. A Gizmodo report identifies that the issue at hand is labor misclassification. Companies pay the drivers to do the work of employees, but treat them as independent contractors, denying them basic amenities like health care benefits, worker compensation in the event of an on on the job injury. This is something that two drivers that were that were interviewed for this this article had themselves experienced. And we know from the National Employment Law Project that the determination of whether or not a worker is doing the job of a contractor employee comes down to some specific key factors. And that is not simply whether or not you call them a contractor or an employee. So I am really looking forward to the Office of Labor Standards, working with the Labor Standards Advisory Committee, to explore this issue and bring some policy recommendations back to the Council to act on.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Because we heard about. Jasmine Mosquito.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. So when I came to office a little over a year ago now, the first conversation I had with Councilmember Herbold was regarding her longstanding interest in helping to address issues of misclassification so that our labor standards can ensure strong protections for all workers. As we know, misclassification affects many industries, many traditional industries, like the folks that I've worked with in the past, and home care janitor, janitorial work, construction and restaurant work. And now we've seen more and more examples of how misclassification is prevalent in the gig economy. Many workers who are misclassified, mischaracterized by their employers as independent contractors result in fewer labor protections and really put the workers in a precarious position when they try to avoid taxes or not pay worker's compensation or unemployment insurance or other financial obligations, that sometimes the workers don't actually know that they're in that situation until they get injured or they get let go. Also, we know that it's a really important issue to look at very carefully because there's a number of folks who are truly independent contractors. They're bona fide independent contractors who have direction and control, who set their own schedule, who have their own tools. And they are like our real estate agents and our hairdressers, folks who are truly independent contractors and many of the domestic workers that have created their own companies as well, which we'll talk about in a minute, are folks who truly have direction and control over their work. They should have the right balance so that our laws truly reflect their work. And I think the approach that Councilmember Herbold has put together through this resolution, her work with our business and labor partners at the table, will help us find that right balance to address misclassification. And we look forward to seeing how this issue continues to play out at the state level as well. I appreciate your leadership on this and happy to see this move forward.
Speaker 0: Very good. Castro Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her continued dedication and work in this particular space. I know she's been thinking through this particular subject for quite some time, including when she was the chair responsible for labor issues at the city. And I also want to echo thanks for Councilman ROSQUETA for making time in her busy committee schedule to hear this important issue. And I just want to say that I really support the direction of this resolution. As a young lawyer, I had an opportunity to work with my firm, Shrader, Goldmark and Bender and the Latino Latino Bar Association of Washington to establish a legal clinic at Central La Raza, still housed at El Centro. De La Raza has been going strong since 2008 and really proud of the fact that this legal clinic has been able to help and provide legal services to thousands of low wage workers that wouldn't ordinarily have access to legal services in a lot of different areas. But one of the things the reason I bring that up is because one of the areas that we received a lot of inquiries from from many, many, many people, dozens of people who would go to the legal clinic seeking legal advice is in this space of independent contractors and really struggling with understanding from a worker perspective whether you truly are an independent contractor or not. And the amount of egregious examples of abuse, of misclassification, what were just innumerable so many stories from people living here in Seattle, working in Seattle who were forced to, for example, sign contracts, signing their rights away, even though they didn't speak English, for example, didn't understand what they were signing, and even if they did speak English, the complexities of the documents that they're being asked to sign, that effectively consent to being an independent contractor when they're actually functioning like a worker. Those are the stories that I kept seeing coming through legal clinic that I know still are coming through that legal clinic . And so looking forward to being able to really dig into this body of work and providing some protection for this class of workers is going to be really critical and important. And I would urge Councilmember Herbold and the Office of Labor Standards to figure out a way to partner up with many of the legal clinics that are currently happening throughout the city, through the King County Bar Associations or the Washington State Bar Association, and certainly through a minority bar associations who have real life examples of how this misclassification plays out from the worker perspective, and happy to create connections in that space to make sure that that that whatever the policies that are being developed are going to be truly responsive to some of the needs. And then in closing, I'll just say that we can have a better director at the Office of Labor Standards than Marty Garfinkel to address and tackle this issue. He is considered an expert in the state in terms of his legal expertize related to independent contractor misclassification. He's done some of the most seminal wage and hour class action cases in this area. And. You all will be very well-served by his expertize. And I know he this is one of his favorite topics in the whole wide world. So I expect that this work is going to be really robust and I'm really excited to see what the recommendations are going to be. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Excellent. Okay. So if that list is any further comments, we'll go ahead and vote those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. And Cheryl, sign it. Okay. Please read items nine through 12. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to misclassifications of workers as independent contractors when they should be designated as employees; requesting semi-annual updates to the Council starting at the end of the 3rd quarter of 2019 on the work the Office of Labor Standards and Labor Standards Advisory Commission is doing to investigate and correct misclassifications. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02192019_CB 119362 | Speaker 1: The report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda and 13 Constable 119 362 relating to the license earning in many section 23.40 1.0 ten and said I misspoke her to approve the 2018 University District Neighborhood Design Guidelines Committee recommended the passes amended.
Speaker 0: Katherine Johnson I'm sorry to say that applause is not for, you know, you know.
Speaker 4: Rarely does anyone applaud land use decisions. Council President But we don't do it for the recognition. We're going to take action this afternoon and to design guidelines that actually many members of the community have spent a long time working on to get us to this point. The first as our clerk read out, so everybody is the university district design guidelines. And these are really critical in this state of time because of the recent zoning changes that we made in the neighborhood and now prevalence of new projects that are going on in the neighborhood that are taller buildings. So these design guidelines reflect a change in the character of the university district and will allow for more compatibility with those new high rise character buildings of the University District by the light rail station. It started with a series of community workshops in 2017 2017 and resulted in the design guidelines that are here in front of us today. I'm happy to talk through some of these, but really this is about how do we create more opportunities for those tall towers to reflect both off of each other and have a presence in the neighborhood? How do we create better urban context and Ali space activation in particular? We've got a lot alleys in the University District, not dissimilar from downtown that we'd like to do a lot more activation. How do we create some setbacks, particularly in the University District, to reflect the unique character of the Ave itself? And then how do we do better with public space realm connectivity? So a lot of really great stuff in here. Happy to ask for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get to I so what I thank John Gonzalez Herbal Johnson by President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and share of assignment. Please read the United Number 14. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Section 23.41.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code to approve the 2018 University District Neighborhood Design Guidelines. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02192019_CB 119457 | Speaker 1: The Report on Sustainability in Transportation Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 119 457 Granting Seattle Children's Research Institute Permission to construct, install and maintain one set of private communications conduits. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: And thanks for filling in for Council Member Bryan Councilmember of Johnson Johnson.
Speaker 4: Briefly, this is the kind of usual term permit that we approve here at City Council, a tenure permit with two tenure options. If we were to act today, this would allow for Seattle Children's Research Institutes in the Denny Triangle neighborhood to create two new private communication conduits under Terri Avenue, south of Virginia Street, and north of Stuart Street and Stuart Street. And in the alley between Virginia Street and Stuart Street, north of Ninth Avenue. These will allow them to share data between research facilities on research related to cancer, lupus and other children's related diseases. In total, the term permits, I think, are in the neighborhood of about $9,000, which is generally our cost to recoup the staff time associated with processing these permits so they have an inflationary adjustment to them. So I think it's a couple of percent per year. And again, we use those resources from those permits to process the applications when they come in once every decade or so. So I can't answer many questions, but I don't anticipate there will be.
Speaker 0: Very good any questions or comments in that. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez macheda i. So what.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Think john gonzalez herbold johnson resident Harrell eight and favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and sure sign it. Okay. Is there any further business coming for the council? I have a few things I have to do. So first I'd like to move to excuse Councilmember O'Brien from next Monday's meeting, which is February 25th. All those in favor say I. I suppose the ayes have it and then I need to move to be excused from on March 4th and March 11th. He comments?
Speaker 5: Depends on who's going to be your protest.
Speaker 0: Tell you in a minute. All those in favor of me being excused in March 4th and March 11th say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. And Councilmember Juarez has ordered a much larger gavel than this little one. And she will be the president that that month. Thank you. With that, everyone, have a great rest of the day and we stand adjourned.
Speaker 2: Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting Seattle Children’s Research Institute permission to construct, install, and maintain one set of private communication conduits under and across Terry Avenue, south of Virginia Street and north of Stewart Street; and one set of private communication conduits under and across the alley between Virginia Street and Stewart Street, north of 9th Avenue and south of Terry Avenue; 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_02042019_CB 119455 | Speaker 0: That's all. If you're watching that closes for you two, particularly for you, please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 1: The report at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda in three Accountable 119 455 leading to city streets, changing the name of the portion of or avenue north between Denny Way and Harrison Street to Seventh Avenue North, and changing the name of the portions of or avenue between Battery Street and Denny Way to Borealis Avenue and superseding prior ordinances. To the extent inconsistent the committee recommends it'll pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: So this is an exciting step for folks in the community around the the new tunnel opening. Probably more exciting than the tunnel. And thanks to the fact that we get to rename these three, four blocks, pretty exciting. So between there's three blocks between Harrison and Denny that are currently Aurora Avenue. This is as you're as you're heading southbound in Aurora. It's the three blocks as you're exiting around the Battery Street tunnel, which is to be decommissioned, that would be renamed as Seventh Avenue, which they then continue on a diagonal once it crosses Denny and has kind of between where some of Amazon's construction is going. There's another block of Aurora Avenue that extends on the south side of Denny, and that's the block that kind of goes between two kind of triangle parcels where the pink elephant car wash is, and there's a major bus stop there. If we were to rename that also Seventh Avenue, that would provide some confusion because we've been to Seventh Avenue's next to each other. And so this proposal would name that borealis. And we heard a lot of support from community members who've been working on this for years. Adjacent property owners are supportive, also desire to do this in advance of what is expected to be some redevelopment happening in the neighbors neighborhood so that folks move in will inherit the new address as opposed to go through an address, change.
Speaker 0: Or customer inspection.
Speaker 3: Quick thanks. Mike McQuade. Thank you to you in the South like Union Community Council, everybody who's been working on this for years. I know it's a small thing, but the name borealis is first of all, I love it. But secondly, just clarifying for people where where they're going after the tunnel opens. Really appreciate your help.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further questions that please call the rule on the passage of the Bill Johnson Juarez.
Speaker 1: Musgrave I. O'Brien. I so want.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Back shot I. Gonzalez I. And President Harrell high eight in favor and in a post.
Speaker 0: Bill Parsons show. So please read the next item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City streets; changing the name of the portion of Aurora Avenue North between Denny Way and Harrison Street to 7th Avenue North, and changing the name of the portion of Aurora Avenue between Battery Street and Denny Way to Borealis Avenue; and superseding prior ordinances to the extent inconsistent. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01282019_CB 119446 | Speaker 4: The Report on the Civic Development of Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item two Constable 119446 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and see public utilities transferring partial jurisdiction of portions of park, land and park boulevards within Discovery Park. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President so this is the discovery park. This bill transfers partial jurisdiction of portions of park, land and park boulevards in discovery park from Department of Parks and Rec to Seattle Public Utilities for maintenance and repair work. The bill also means requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42. The Committee on Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities made a unanimous recommendation on January 24th that the City Council passed the Council bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any comments on this bill? It's called the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Her Bolton II Johnson. Whereas I must get to O'Brien.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: So what I think shire president Harold Hayden favor opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair of the Senate please read items three, four and five. You can read the short title and then I'll say a few words before Councilmember Words speaks to the items. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities; transferring partial jurisdiction of portions of park land and park boulevards within Discovery Park from the Department of Parks and Recreation to Seattle Public Utilities for maintenance, repair, replacement, and operation of public water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, associated underground pipes, hydrants, and limited surface ancillary facilities; and finding that transfer of partial jurisdiction meets the requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01282019_CB 119447 | Speaker 4: Agenda items three, four and five. Constable 119447 relating to the Central Waterfront Improvement Program and the land improvements identified herein establishing local improvement district number 6751 and ordering and carrying out of the proposed improvements as a component of the Seattle Central Waterfront Improvement Program in accordance with Resolution 31812, the committee recommends the bill Pass Council Bill 119448 relating to the funding operations and management for essential waterfront improvements. Identifying philanthropic funding for construction and operations and maintenance and safety and security of public spaces. On the central waterfront, the Kitty Bear recommends the bill Pass Council Bill 119449 related to the protest waiver agreement between and among the city, the Waterfront Park Conservancy and certain property owners affected by the proposed Waterfront Local Improvement District. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Because remember whereas let me say a few words before we introduced the Bass legislation. As we all know now, there has been an appearance of fairness doctrine challenged to seven of the nine council members. You do have at least one document in front of this, sort of gives you some ideas on how to respond to this. And I think we've been briefed by central staff on how to respond to it. If necessary, I can bring central staff back to the briefing table if necessary, and we can suspend the rules for further clarification. If not, what I am planning on doing is going down the dais, starting with Councilmember Johnson. Since Councilmember Herbold was not alleged to violate the doctrine and have each council member then say on the record their position regarding the appearance of fairness challenge. And again, if you have any questions, I can suspend the rules and we can have that if not. JOHNSON How would you like to respond to the Preparedness of Fairness Challenge?
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President There are two issues in the memo related to myself. The first of which is a series of briefings that council members entered into as part of the deformation ordinance. This was a set of briefings I received by city staff related to the Office of the Waterfronts around the revision of the total local improvement district amount. The commitments from the private philanthropy, as well as the framework on the operations and maintenance and other elements related to the proposed legislation. The Office of the Waterfront Manager was giving me technical information that I felt was necessary in order to make an informed decision. I was not stating an opinion of of fact one way or another, either in support or in opposition to the formation of the local improvement district, but rather giving me a, to use your phrase from earlier, a just the facts, man, kind of an approach. In addition, I disclosed that earlier on this year in a private communication from a personal friend, that personal friend sent me a note in the mail here to my council offices, and that note expressed condolences about some issues that have been happening in my life. And in the middle of that note happened to also mention this friend's desire to see the lady not move forward. They are a ratepayer in downtown and they do not want to see the idea assessment pass. I never engage in a follow on communication with that individual, but passively receive the information based on advice from our council . They believe that it was important for me to disclose that passive receipt of that information, which I've done so as well based on these two issues. I don't believe that I should be conflicted out of these deliberations in this vote today, but wanted to cure these matters, as was advised by both legal counsel and our central staff earlier today.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Johnson, so am I hearing you state that you believe there's been no violation of the appearance, the Fairness Doctrine or in the alternative and or I should say that you believe you are not biased or prejudiced. Is that what I'm hearing you saying, sir?
Speaker 7: Yes, sir. I believe I fall into the former category as opposed to the latter.
Speaker 1: Okay, very good. Councilmember Bagshaw, thank you.
Speaker 0: I would like to build on what Councilmember Johnson just said. I have a unique experience because I am in District seven. I am within the local improvement district as proposed. My condominium is, as I've said, at ground zero at first in spring. This has been known. I have done my best to disclose it at every meeting that we've had. I also have been advised by our. Explored and by Wayne Barnett prior to June 1st of this year, I was not able to participate in the meetings, nor could I vote. But as effective the 1st of June, our council will 119254 changed our rules, allowing those of us who are elected by districts, particularly if we had a financial interest to disclose that financial interest. But to make sure that if I were to be taxed, it would be in the same proportion or percentage as everybody else within the the designated area. And that is then the case of my husband and my participation in this going forward. Like Councilmember Johnson, I have been briefed by our city staff. At no time have I talked to proponents or opponents, and any emails that I have received have been subject to public disclosure and turned over. For those reasons. I do not believe that I am prejudiced on this. I will be taxed like others should this pass, and I do not have any bias or prejudice or preconceived notions coming forward on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Johnson. I mean, sorry. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Herrell similar to the first point that Councilmember Johnson made, I, I did take meetings with city staff. Councilmember Johnson adequately described the content of those meetings. And I disagree with the challenge because I believe that I am not biased because of those meetings. I was gathering information and asking questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Sawant I did not personally have meetings of this nature. My staff had them, but that information was not communicated to me. To the extent that it would. Violate the appearance of fairness doctrine.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilmember, staunch councilmember mosquito.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I disagree that I don't have the right to vote in there, so I very much want to explain the conversations that I had out of an abundance of caution. I recognize that this is a quasi judicial matter, and as such, I have only had conversations relating to the operation and maintenance legislation , which again is one piece of the legislation that we will be discussing today. I've had conversations related to aspects of my support for the oommon oh and m legislation to include language around inclusive representation across the city on the board, the role that Labor should have, the ability to have child care subsidies for those who are serving on the board. None of that relates to anything related to the assessments or any of the quasi judicial aspects. Again, I want to be really clear. This is a conversation I've had with members of the community because I am a labor advocate. I am not bought by corporations, and I will continue to make sure that those voices have a role in sitting on all of our boards and commissions as a principle of myself, as a council member, and I believe shared by many of the other councils up here. So there has not been a direct conversation about the lid assessment legislation or any other aspect that has been quasi judicial, but out of an abundance of caution. I wanted to share that with you, to be transparent.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Catherine Mesquita, Customer Scout. I was just taking notes. Mental notes, I should say, not physical notes. We are sort of in the A and B. Options on how we're dealing with this. And did you say that you just believe you're not biased or prejudiced because of the contact?
Speaker 4: A I want to state on the record that I do not believe there has been a violation of the requirements that we don't hear. Appearance of fairness doctrine.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: She made me restate that for the record.
Speaker 1: No, I think we're fine. Okay. We're out of the find councilmember words.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. I disagree with the challenge. And as chair of the waterfront, I can confirm that this council member myself, I believe that there has been no violation of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine because I've not had any quasi judicial or substantive conversations regarding the assessment with any of the property owner community or the Office of the Waterfront and or the Executive. I've spoken to no proponents or opponents. All discussions have been on the record in accordance with the Open Meeting Act. I've had meetings with city staff regarding, as Councilmember Johnson said, just the facts. And as you know, I've been shepherding and this legislation in my committee for three years and I can honestly and fairly state on the record there has been no violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So what I've heard from six of the seven council members that were challenged, that they disagreed with the challenge and they stated their their reasoning and their basis for disagreeing with the challenge. And for that basis, I'm concluding that we can proceed with a vote. But as Council member, whereas describes the base legislation, I would encourage members of the central staff to signal to me that I've missed something up and I can pivot in a minute. So unless we are proceeding, unless we are comfortable proceeding. Councilman Waters, please introduce the legislation as it has been read into the record in a short time is correct. Councilmember Walsh, you have the floor.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Inger. In regards to item number three, council, bill 119447 formation of ordinance number 6751. What I'll do is I'll read, talk about all three of them and I'm assuming we'll come back and vote. This is the first of three bills that complete the proposed waterfront legislative package. This ordinance creates the waterfront lead. That's the local improvement district. The city has proposed at least 6751 lids are local improvement districts, which is where the where that number comes from. Lids are commonly used, commonly used for funding a funding tool governed by the state law by which property owners pay to help fund the cost of public improvements that directly benefit their property. The waterfront is Seattle's gem. If passed, the city will not only not only be able to see the waterfront park, but also fully enjoy what the waters of the Salish Sea have to offer to our city. This ordinance allows the waterfront to serve all of Seattle and will include 20 acres of public space and an elevated pathway that reconnects the Pike Place Market in downtown to the waterfront. This ordinance creates the account in the city treasury to manage the waterfront led funds. This ordinance also allows the use of bonds for financing. The Committee on Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities made a unanimous recommendation on January 4th that City Council pass this Council bill. I'll move to item number four now. Council Bill 119448 Operations and Maintenance. This ordinance lays out stipulations of the agreement totaling $712 million. Office of the Waterfront provided a helpful chart that explains which stakeholder is responsible for which amount of the $712 million pie. It also includes a two year pilot agreement in preparation for a long term agreement with Friends of the Waterfront to operate and manage this public space. The committee recommended unanimously that City Council pass this Council bill. Item number five Council Bill 119449 Protest Waiver Agreement. This public private partnership provides a protest waiver agreement allowing a 30 day protest period upon potential adoption and mayor's and the mayor's signature of these items also followed by with a 30 day appeals period. I apologize.
Speaker 3: For that.
Speaker 5: This creates the waterfront. Conserve can never say that word. Waterfront Conservancy a Washington a for a Washington not for profit. It's a corporation for the property owners rights to enforce obligations while also protecting legal representation for this group similar to the functions of Friends of the Waterfront for the city. This is another example of the public of this public private partnership serving a complex, yet thorough and balanced agreement for all parties to move forward in a waterfront for all. I want to thank central staff and the Office of the Waterfront for thoroughly briefing members of my committee and step committee together and separately with Council for a thorough examination of each ordinance and how it impacts our city and its people. I've been working on this legislation's. Since I got elected three years ago. I understand, as Councilman Bagshaw has been working on this for 15 years, the Committee on Civic Development, Public Assets and the American Communities made a unanimous recommendation on January 24th that the City Council pass this Council bill and City Council passed all three bills. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman, where's Councilmember Bagshaw?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Wise, let's just start off by saying thank you to you and your team for both your legal and procedural sense. I know that it has been a lot on your shoulders as you have also taken many other things that have to do with our civic projects this year. But you've done a super job and I want to say thanks. I also want to recognize the people who are in the audience. I mean, I could just go left to right and the front, starting with council central staff. Thank you for that, Dori and Angie. Appreciate it. Marshall and Joshua, my goodness, what you have done, the number of meetings that you have attended this year, I think there's people hiding back behind it. Heidi, thank you. Heidi Hughes and Jessica murphy for the work that you've done and not just the seawall, but activating the waterfront. I am truly grateful for what you have done, what I have been seeing and I know Maggie Walker, I don't think she's back there, but appreciate what she has done around philanthropy and the waterfront community, bringing them together. And then the Wayback Machine. And this really does go back 15 years when I first started working with Allied Arts and shared Waterfront for All. David You were taught me the phrases like We prefer green over gray and the idea that we really were making this for all ages and abilities and looking for a revenue package that came together. I know that there we have heard comments this morning or this afternoon. A number of my neighbors have let it be known. And of course, all those are subject to public disclosure and have been turned over that they're unhappy with having to pay additional taxes, that their property values are going up and they think that is enough. I understand. I know how people feel. Yet I will say that the vision for what these 20 blocks are going to be like both impressive, acknowledging these natural resources that we have. The once this viaduct comes down, first of all, we know how much quieter it is the last three weeks. But building this waterfront for all is something that, frankly, I'm going to look back on and think my time on this council and as working with Allied Arts on that as one of the highlights of my career. And I do want to acknowledge many of the architects that did this for free in 2004 when we first did our design charts. And I'm just, you know, just picking out a few Alan Hart and Matt Roae and Leslie Bain and Stephanie Bower with her amazing illustration Pen and John Fight. These folks were dedicating their time, their energy for free to show us what this could look like. And once I saw those illustrations, I knew that this was something that people would want to have, that words don't convey what the the illustrations did and that vision. And I want to recognize people like Bob Donegan and Bob Davidson down on the waterfront. I mean, they have worked tirelessly, and I know that it's been hard as we've moved the seawall and we've moved the roadway and we brought Alaskan way from one place over to another, and now they're going to go through another year of having the viaduct come down. But that said, it's going to be astonishing for businesses, for the aquarium and connecting the aquarium to Pike Place Market and all the way up to Melrose, I can just envision what our city is going to look like when people can walk and be separated and have that green space that we want. And I do want to acknowledge that we taxpayers who live down there aren't the only ones who are paying for this. The state put billions of dollars in the city has put in millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. The port is also involved. The county has stepped up and this local improvement district is a piece. And I know that $160 million is a significant piece. And to those of us who will be living down there and the businesses who are there, we're going to have a front row seat on this regional asset. So I think connecting the waterfront to the pipeline corridor, to Queen Anne, to Pioneer Square, to West Edge, and creating those green public spaces and improving the habitat along the waterfront, it's well worth paying for. We're also separating and making it a safe place for pedestrians. I know many of you have heard me talk a lot about age friendly Seattle, about making our city someplace safe for all ages and abilities. This is an exciting opportunity for us to do just exactly that. I do want to do one word of warning. I can tell you that we will probably hear from developers who would be very interested. And taking some of the remaining blocks down there and going higher than 170 feet that it is zoned for. I'm going to argue strenuously that in order for us to keep a waterfront for all, we cannot allow ourselves to get sucked into building buildings that are hundreds of feet higher than what is zoned, even for the best of all causes. I have been fighting assiduously to keep this from looking like what?
Speaker 3: Miami Beach. We truly need.
Speaker 0: To have the stepped downs, which we have been talking about for the last two decades to actually happen. So with that said, I believe that this is fair. It's reasonable. Those of us who are paying the tax are going to be getting more. And I look forward to paying my share. And I want to thank all of you who have been part of this vision to make this happen. So saying now I'll be running. Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Casper and Back Shore.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I forgot. Oh, I know. I forgot to say something, but I think Cosmo Johnson has had it before me.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Thanks. I just briefly want to expand on some of Councilmember backsides talking points in the late 1940s when we first started construction on the Alaskan Way Viaduct. It's baffling to me that we would have chosen to build a highway on our waterfronts instead of connecting people to that waterfronts. And it's a wonderful thing to think that, you know, 75 years later, we might actually finally have the chance to have that waterfront be a place where people can congregate, where people can share, where people can talk to one another, as opposed to be a place where cars can drive quickly through and past. And while I know many mourn the loss of the view on the top of the viaduct while you're traveling in your single occupancy vehicle at 55 miles an hour and trying to make sure that you are keeping an eye on the road while also keeping an eye on The View. I myself will be glad that so many more people will be able to enjoy that outside. And I think Councilor and back side, you would agree when I say that this won't just be original acid, it will be a national and international asset as we finally turn over our waterfront back to the people, as opposed to a place that is very loud and for cars. So I'm excited for that to really begin in earnest and look forward to several years from now when we finally completed this. What a vision we will finally be able to accomplish and what an asset this will really be for all of us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Johnson, because some words you like clarify something.
Speaker 5: Yes, I would. Thank you, council president. I just wanted to say and I apologize for not sharing this in my notes. I just realized I. Anyway, so we know that this is a $712 million project. And I think it's important to note that, yes, there is a local improvement district for 160 million, but the state is putting in 193 million, the city is putting in 249 million. And the philanthropy group Friends of the Waterfront will be raising 110 million. And so I think we're doing something phenomenal in this city that we haven't always been able to do, and that is to grow 20 acres of new and improved public space. And again, getting back to like we did with Seattle Center in the Space Needle, this is a gem. This is an icon. It will reconnect us with the Salish Sea originally how it was to be. And with that I'll be voting yes and I hope my colleagues join me.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Customer Councilmember Words for that clarification. Okay. Councilmember McKenna.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilmember Wise and her team for being incredibly inclusive of our conversations as of late. I understand that I'm the newest member to this discussion, but I want to thank you for all of your work and especially and again for working with us as we thought of a few additional ads to lift up the voices of workers on the board and ensure that our city was represented in full at the table that we're creating. I also want to thank the Friends of the Waterfront and the labor members of the Martin Luther King County Labor Council who have been working with the waterfront folks to make sure that union jobs are created and that we're not just talking about union jobs as we create the new facility, but that as we clean the facility and maintain it, we also have good living wage jobs. Really excited about that language that has been included. I also want to thank my staff, Michael Maddox. This is an opportunity for me to thank him on land use, housing, energy issues, etc. But this is a great example of where he was able to quickly, quickly work with the council to make sure that those are values around labor and inclusivity were part of the solution. I think as we think about this new entity being a public property, we want to make sure that we keep our eye on long term costs. And having those jobs be in-house is a really great example of how we can make sure that they're good living wage jobs and we're keeping an eye on cost. Often we think about outsourcing as a way to save money, but in the end, we end up underpaying workers and costing ourselves in the long term term. So here's a really. Great example of where from the beginning our partners were interested in the strong labor business community dynamic, and we ensure that this project was reflective of those values. I also want to thank folks for all of your participation on the upcoming board. We know that it's not a very exciting thing that we're asking you to sit on, but the 19 members who will be sitting there if you do have child care needs, we've now included language to try to figure out pathways forward so that potentially child care could be compensated. We know from other boards and commissions that often child care costs are one of the main reasons that we don't see a lot of participation, especially from communities that are underrepresented in public policymaking. So really excited to have that voice there as well. And I just really look forward to seeing this vision that you've been working on for 15 years. Councilmember Bagshaw play out, having been able to play on the vacated viaduct and having this is my commute to work along the waterfront when I bike, I just can only imagine how great it will be. So working together, I'm sure that we will create a huge amount of accountability to fulfill that vision that you started 15 years ago and excited to be voting yes with you all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Skater Okay. I think that concludes our remarks. And if that we will take each bill separately. So please call the roll on the passage of bill 119447.
Speaker 3: Herbold i Johnson. I was Mr. O'Brien. Suzanne by President Harrell.
Speaker 4: I eight in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed bill passed and chair of Senate please read the roll on the on constable 119448.
Speaker 4: Purple.
Speaker 3: JOHNSON Whereas I. O'BRIEN So what Peter hi president Harrell I eight in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed the bill passed and chair saying please call the roll on the passage of bill 119449.
Speaker 3: Herbal Johnson Forest must get I. O'BRIEN All right so what makes your president narrow by.
Speaker 4: Eight in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed bill passes and show sign it very good a lot of body of work. Operations it please read agenda items six through eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Waterfront Improvement Program and the LID Improvements identified herein; establishing Local Improvement District No. 6751 (“Waterfront LID”) and ordering the carrying out of the proposed LID Improvements, as a component of the Seattle Central Waterfront Improvement Program in accordance with Resolution 31812; providing that payment for the LID Improvements be made in part by special assessments upon the property in the Waterfront LID, payable by the mode of “payment by bonds”; creating a local improvement fund; authorizing the issuance of local improvement bonds; and providing for interfund loans and for the issuance and sale of short-term financing instruments, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, all by a two-thirds vote of the City Council at a regular meeting. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01282019_CB 119353 | Speaker 4: Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item ten Cancer Poll 119 353 Relating to the city weight department declaring certain real property rights surplus to the city needs of the city white department authorizing the Sullivan easement for sidewalk purposes to Snohomish County and accepting the payment of fair market value for the easement. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Customer Mosquito.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. As you heard, this ordinance declares a certain piece of property no longer necessary for transmission line purposes and authorizes an easement to the home of accounting to build sidewalk over city owned property in exchange for payment of fair market value. I want to highlight again for the Council that this parcel is not large enough for housing purposes and as such is not being retained under our disposition policies that the Council passed last year, which would ask our Council and the city to look at every parcel of surplus land and determine if housing can be built. If it can, then we would retain that property with the goal of creating affordable housing on that property. And this person is so tiny it cannot accompany that. So we are asking for your support in passing Council Bill 119353.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any further questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: HERBOLD Hi.
Speaker 3: JOHNSON Whereas I must shatter I. O'Brien Swan Bagshaw High President Herald Hi, Aiden.
Speaker 1: Favorite unopposed bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number 11 the short title.
Speaker 4: Council Bill 119 354 related to the city excuse me. City Satellite Department Accepting statutory warranty deeds. Can we recommend civil. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring certain real property rights surplus to the needs of the City Light Department; authorizing the sale of an easement for sidewalk purposes to Snohomish County; and accepting the payment of fair market value for the easement. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01282019_CB 119354 | Speaker 4: Council Bill 119 354 related to the city excuse me. City Satellite Department Accepting statutory warranty deeds. Can we recommend civil.
Speaker 5: Pass.
Speaker 1: As member skater?
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. This legislation authorizes Seattle City land to accept a series of deeds in exchange for previously appropriated funds for environmental conservation and salmon habitat protection. This continues our commitment and city lights ongoing effort to procure and preserve environmentally, critically and critical lands across Washington for permanent preservation. Good for the environment and good for our city.
Speaker 1: Any questions or comments in that? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold II. Johnson Suarez Macheda I. O'Brien Swan Bank Shire President Harrell. Hi eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed in show assignment. That concludes our agenda. Is there any further business cover for the Council? If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Very much. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting statutory warranty deeds to the Shu property in King County, Washington, the Bratager, Glaser, Goelz and Abelson, Ross, Smith and Cummins, and Wejmar and Wiley properties in Skagit County, Washington, the Povlsen property in Snohomish County, Washington, and two treasurer’s deeds for two Skagit County properties in Skagit County, all for salmonid habitat protection purposes; declaring certain real property rights surplus and no longer required for providing public utility service or other municipal purposes; ratifying the grants of deeds of right to the State of Washington on the Bratager, Glaser, Goelz and Abelson, and Ross properties for salmon recovery and conservation purposes; authorizing the grant of an easement for ingress and egress over the Povlsen property; placing said lands under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01072019_CB 119416 | Speaker 4: Agenda item three accountable 119 416 relating to the state route 520 Project authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities and establishing a method for reimbursing costs where applicable to operate and maintain the infrastructure constructed as part of the State of Washington State Route 520 Project. The committee recommends the bill pass because remember.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So the next phase of this project is about to get underway. That phase will include the the approach segment between Man Lake and the floating structure on the direction, the South Side. So the west there will be the eastbound traffic, both lanes will be both east and westbound will be diverted to the new structure that was completed a couple of years ago, the North Approach Bridge. And then also perhaps most importantly for the community immediately around there is the lid and open space that will be part of that project. What this ordinance does is it lays out in significant detail the responsibility of which parts of that project the state in the city are responsible for beyond just the cost. But who will be making decisions, designed decisions and maintenance decisions as we move forward and where those lines will be drawn? It's something that took a lot of work to do this, but by getting this done in advance of this project, getting underway, I believe will help streamline the process and allow for a much better outcome at the end of the project.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further questions? Katherine comes from Johnson.
Speaker 1: Just want to reiterate something for my colleagues that I said in committee, which is this agreement is a great agreement. The continued work around the 520 bridge as it moves to the West, I think is going to be really critical for mobility. And one of the challenges that we have right now is that the current schedule has the second Bascule Bridge in the Montlake area being constructed after the Portage Bay Bridge is complete. And so for all intents and purposes, that would mean we're going to do a bunch of construction and my like we're going to move that construction from my like to the Portage Bay Bridge and then to East Lake and then come back around and do more construction on one leg of the second Bascule Bridge. I've asked why start strongly consider frontloading. That's. I can bascule bridge. So we conclude the construction of my leg and then go further to the west. It's not part of this agreement. It was never intended to be part of this agreement. But I think it's a matter of construction management for the State Department of Transportation and hope that they will continue to make progress in that fashion so that we don't have to take a seven year reprieve from construction and then have construction come back around to their neighborhood again.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw High.
Speaker 1: Johnson, whereas O'Brian High President Harrell high five in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The Bill Parsons show sign. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the State Route 520 Project; authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities and establish a method for reimbursing costs, where applicable, to operate and maintain the infrastructure constructed as part of the State of Washington’s State Route 520 Project. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01072019_CB 119417 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item for council vote 119 417 Relating to the South Lander Street Grade Separation Project, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 5: Councilmember O'Brien I think folks are generally familiar with a major project that is currently underway at Lander Street. This is a new overpass that we're building with support of a variety of funding sources that has been in the works for probably decades. To connect East West through Soto without being held up by numerous railroad crossing the Atlantic goes over. This particular ordinance purchases some very small parcels of private land around the interchange of lander and forth to allow with that project sits down. I don't have the exact number of square footage in front of me, but it's a little over $100,000 will spend to acquire the private property there to make sure that that intersection meets the design guidelines we are trying to achieve.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? Councilmember Baxter.
Speaker 2: Two questions. What's the schedule on this in terms of completion date? And secondly, do you happen to know whether BNSF has come back to us in response to a question? And I've asked it multiple times if they will tell us when their trains are coming through. And I know initially that they said, well, we don't have to tell you because the feds don't require it. But as we're coming through our time of maximum constraint, if people just know when those trains are coming through, it could be really helpful. So. And I'm not asking, you know, what cargo they're carrying. I'm just saying, would you tell us when the trains are coming through and when we can expect to have these intersections clogged? It would be very helpful.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Customer based. I do not have the exact opening date of that project in front of me, but there's a, I believe, at least a year to go until it's open. So part of the period of maximum constraint or the Seattle squeeze that we will, I guess, start facing today and see a significant uptick in the week . This project is one of the many projects that going on there will affect that, but I'd be happy to find out exact hoping to get back to you.
Speaker 2: It doesn't even have an exact just quarter.
Speaker 5: Sure. And then I share your frustration about some of the concerns we've had about timing, you know, originally specifically around oil trains and when they're coming through our city. And I have not heard any new information from BNSF as far as willingness to share that information, either for traffic concerns or safety concerns.
Speaker 2: So I'm just would like to just reemphasize and if anybody from BNSF is listening how important and valuable it is and would be to the city of Seattle if we knew when the trains were coming through. And, you know, it strikes me with all of the technology we have, like ways for roads that that shouldn't be that difficult for us to identify and to get that information.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 0: Very good.
Speaker 1: What's early? 2020?
Speaker 2: We're just going to be early to.
Speaker 1: The opening of Landers Street.
Speaker 5: It's not a year from now.
Speaker 1: About a year from now. Early twenties.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. If there are no further questions, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Shall I?
Speaker 1: JOHNSON Whereas I. O'BRIEN All right. President Harrow.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Five in favor nine opposed the.
Speaker 0: Bill passed show. Sign it, please read agenda items five through 11. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the South Lander Street Grade Separation project; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, a warranty deed from the Seattle School District No. 1, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, located in a portion of Blocks 291, 294, and 316 of the unrecorded plat of Seattle Tide Lands, also known as Parcel D, City of Seattle Lot Boundary Adjustment Number 2207829, recorded under King County Recording Number 20040527900005; a warranty deed from The Bailey Family Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, located in a portion of Lot 1, Block 296, Plat of Seattle Tidelands; a warranty deed from PacWest Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, located in a portion of Lot 11, Block 295, Plat of Seattle Tidelands, and a quit claim deed from Rabanco, Ltd., a Washington corporation, located in a portion of Lot 1, Block 297, Plat of Seattle Tidelands; placing the real property rights and interests conveyed by such deeds under the jurisdiction of t | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_CB 119966 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item one. Constable 119966. Relating to the legal.
Speaker 0: Representation of Mayor Jenny Durkan and proceedings concerning a recall charged paying expenses necessary to defend Mayor Jenny Durkan and those proceedings and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. HQ. Madam Clerk, I will move to pass Council Bill 119966. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Colleagues, as I mentioned this morning during council briefing, this is an ordinance that relates to the legal representation of Mayor Jenny Durkan in the judicial proceedings concerning the recall charge, which has now come to a conclusion, as you'll note from the fiscal notes, the the summary of the fiscal note notes that the total cost of the legal defense is $240,000. And so that is what the fiscal impact is of this particular bill. Should it should it pass? So this bill is being proposed consistent with the same statutory framework that was in play and up for consideration by the full council on September 15th, when we considered and passed the same piece of legislation related to the legal defense of Councilmember Ocelot related to that recall petition. The only difference being, of course, just timing. In this instance, we know what the results of that petition are and what the total fees are for the judicial proceedings. So happy to open up the floor to hear any other comments from any one else. Any comments? Customer. Arsalan, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzales. I will be voting yes on this item because I support the right to a legal defense for all. Members of the public will know that. I have completely opposed Mayor Durkin's political actions, her systematic but all too unsurprising opposition to the Amazon tax to fund affordable housing and the Green New Deal Administration, doing the bidding of telecom corporations and blocking any progress on municipal broadband which is so urgently needed. And especially the actions against the Black Lives Matter movement, which, while carried out by the police, lie at the doorstep of our administration because the police department reports to the mayor and the political establishment under Mayor Durkin's watch, Seattle Police targeted ordinary people with tear gas, rubber bullets and other weapons in brutal repression of the movement. However, this vote is not taking a position on Mayor Dawkins actions. It is about the right to legal representation. And we have to be very careful about the precedent that being that is being said for working class elected representatives who simply could not afford large legal expenses while corporate politicians could easily afford it. If we do not set a crystal clear precedent that legal representation is a right, regardless of your ability to afford it, then it would end up creating a dynamic where only big business representatives like Durkan would effectively have access to legal defense. The future. For that democratic reason, I will be voting yes on this bill for legal representation. But I want to be very clear that I continue to be opposed to what Mayor Durkan has done in relation to the Black Lives Matter protests and working people in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Salant. And of course, colleagues voting for this bill or against this bill is simply taking a position on whether or not legal representation is appropriate under the that the state statute that allows for an elected official to request the representation and to have their legal costs covered. It certainly is not a vote on any anything other than that, that issue. Okay. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? What?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes.
Speaker 0: Whereas I.
Speaker 1: RUIZ Yes. Morales Yes. SKINNER. Yes. Peterson Yes. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Men oppose the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay, Donna, item two Will the clerk please read item two into the record? Agenda item two Capital 119969 relating to the citywide and Seattle Public Utilities departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the legal representation of Mayor Jenny Durkan in judicial proceedings concerning a recall charge; paying expenses necessary to defend Mayor Jenny Durkan in those proceedings; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_CB 119970 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item five Council. Bill 119970. Amending Ordinance.
Speaker 0: 126000, which adopted the 2020.
Speaker 2: Budget, including the 2023 2025 Capital.
Speaker 0: Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilor Rossiter, you are recognized in order to provide the committee's report. Thank you very much, Madam President. Colleagues, this is the quarter four supplemental budget that amends appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, including the capital improvement projects. This is ideally intended to be a bill that screws up any additional costs and helps to tie up any loose ends before the calendar year concludes. This helps to ensure that there is a balanced budget at the end of each year. Ideally, quarter four is to be technical in nature. However, the proposal that we received this year from the mayor included a request for speedy for an additional four additional spending authority. The council, as you know, this summer passed a resolution that tied to our summer budgeting process, stated the following The City Council will not support any budget amendments to increase Spd's budget to offset overtime expenditures above the funds budgeted in 2020 and 2021. So Council Member Herbold, as Vice Chair of the Budget Committee and Finance Committee and myself, we have introduced an amendment to do just that, to hold the line, to make sure that there are consequences for an overspend, which is a managerial decision, and to make sure that we are looking across these two budgets to accomplish the goals in the resolution. This is accomplished both by the amendment that is included in this bill for your consideration today. Again, thank you. Council colleagues who were part of the Finance and Housing Committee, who included this amendment and is also being accomplished by the Bill on the introduction and referral calendar today, sponsored by Council member Herbold and myself, which I had discussed this morning. Madam President, if it pleases the President, I would like to defer to Vice Chair Herbold to talk about this, and I will offer some comments in closing before the vote if that quizzes the President. Absolutely. So customer verbal wants to go next. Customer must get a you will have the last word on the bill as we close out debate. But for now, let's hear from Councilmember Herbold and colleagues. Is anyone else, if anyone else would like to make comments on this particular bill, please, please do. Let me. That's remarkable. Then followed by, conversely, American generals.
Speaker 2: So as Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, we are co-sponsoring an amendment that ensures that the budget process never ends.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: So this amendment adds a new Section 13 expressing council's intent to take additional action in 2021 to reduce the police department's 2021 appropriation authority by at least 5.4 million. This is reflected in the introduction and referral calendar today with new Council Bill 11 9981. And it's going to be referred to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee early next year. As Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, pass by the Council in August. We made a statement that the City Council would not support any budget amendments to increase the police department's budget to offset overtime expenditures above the funds budgeted in 2020 or 2021. We expressed the Council's intent to reduce the police department's budget in phases and increase funding for community led research and participatory budgeting. The three appropriation increases in the fourth quarter supplemental. Total $5.4 million. And there are three items that make up that $5.4 million. 1.6 for separation pay, 1.9 million for female reimbursement. And that is specifically overtime associated with police officers who are staffing, staffing some of our COVID testing sites. And so there's there's a anticipation that there will be FEMA reimbursement for these costs and 1.9 million for parental leave. The connection to overtime for that one is when officers go on parental leave. The department cannot simply hire new officers to fill in for that short period of time. And so that's when they bring folks on overtime. Each of these is connected to use of overtime in backfilling work. As I stated in committee last week, I don't see myself as a person who is rigid, even given the statement that was in the Council resolution about overtime and the intent to not increase funding for overtime, I might have been willing to consider some additional overtime if it wasn't for the fact that I do believe that there is still a lot of work that the Department needs to be doing right now in real time to address the the allocation of overtime. Not connected to that. The three items that I mentioned earlier, but really overtime connected to to staffing the protests that that we have been seeing for for many, many months now, we are still seeing large numbers of officers deployed for very small numbers of protesters. And I want to just make note that back on October 31st, Chief Diaz announced via the SPD blotter that SPD was changing its approach to demonstrations, including, I quote, recognizing that the visible presence and appearance of officers at a demonstration can impact crowds, can impact interactions with the crowd, and that reducing the department's presence when safe and feasible was a goal. And I, I applaud that that stated changed approach to demonstrations. But in. In just five days after this. The statement went out on November 4th on Capitol Hill. There appeared to be what looked like almost 100 officers present at a demonstration of 20 to 30 people. We heard public comment last week in the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee that even last week, large numbers of officers are continuing to show up at protests of small groups. So, you know, I recognize that over time, management reports are being sent to all bureau chiefs, sworn commanders and civilian managers every month, and that these reports contain detailed information for all employees who work over time in the prior month. But I think we we need to not just review the overtime after it's approved. We need to be really looking at the decision making associated with the approval. We know also that the budget director receives monthly overtime reports and has throughout the summer and I think is also in a position to do more to control overtime. I just want to note that on a broader level, part of the problem here is that the council has not received regular ongoing updates about speedy spending, and that's why these type of end of year spending bills are common. And so to bridge this information gap, the Council adopted two actions in adopting the 2021 budget. First of all, first of all, we're going to be requesting we're going to be receiving we have requested we are going to be receiving monthly reporting on overtime use. And that will allow the council to to really keep an eye on on how overtime is is is being deployed in an effort to do necessary course correction in future deployment of overtime. Secondly, the Council has requested that CPD provide monthly fiscal reporting beginning in January 2021. This reiterated a request made during the summer supplemental process. And you know, I think, again, we are going to be looking on a monthly basis the the spending of of the larger overall spending of the department, as well as over time for the department. I think we also need to think about. What we are what our expectations are to reduce the 2021 budget authority. Beyond beyond this action here today to consider what specifics we might we might need to really focus on in these in these monthly reports, whether or not that's total spending to date by budget control level. And I look forward to working with council members and central staff to just to have more more discussion not only about how we want to use this information, but how we want to receive it in a way that will make it most useful. Usable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. Okay. I have Councilmember. So once and then Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: I will be voting no on this supplemental budget, which gives Seattle us more.
Speaker 0: It's a little hard to hear you.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Is that better?
Speaker 0: Yep. We can hear you now.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I will be voting no on this supplemental budget, which gives the Seattle Police Department an additional $5.4 million to fund the extra overtime that they have used abusing and intimidating the Black Lives Matter movement. Every city department is allocated a budget at the beginning of the year and those are the funds they have available to do whatever they need to do. Here we are in the last council meeting of the year, the same year we had a historic Black Lives Matter movement, a year in which, under pressure from the street heat, the Democratic establishment made sweeping promises to defund the police by 50%. We now hear the police have spent $5.4 million more than their budget, $5.4 million that did not belong to them. And they are requesting retroactive permission for these millions in taxpayer money that they have stolen. They have taken this money in order to abuse the Black Lives Matter movement, spending millions in overtime to fill the streets of Seattle with tear gas and other weapons. And they have taken this money for personal enrichment with individual officers amassing hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime pay. Imagine a car thief who tells you that if you just retroactively give them your car, then they will not have stolen it. And the Seattle Police Department does this almost every year to the point where the council even passed a resolution in the summer which was mentioned pledging to say no if the police make this request at the end of this year. Now is the test. Well, council members hold the line or yet again backfill the already bloated police budget with renewed pledges to hold the line next year. Unfortunately, in the Finance and Housing Committee last week, council members on the committee unanimously voted to approve this police funding this year while pledging to take it from next year's budget . But what does it mean to take the money from next year's budget if council members prove that they have no intention of holding the police to that budget? What if the police go over their budget by $5.4 million again in 2021? Will the council hold the line then or push it back another year? What if they go over by 20 million in 2021 or 50 million? What will make the council members more willing to hold the police to their budget next year? Given that this year the Council already took the extra step of passing a resolution a year in which we had the largest street mobilization in U.S. history pledging to hold them to their budget. Does the Council need to pass two resolutions in 2021 saying no, but for real this time in committee? Public Comment. Community organizers demanded the council, quote unquote, hold the line. This is not holding the line. It is moving the line back a year with no guarantee that it will not move again and again and again. Of course, the reality is it's not about lines or promises or resolutions or even the goodwill of elected officials. It is about the power of the movement on the streets. At the height of the Justice for George Floyd movement, councilmembers promised to defund the police by 50%. A couple of months later, that was reduced to just a couple percent and a promise not to add that funding back at the end of the year and a couple of months later, here we are. The lesson for our movement is we must depend on our own strength. Always, we have seen also how, with the receding of the street movement, the city council Democrats just approved nearly $200 million in cuts to other departments like Housing and Community Services. I want to raise one additional part of the supplemental budget that is particularly insidious, that is funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to fund something called the Fusion Center. I voted no on supplemental budgets in the past because of the fusion center funding. The fusion center is the place where the Seattle police and the FBI share information about protesters so that protest movements like Black Lives Matter can be charged with federal crimes. It was similarly used against the anti-war movement at the height of the Iraq war. So this is nothing new. I will be voting no, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Next up is Councilmember Morales. And then is there anyone else who would like to make comments on the scale? Okay. Councilmember Morales And then it doesn't look like. I haven't seen anybody else indicate that they want to speak on the bill. So if that remains, the case will have conspiracy to close out debate. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm going to be honest and say I am very conflicted on this bill. You know, I understand there are many departments that need to have their year end items covered. And I do want to say, Councilmember Herbold, for walking us through all of the measures that we passed in order to help.
Speaker 3: Us keep closer tabs.
Speaker 1: On the LAPD budget from now on. And I also want to be really clear that I don't support the notion of covering a study over time, even if we're reducing authority next year. I really think it is outrageous that city continues to disregard this legislative body and the efforts made to reign in to rein in their overtime expenses, despite this body's expressing its intent over to budget processes this year. The interim chief submitted a request to cover additional overtime for activities that Judge Jones has deemed out of compliance with our accountability measures. If any other department manager had overspent their budget by $5 million, especially on.
Speaker 3: Any.
Speaker 1: Activities that a judge has deemed in contempt of court, we would not hesitate to hold them accountable. So I'm I am I am as frustrated as I know all of my colleagues are on this issue. If nothing else, it demonstrates to me that our search for a.
Speaker 3: New police chief will need to include.
Speaker 1: A thorough vetting of their financial management skills and their commitment to a reduced role for police in our community safety. As I said, I understand that there are other year and other departments whose year end work is sort of in the balance here. And so I am. I am. I am conflicted and. Frankly not prepared yet to figure out what I'm going to do. But I do want to express my frustration with this continued problem. And my hope is that the measures that we passed will allow us to be in a very different position next year.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's more or less. Okay. Just checking in one more time. Anyone else have any comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on this bill, councilmember mosqueda. I'm going to hand it over to you to close out debate with some final remarks. Thank you very much. Council President. Thank you, colleagues. Cosmo Morales. I'll just pick up on the last comments that you made. I am too also conflicted by this. I wanted to bring forward an amendment last week that would have stripped these pieces. We heard loud and clear from the law department and the executive team that the funds that are being basically held back that are needed for this allocation include things like paying for leave that really reimbursable expenses for emergencies and separation pay. But those were managerial decisions, right? Those could have been paid first. Instead, overtime was paid first. Then council was asked to basically fill the coffers. So in lieu of us having additional tools in the last week here of the 2020 cycle, the amendment that Councilmember Herbold and myself introduced on Wednesday, which clearly articulates our frustration and concern with this process and the amendment, coupled with the piece of legislation introduced today, effectively immediately in 2021, we will be able to, if acted upon, reduced the 2021 city budget by the proportional amount, because if the tools that we currently have at our disposal are to not allow for I'm sorry, limit us and do not allow for us in theory to be able to hold back on that $5.4 million. Then it needs to be taken out of the 2021 budget. If I can, Madam President, I just want to read from the piece of legislation introduced today. The Council has reason to believe that Speedy would have sufficient appropriation authority to cover the 5.4 million had it not overspent its overtime budget due largely to over deployment of officers during the largely peaceful protests in the summer of 2020, including the deployment of officers that exceeded $10 million in overtime costs and less than 60 days. Specific examples of the type of response that we saw during those days included an unarmed elderly person with a cane being pepper sprayed and slammed down to the ground by an officer, an eight year old child getting pepper sprayed in the face, a bike cop literally riding over a person's neck and an officer putting their knee on someone's neck. We also heard, as Councilmember Herbold talked about the large number of officers who continue to be deployed to respond to a relatively small number of individuals over the last few months. And this seems to be in contradiction to what we had heard from our police accountability partners, specifically Mr. Malmberg, who talked in his in his summary in Councilmember Herbert's committee about how the sheer presence and the type of force that was being shown in response to the protests was escalating situations. And the recommendation that if it were scaled down and officers were to be responding in different ways and in smaller force, then there would be less of a need for that type of response from the officers. And I think that the lack of follow through on that recommendation continued to escalate the cost. The legislation also says the council anticipates that there will be salary savings in city's budget to achieve the 20 achieved in 2021 due to higher than anticipated attrition, which has already occurred in October. And as I noted this morning, we found out on Wednesday is occurring as well in the numbers we're receiving in November, and we anticipate that that trend will continue in 2024, December as well. So the amendment commits to and the bill follows through on that commitment to reduce the city's 2021 appropriation authority, offsetting the increase the authority provided in 2020, and make sure that we're increasing the funding for community led participatory budgeting where called for in resolution 31962. This is the tool that we have at our disposal right now in this moment to hold the line. This is how we are making sure that there are consequences for overspending, the authority already authorized in the budget. And, you know, I equate this to going to a bank for those who have been able to purchase a home or for even those more than half of Seattle residents who are renting. You wouldn't go and purchase something that you didn't have the funding to buy and then go to the bank later and say, oops, I overspend. That wouldn't fly there. It's not flying for other departments. And we have to use the tools that Councilmember Herbold commented on and I talked about in the last committee meeting as well, to have even more specific language in each BSL and each line item in our budget so that we have greater understanding and control over how these dollars are being spent. This is part of the story. This is part of the narrative in the wake of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor's murder, in making sure that we as a council for the budgetary documents that we have control over in the wake of those murders, have made sure that we're not only not increasing, but we're now holding the line. Across 2020 and 2021. So it's not a matter of of, you know, saying that this will be dealt with next December. In fact, the bills already been introduced. It will be heard in early January. I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her foresight to request regular reports. And I think that this gives us all an opportunity to think about the type of information that we would like to be seeing on a monthly basis as those reports come in , so that we and any future council is never in this position again, and that we have greater transparency not just for our budget making process, but for the city at large. I look forward to working with all of you over the next year to make sure that we have greater tools at our disposal to continue to hold the line and continue to move forward on our efforts to expose and have greater accountability, transparency and further scrutinize the spending so that on the managerial side, which council has a responsibility for as well, we don't continue to see overallocation of overtime funding and that we expect all departments to stay within those budgets, especially though our Seattle Police Department's budget in the aftermath of our speedy inquest that we launched this summer. I appreciate that we've had a long conversation on this, today's meeting and in last Wednesday's meeting. And I do also want to reiterate to folks that there are a number of other important technical fixes and items within the quarter for supplemental. It's not all just about that, but we did, I think, for good reason. Want to spend quite a bit of time explaining to the council and the the general public the way in which this piece of legislation, the added amendment, the bill that was introduced today, all go hand in glove to make sure that we are following through on those commitments. Thank you, Madam President. Okay with that, colleagues, I am going to go have an officially close out debate on this particular council bill and now going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Want no spouse? Yes. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson Yes. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the show will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item six Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record? Agenda item six. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new CIP projects and revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2020-2025 CIP; creating positions; modifying positions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_CB 119967 | Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Committee reports the report of the Governance and Education Committee will please read the short title of item seven into the Record Report of the Governance and Education Committee Agenda.
Speaker 2: Item seven Constable.
Speaker 0: 119967.
Speaker 2: Relating to the.
Speaker 0: 2018.
Speaker 2: Families, Education, Preschool and Permits.
Speaker 0: Levy and Medical Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan adopted by Ordinance 20 5807. The Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. As chair of the committee, I will provide the committee report and then open the floor to comments. Colleagues, we did have an opportunity. I did have an opportunity to explain and describe this legislation to the full council during this morning's council briefing. This is legislation that is designed to temporarily modify the FEP Levy Implementation and evaluation plan that has been previously adopted and approved by the City Council. These modifications will allow the Department of Education and Early Learning some additional flexibility as they continue to modify their programing and services in the context of COVID 19. We did have a robust presentation by the Department of Education and Early Learning in my committee last week where they described how the flexibility will roll out in context of early learning K through 12 and the Seattle Promise. Lots of good stuff there on the Seattle Promise. For example, there will be flexibility allowed for students who are part of the cohort for Seattle promise to to continue to attend part time as opposed to requiring full time attendance. That's one of the changes there. And the K-through-12 space will be additional ongoing flexibility in light of and in response to the fact that children are remote learning as opposed to learning on site and for early learning, there will be additional flexibility, particularly as it relates to tuition related to those who are looking for child care services in the early learning space. So that those are some highlights. There's other additional details included in in the ordinance and really appreciate deals attractiveness in terms of seeking this now so that they can begin to modify how they're going to roll out the operational plan for these funds in the 2021 2022 academic year they're planning starts in earnest here very shortly. So looking for swift approval of this gives them a long ramp to be able to prepare and to engage stakeholders to to get this right. So the committee did consider this and unanimously voted to recommend that the city council pass this council bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the Court please call the will on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: A want?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mr..
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson. Yes. Council President Gonzales. Yes. Nine in favor. Nine oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes. Metro will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Hey, colleagues. Item eight. Well, the clerk please read item eight into the record. Agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy; amending the levy implementation and evaluation plan adopted by Ordinance 125807 to grant the Department of Education and Early Learning temporary authority to modify the implementation and evaluation plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_CB 119968 | Speaker 0: The bill passes. Metro will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Hey, colleagues. Item eight. Well, the clerk please read item eight into the record. Agenda item.
Speaker 2: Eight Council Bill 119968 Relating to.
Speaker 0: Lobby regulations, expanding lobby regulations to cover grassroot lobbying campaigns, correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations.
Speaker 2: And making minor amendments, and amending Chapter 2.06 of the Settlements.
Speaker 0: Four Code. The committee recommends the bill passed Councilmembers Gonzalez, Suarez and Strauss in favor and with an abstention from council members together. Well, as chair of the committee, I will provide the committee report and then again open the floor to comments for folks on this particular bill in just a moment here. Sorry, I'm pulling up my notes here. Okay. Colleagues, this bill comes to us from the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. It was transmitted to my office last December. That's December 2019. But between my maternity leave and responding to the multiple crises that is 2020, it has been some time before we could take this bill up. So this bill has been in the queue for approximately one year now. It had been the hope of the Senate Ethics and Elections Commission that this bill would have actually passed last year or early part of this year so that they could spend most of the year implementing and doing outreach on this bill. But be it as it may, we are here now and have an opportunity to take this bill up. I do take a lot of pride in our good governance and transparency measures of the city of Seattle. However, our lobbying regulations is one area where we can see some improvement. Chair Nicholas Brown of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission noted at committee last week that absent these regulations, there has been a large amount of money being leveraged to lobby and influence legislation. On September 21st, at all times reported that there were groups planning thousands of dollars on targeted social media ads that reached nearly 500,000 users to influence the public about budget changes. And we still don't know who is behind this effort to influence city policy that is related to indirect lobbying in particular. If this were a traditional campaign or candidate, we would have transparency and disclosure requirements. So this has long been a gray area without any transparency, and I believe very strongly that it's time to bring transparency to that body of of that area of our lobbying regulation and work that happens. I believe this legislation is good for transparency of the WHO and the resources being used to influence policy and investments or diet or divestments across our city. It brings us into alignment with disclosure requirements at the state level. So are the three parts of this bill. And with my amendment, it will it would clarify membership communications to address any potential concerns related to how organizations communicate directly with their members. I want to thank the Ethics and Elections Commission and Wayne Barnett in particular, and all of his team for bringing this legislation forward for council's consideration before the end of this year. And again, this bill effectively does three things. The first thing is it would require disclosure of. Disclosure of lobbying communications between lobbyists and department directors and their deputy directors or their direct reports. It would also require that lobbyists disclose any any financial relationships or other kind of relationships they may have with political campaigns, whether it be for elected officials or ballot measures. And then lastly, the last piece is related to indirect lobbying, which would require sponsors, i.e., people who are organizations that are paying for the indirect lobbying, not the people who are actually engaging in the lobbying, not members of the public, but those sponsors who are effectively footing the bill to encourage members of the public to lobby council members for a particular position. It would require those sponsors who spend $750 in one month or 1500 dollars in a period of three months to file disclosures with Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission to disclose both those lobbying efforts and funding sources, and also the expenditures that they have made in that in that in that area. I'm happy to address my amendment in particular that would, again, make this council bill more consistent with the state's law on lobbying activities by exempting internal membership communications. So functionally, what that would mean is if you are a member of an organization sending an email about an issue or action to another member of your organization, that activity would not be counted as part of activities for that would that would require disclosure to the Ethics and Elections Commission. So similar to our state law. The amendment to that we will consider in a moment does not currently define what membership is by design, but its membership selects. An election commission intends to engage in a rulemaking process and it will include stakeholder ing and further community input to better define what membership means. So let's just end by saying that I want to thank some of the organizations that we've engaged in my office for giving us their input and asking lots of really good questions, including the Seattle Human Services Coalition, who flagged some concerns for us last week and gave us a very long list of questions to answer that we were able to answer. My understanding is that the membership exemption amendment that we will be discussing and considering later as part of this legislation does address the concerns by by organized by the Seattle Human Services Coalition at least. So I will end my remarks there and am happy to now call for any additional. Comment? Well, actually, I think what I have to do now is we have to consider the amendments first. According to my script. So we're gonna go ahead and do that. I move. I'm sorry. I'm now going to acknowledge Councilmember Swan, who I understand has an amendment as mercyone.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I move Amendment one of our email removing the restriction on grassroots organizing, which is removing the section of this bill regarding what the legislation calls, quote unquote, grassroots lobbying, which unfortunately some councilmembers are calling in direct lobbying. But make no mistake, this is about the grassroots, as I mentioned this morning. This bill makes three updates, the lobbying rules. Two I support. But the third regulates what the law calls grassroots lobbying. This is not lobbying. This is this is not professional lobbyists paid to talk to elected officials. This is grassroots campaigns that organized communities to make their voices heard. The rule requires any grassroots campaign that spends at least $750 in a month to have to disclose its expenditures, donors and aims. In my view, this stance transparency on its head. When I think of transparency, I think that elected officials need to be transparent to the public. This bill requires the opposite. It requires the public to give their information to elected officials. Essentially, this is the political establishment demanding to know all the organizing details of ordinary people or any small group of ordinary people or any movement making demands on elected officials in committee. Council members even complain that they get contacted by the public and they don't know how to blame. I Alice Lockhart of 350 Seattle said it correctly when she said that she and the Seattle leadership are all equally aghast at this attempt. And so I am also I share those concerns. I'm extremely concerned that this will create a truly chilling effect on genuine grassroots organizing. It will be easy for Astroturf organizations and corporate advertising campaigns to make these disclosures, but for genuine grassroots movements that may not have that will not have professional accountants or treasurers, this paperwork will become , frankly, impossible. Imagine if this legislation was on the books during the Justice for George Floyd protests. During those protests, hundreds or even thousands of people donated to many community organizations organizing marches and making demands like the city council should defund the police. Renting the sound system for a single rally can cost more than $250, depending on the size of the protest. Let's push the protest organizers in an impossible position. It is technically possible to track down the donor information of everyone who donates over $25 to the protest. But it requires that to become the major focus of the organizers who are generally volunteers and working people themselves, and who should be spending their energies on the rally itself. Of course, it's not the intention of the FCC to penalize genuine volunteer grassroots organizers who are unable to collect all the information required. But the enforcement of these regulations will largely be complaint based, just like other S.E.C. regulations. Now, I would guarantee that there are plenty of Trump supporters and right wing people across the country who would be ideologically motivated to file complaint after complaint against movements in Seattle. My office has talked about this legislation with Wayne Barnette, executive director of the FCC. I really appreciate his time walking us through it. But the reality is there are several questions that have no answer yet that are really fundamental to the impact of this legislation on genuine grassroots campaigns. If there's a if there's a protest on an issue, at what point does it meet the definition of grassroots lobbying? If it's all about a specific bill, that could be straightforward. But what if what if it's an issue like defund the police? What about Black Lives Matter generally? Unlike election campaigns, which have a clear start when campaign staff can be trained by the FCC movement grow organically. There's no clear start start moment for campaign staff to be trained by the FCC. So how will volunteer organizers be made aware of their responsibilities? How should volunteers track donations thrown in the buckets of protest, which is a common strategy for grassroots fundraising? There are no answers to any of these questions yet, and I understand the concept for these rules is more around corporate advertising campaigns, like when the soda industry runs ads against a sweetened beverage tax. But the sad reality is that it will have it will create a chilling effect on community organizing by burying them in red tape. And the disclosure will be easy for those for the corporations. They already have accountants and batteries of attorneys to make it trivial for them to complete the paperwork, and it will be the volunteer organizers that will be penalized. Finally, I also understand that this language has been taken word for word, almost word for word from the state laws regulating grassroots campaign targeting the state government. However, the state regulations are the last place I would look for advice on how to create a welcoming environment for grassroots organizing. Olympia is notoriously inaccessible to ordinary people, not necessarily because of this rule particularly, but I think the disregard this law will have for grassroots organizing is emblematic of that problem. The amendment. My office is prepared and I thank central staff. Send for getting it ready rapidly. What got from the billion dollar sexual and grassroots campaigns and would leave the other two issues taken up by the bill unchanged. If this amendment fails, I will be voting no on the bill as a whole, not because I object to those other two issues, but because, on balance, without this amendment, the bill would be an attack on grassroots organizing and would not, on balance, benefit ordinary people. And we need to be clear. Mass movements have been the source of every progressive change in the history of this country, including the recent developments like the $15 minimum wage and the Amazon tax. I'm not surprised that the political establishment is so eager to gather the information of grassroots organizers because movement building succeeds. I also reject the false dichotomy that has been presented that when governments are going to prison. Gonzalez spoke to this in the briefing this morning. She said that this does not affect people who call in or emailed the council. It only affects organizers. Well, because our movements are only successful when we get organized. It's as simple as that. So essentially, the council is saying that you're fine if you call or email as individuals, which often has zero impact on political outcomes unless you're a CEO or a wealthy person. But if you succeed in getting organized enough among yourselves to be effective as ordinary people, then the political establishment wants to know who you are and what you are doing. I think we need to understand that that's what's going on. Finally, socialists and rank and file labor should remember the McCarthy era, the Red Scare, the blacklist, the political establishment demanding the information of genuine grassroots organizing has throughout history been used again and again to attack the mass movements of regular people. And if the council approves this law, it will be just another step towards, you know, really creating hindrances to grassroots organizing during critical movements in future struggles. I urge council members to support this amendment. And as I said, if it fails, I will be voting no on the bill as a whole.
Speaker 0: Colleagues. Any additional comments on Amendment one?
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 0: I would just say really quickly that I do oppose Amendment One. And I think that it's unfortunate that there's been such a mischaracterization of what the indirect lobbying portion of the underlying bill actually does. There is nothing in the council bill that is before the city council that that would in any way, shape or form lead a reasonable person to conclude that folks who engage in protest movement, organizing protest movements or organizing work would suddenly become lobbyists. Under this particular legislation, I think the bill is pretty clear in defining who a lobbyist is. It talks about how a lobbying entity is a law firm, consulting firm, public relations firm, or other similar organization that engages in lobbying through its employees or agents. It defines a lobbyist as an any individual who lobbies for compensation except individuals who might be reimbursed for minor incidental personal expenses related to that lobbying. It defines a lobbyist employer as any person who employs or compensates a lobbyist or a lobbying entity for lobbying to promote the person's interests. So again, this particular legislation is specifically targeted towards those individuals who are professional lobbyists. There's nothing in this bill that targets organizers as we know them to be. In fact, this simply says that if if, if, if there is a lobbyist who is compensated for the lobbying activity and those lobbyists are sponsoring public campaigns to influence legislation at city council or at the city as a whole, whether through direct communication to council members, in direct communication to council members or the mayor's office or their directors, department directors or those deputy directors, then they are simply required to disclose that activity and their expenditures related to those activities. Again, we are taking a careful approach here through and through Amendment two, which we'll discuss if this amendment fails. If this amendment passes, the amendment to will not be on the table because amendment to would amend the indirect lobbying portion of the Council bill as passed out of committee. But amendment to makes very clear that this does not cover any communications from organizations to their members. And that was an important that's an important amendment to respond to concerns from nonprofit organizations and other small organizations who don't want to be put in a position and shouldn't be put in a position to have to communicate, to have to disclose every time they send out an email blast, for example, to their member list around a particular around a particular issue. So so I will go ahead and link up. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. Councilman ROSQUETA, please. Thank you very much. Madam President. I did abstain on this vote in committee. And I think that the concerns that I had are addressed by the amendment that your office is bringing forward to address the underlying concern about engagement with various members and making sure that grassroots, grassroots lobbying and those organizations that provide that vital service can clearly see that that is not only prohibited, permitted activities, but encouraged as we want, as we seek to get information directly from individuals affected by policy decisions. So thank you, Madam President, for bringing forward your amendment, because that is being brought forward today. I am not going to be supporting this amendment that we're currently discussing, but we'll be supporting your amendment to your bill. And that addresses my concerns that I think you can sometimes get. And I appreciate the the back and forth we had in committee that was about about that particular issue and was happy that we were able to work with some organizing folks and organizations and community to make sure that we could bring forward that membership exemption, which does exist in state law, but unfortunately haven't made it into the base city bill. So I think this is an improvement on the original bill as it was introduced. So okay, right now we are considering Amendment One, which is the amendment as a sponsored and for. Hosted by council member the wants hearing no additional comments on Amendment one. We're going to go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the role on the adoption of Amendment one. So aren't.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. No problem.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Whereas now you talk at. Lewis. Oh. Morales. Well. No. ROSQUETA. Okay.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: PETERSON No. Council.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez no.
Speaker 1: One in favor. Eight opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion fails. The amendment is not adopted and the bill is before the Council. I will now move to amend Council Bill 119968 as presented on Amendment two, which was recently distributed. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment two as sponsor of this amendment. I'll go ahead and just recap really quickly, because I know we've been discussing it what it does. So Amendment two again would make council Bill 119968 more consistent with the state's law on lobbying activities by exempting internal membership communications . And again, this amendment would, with this amendment, the sale efforts and Elections Commission will be tasked with a public process in defining membership. This can look like a number of things like dues paying, being a voting member, electing leadership, and by not being prescriptive in the legislation. At this moment, we will allow CSC some flexibility in how they define this in their rulemaking process with the benefit of having public input. So again, colleagues, I think that this amendment, too, does address some of the concerns that we heard through additional engagement and conversation in committee around how excuse me, how organizations who have memberships are going to be able to continue to communicate with those members without without being subjected to cumbersome disclosure requirements in the new lobbying regulations. I do believe that this amendment does address those concerns with the understanding that there will be a period of six months in 2021 where the Senate Ethics and Elections Commission is going to engage in public education and additional community public input processes. And then they Director Burnet, indicated to us in committee that they are looking at taking a compliance first approach here. So they're not looking to have this be a gotcha kind of piece of legislation. They want they want to encourage compliance and they want to educate folks in in how to comply. And that's that's the approach they're going to take as they go through initially implementing this particular component of the bill. So with that being said, I would strongly encourage folks to support Amendment two as an improvement to the bill as introduced and discussed in committee. Are there any additional comments on Amendment two? Councilmember Morales, please.
Speaker 1: Thanks. I do have several questions. I'm going to try to lump them together and see if we can do this quickly. Mm hmm. So I have a question about, you know, we've been working lately, especially with a lot of coalitions and that are it's kind of a mix of organizations that are mostly volunteer based and some organizations that do have staff that have a paid staff to help with some of their work. And so I'm wondering what this means for coalitions. And I think this is related, but also trying to understand if there is a distinction between how nonprofit organizations would be impacted by this and for profit organizations that might be coming to council with things that they're trying to do. Mm hmm. That'll be a question.
Speaker 0: Yeah. On the one on the last point around for profit and nonprofit, the lobbying regulations as a whole don't distinguish between whether you're a for profit or a nonprofit. It's about the status of the person who is doing the the lobbying. So. So there's there are several triggers. If you look at the at the underlying bill that really sort of walk through what what the first threshold is, are you a lobbyist? If you're not a lobbyist, meaning that you're not paid to engage in lobbying behavior, then it that nothing else matters. It's a it's nothing is going to change for you. But if you meet the definition of lobbying and then and then and being a lobbyist, then you have to register as such. And if you engage in sponsoring campaigns for $750 a month or $1,500 over a period of three months, then that means that you would have to disclose your lobbying activity along with your expenditures related to whatever. Public campaign you launched to influence legislation. So. So there isn't a distinction in terms of if you're for profit, it's not about the issue or the content of your speech. It's about it's about whether or not you meet the definitional criteria of lobbyists and the expenditure requirement necessary to to to rise to the to to the next level. There is we did specifically because we were concerned about how coalitions work together. That's part of the reason why we reached out to to Julia from this get all human services coalition to to ask her specifically if she had any concerns around the the indirect lobbying portions of this bill. Understanding that that she has a very large coalition of organizations who come together to to request particular outcomes. And so so we did receive some responses from the Ethics and Elections Commission that were related to how do we how do we address some of those particular concerns? And I'm pulling it up now in just a minute. Okay. So some of the primary concerns really related to how they use their mailing list, which was a primary form of how coalitions engage with each other and how they activate people who are part of those mailing lists and so on. So with the exemption, with communications with members, which is this amendment, then people who have the capacity to, for example, vote for an organization's director or who pay dues, etc., would not be subjected to the indirect lobbying requirement. So without this amendment, it would trigger disclosure requirements for for even coalition organizations. So I'm happy to share this email with you. After the fact, there's a there are probably about a dozen questions that were posed by Julia that we had Wayne answered that we then shared the answers with Julia about. But but I think it also it also is important for us to remember that when we're talking about presenting a program, according to Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, really traditionally what that means is using things like paid social media, paid billboards or other means of paid communication to encourage people to contact their elected officials and urge them to either support or oppose a piece of legislation. So, again, if a coalition is is is meeting the expenditure requirements, is communicating outside of their membership list and is and meets the definition of lobbyists, then they would they would be required to to file a disclosure that would include expenditure disclosures.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So that probably answers my next question, which is that we do hear often from, you know, some of our most marginalized communities, you know, formerly incarcerated sex workers, folks who are undocumented. And so in order to make sure that they are protected. Well, that was my concern. But it sounds like if they're not registered as a lobbyist or wouldn't fall under that definition, then that that's sort of a moot point anyway, right?
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. The first threshold is, are you a lobbyist engaging in compensated lobbying work? And then are you expanding the required minimal amounts in order to trigger the disclosure? So even lobbyists who spend less than 750 a month or less than 1515 hundred dollars in a three month period, wouldn't be required to to do disclosures. And so, again, I think I think this is a new framework. It will be a new environment of disclosure, similar to the laws that we passed for the Clean Campaigns Act in early January of 2020. And SDC is committed to making sure that they engage in, in, in public education and in rulemaking to make sure that they are not that they are not creating a chilling effect for organizing work, that this is really about about who's paying for or public influence campaigns that that are at sort of a higher payment payment level. So this this legislation is not intended to, nor does it, I believe, prohibit ongoing efforts of people to continue to organize within community, to to do outreach, to either support or oppose legislation that the city council is considering.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Colleagues, any other comments or questions on Amendment two? Hearing no additional comments on Amendment two. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of amendment to Grant?
Speaker 1: Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbal. Yes. Whereas. Hi, Louis. Yes. For hours, guests must go to. Yes. Yes. Council President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: I'm in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted, and another bill is now before the council. Are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember So followed by Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 3: Actually I need a minute to gather my thoughts or can I go right after?
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: Because we're a mosquito. Thank you, Madam President. Just very briefly, I want to also thank Wayne Barnett. My understanding is that they are going to go through a pretty robust community engagement process. I think you mentioned that council president, we discussed it on Wednesday. And just to reiterate, you know, for ongoing concerns that individuals may have or organizations may have, there's going to be a six month process to fully have conversations with community. I started my line of questioning when the draft bill came over to ask, you know, how how has this been received by various stakeholders and community organizations, our grassroots partners? And I look forward to hearing more about how the upcoming, upcoming six months goes. And I know that folks are not shy about continuing to let us know how legislation that we've passed is being implemented and if there are unintended consequences. I think that we have shown time and time again a willingness to continue to make improvements. And and I'm really optimistic with the amended language that has been included today that some of those initial concerns that we heard have been addressed. Thank you, President, and your office, for the work that you did with immigrant rights groups, low wage worker organizations, environmental groups. I know you've reached out to a handful of folks, human service provider organizations, to make sure that you are getting some feedback. So thank you for that work. And it makes me optimistic about this six month conversation to come. And I'm looking forward to report back. Likewise. Kaspersky Lab. Thank you so much for those remarks. Councilmember Salant And then if anyone else wants to speak now and then comes the first one.
Speaker 3: Thank you. As I stated during the amendments, this bill, including the rest of this bill, with the restriction on quote, grassroots lobbying and quote, is not something I can support. I am disappointed that Council President Gonzalez continues to falsely claim that only paid lobbyists are affected. This is not true. The definition of quote unquote, grassroots lobbying states quote Any person who has made expenditures not otherwise reported by a registered lobbyist, unquote, and goes on. So it's not not not what the president is saying. I also want to point out that the council heard from grassroots campaigners in public comment stating that it will have a chilling effect on grassroots organizing. Why would council members pass a law and claim that it will not affect will not show grassroots organizers right after hearing from grassroots organizers that it will have a chilling effect. So I will be voting no.
Speaker 0: That was memorable. Please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to speak to my my belief in my hope. And as Councilman Ross mentioned, we can revisit this issue. But I really believe that the reporting requirements to register are not onerous and they should not result in the kinds of outcomes to true grassroots lobbying that some people might have some concerns about. And I think that the concerns are.
Speaker 1: Far, far.
Speaker 2: Outweighed by the harm that this bill seems to seeks to address. And from my perspective, that harm is the allowance of dark money to be used without any disclosure. Many of you remember that last year there was a paid lobbying campaign against the payroll tax legislation. It turns out that the Chamber had noted that they had funded it, but they were not required to disclose this. This, I think, is much more. This lack of disclosure is much more corrosive to our democratic values and our institutions than the burden that this disclosure requirement will place on sort of what we traditionally think of as grassroots lobbying. The term grassroots is used in Washington state law, and I don't think it's the clearest term for describing this activity for public understanding. But in practice, it has the same effect of disclosure requirements in in cities like Los Angeles, where they do they define lobbying activities to include seeking to influence the position of a third party on municipal legislation or an issue related to municipal legislation by any means, including but not limited to engaging in community, public or press relations activities. I think it's very important that our our regulations be contra content neutral. But in in being contract content neutral, I don't think the outcome is going to be a neutral outcome. I think the outcome is going to be a much more robust disclosure of of those in positions of power with access to great amounts of resources to our democratic decision making. And that's really why I appreciate the proposal of the the Ethics and Elections Commission bringing this forward and the work of Council President Gonzalez in bringing this forward. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments. Really, really appreciate that additional texture. Thanks a lot. Colleagues, any other comments on the bill as amended? Okay. Well, colleagues, I'm going to go ahead and close out debate. I want to thank you all for the consideration of this particular bill. I feel really strongly, as indicated by Councilmember Herbold, that the the the benefits of having this kind of lobbying regulation within the city of Seattle far outweighs the burden and the potential hardship of disclosure and and do trust that Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission will work very hard and diligently to make sure that folks understand what the
Speaker 1: . New.
Speaker 0: Framework and environment is and how to work with.
Speaker 1: Folks who.
Speaker 0: Are going to be potentially required to engage in this disclosure to actually successfully do so. I also don't want to lose over lose sight of the fact that this bill does have two other really important components to it, besides the the grass roots lobbying or indirect lobbying, I think is a much more appropriate term, which is which is additional disclosure for lobbyists who work on political campaigns, for elected officials or ballot measures, and requiring those disclosures to happen. In addition to that, and making sure that we are including disclosure requirements for lobbying that occurs directly to department directors or their deputy directors or their direct reports. We know that a lot of policy is driven at the department level, at the city of Seattle, and I think that's an important transparency requirement as well. So on balance, I think there's a lot of good things in this council bill that will increase good governance and transparency at the city. And really appreciate your consideration at this late hour of this bill as amended. So with that being said, will the Court please call the role on the adoption of the bill as amended?
Speaker 1: No. Council members saw? No. Stress? Yes. Her bold. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. ROSQUETA.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson. Yes. Council President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay, folks, we are now at item nine. Will the clerk please read item nine into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to lobbying regulations; expanding lobbying regulations to cover grassroots lobbying campaigns; correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments; and amending Chapter 2.06 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_Res 31983 | Speaker 2: Agenda item nine.
Speaker 0: Resolution 31983 expressing the Seattle City Council's solidarity with farmers protesting the passage of farming bills in India and in support of affected members of Seattle South Asian community. Thank you. I will move to adopt resolution 31983. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Mosquito, you're listed as a prime sponsor and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you very much. Council President colleagues. This is a continuation of this council's commitment to continue to stand with folks who are rising up and expressing our solidarity with those in India , fighting back against changes that continue to come down, especially on some of the most vulnerable residents and workers in India. After hearing with workers and members of the Punjabi community on the Friday introduction and referral calendar, the resolution that is in front of us was published expressing Seattle City Council's solidarity with farmers protesting the passage of farming bills in India and in support of the affected members of the city of Seattle's South Asian community. Over the course of the last few weeks in India, over 250,000 farmers, workers and their allies joined in what is typically what is believed to be the largest organized strike in world history. These workers are protesting three devastating deregulation agricultural bills that were passed by the Modi government in September. These laws deregulate the sale of crops, allowing private buyers more power in a marketplace that has long been incorporated and supported by government subsidies. Farmers worry now that these these pieces of legislation could devastate their prices and their livelihood. Farmers have said, including through reports on Democracy Now! And the link that I sent around, as you also saw from CNN and in Time magazine, it's been widely reported that farmers say that these neoliberal policies are a boon to corporations and roll back key labor and crop price protections that could have a deadly impact on the livelihood of farmers. Farming is the leading source of income for the population of India. This will leave farmers at the mercy of big corporations who will, in effect, drive down prices and could result in huge losses for farmers, effectively handing over farms to private corporations. Farmers, farmers, unions and the community who are supporting these farmers have said that these changes made by the bills passed in September will put them at risk for losing their businesses and land to large corporations. 60% of India's populations rely on agriculture as their main source of income, and the plight of farmers in India affects us. Here in the city of Seattle. The city of Seattle, as well as the country and the world, rely on India and their farmers. India is the leading exporter of mighty rice and the world's largest milk producer to the global market. We want to make sure that the production that is happening in states like Punjabi, in places like Haryana and Delhi, where farmers are protesting that their voices are heard and that we stand in solidarity with their efforts across the world. Farmworkers have had a long history of organized protests from the United Farm Workers here in the United States to farmworkers in India. Now, we continue to want to show support for those who are helping to put food on the world's table and who are themselves often struggling to put food on their own table. We also want to show solidarity with what is believed to be the largest demonstration in world history as farmers marched on the country's capital of New Delhi. They were met with by violent response from the Indian government. Water cannons were used in freezing cold temperatures on mostly elderly men in their fifties, sixties and seventies, and they experienced violent response via tear gas again deployed during a global deadly pandemic that affects the respiratory system. The police put up barricades with barbed wire, dug ten by ten trenches in the nations highway to prevent farmers from reaching the nation's capital. Please take a look again at the sources that we sent around over the weekend and much of the local and national news to bring attention to the workers in India and the farm workers who specifically stood up and shown a tremendous amount of courage in the face of opposition and repression from the government. I want to thank specifically Kent Councilmember Winder Carr for bringing this resolution with the Punjabi community to our attention. They in Kent are working to pass a similar resolution and as I noted this morning, the Kent mayor has sent a very strong statement of solidarity as well for the farm workers in India and appreciate the solidarity to our sister city in Kent for their work on this and their upcoming action in January. The South Asian community, specifically the Sikh community, has been in or has been organizing local protests to bring attention to what is going on in India and have been working to pass resolutions in other cities as well. I'm honored that we are able to bring this forward today, that it has been able to grab the attention of all of us in the city of Seattle to continue to show our support with the farmers in India and will continue to support our colleagues across this country to bring greater attention to this issue and stand up against violent repression and support the farm workers appreciate our congressional partners, who we are also calling on to help support farm workers and to oppose the repression that they've experienced. I look forward to working with all of you to continue to call attention to the issues that these farmworkers are demanding justice for. And again, I want to thank Councilmember Stewart as a co-sponsor of this and also for your earlier actions this well this year, starting in February, to bring attention to this issue. And as folks have said, this is the latest iteration of attacks from that government. So we all stand in solidarity and want to make sure folks here in our community, especially South Asian community in Seattle and Sikh community, Punjabi community, know that we see, hear and support the protests of farmworkers in India. Thank you very much. And thanks again for your co-sponsorship. Thank you, Councilmember Muscadet, because we're excellent. I know you have an amendment that you'd like to put before the city council, but before you do that, I wanted to offer you an opportunity to make general comments, if you'd like. As a co-sponsor of the resolution.
Speaker 3: Yes. I would like to thank you so much, President Gonzalez. Good afternoon to everybody who is watching this. Members of the public. Our community members. And almost a century ago. Greetings and solidarity to the hundreds of South Asian community members who have been in touch with my office over the last week and whom I've spoken to personally in the last weeks with a burning sense of urgency to fight the injustice being faced by the farmers and workers in India. Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito, for bringing this forward. I'm honored to co-sponsor this resolution on behalf of my sisters and brothers and siblings in India. India's government, headed by Prime Minister Narendra modi and his reactionary Hindu fundamentalist. Part of the agenda, the party or the BJP, have introduced three new laws in September that will dismantle the bare minimum protections or regulations relied on by millions of small farmers for survival. One of the new laws, for example, would repeal the minimum support price, which is a publicly mandated price floor, a minimum price at which the government promises to buy produce from small farmers as a measure of basic economic protection for them. I also agree with Reynoso Cohn, who said during public comment that the ration card system allows the multitude of poor people and working people to access grain, cooking oil and other basic food needs at affordable prices. I personally have childhood memories of getting rice at the local ration shop in Mumbai. Dismantling the Russian system would be a ticket to mass starvation and increased malnutrition. Yesterday morning, my staff and I joined hundreds of sick students and other young people at a protest action near the Space Needle in solidarity with the farmers in India. As an elected representative of Seattle's working people and as someone who grew up in India and was politicized and radicalized by the understanding of how global capitalism and imperialism have led to continued impoverishment of the Indian masses and the masses in the neocolonial world as a whole. I was proud to join the protest rally yesterday as myself and other speakers at the rally said the new laws are going to directly further enrich the already obscenely wealthy billionaires like Mukesh Ambani, who is India's richest man and is like the Jeff Bezos of India and Gautam Adani, both of whom are among the 40 richest people in the world. Farmers and agricultural workers make up 60% of the country's population. A 2018 study found that more than half of the farmers in India were in debt, and this was before the current pandemic and deep capitalist crisis. More than 20,000 farmers in the country have died by suicide from just from 2018 to 2019. And as the resolution says, over 360,000 since 1995, farmer indebtedness has been a major factor in these suicides. The protests have made world headlines and have led to solidarity actions by South Asian immigrant communities in an especially by the Sikh community globally, including right here in the Seattle region as well as in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. These solidarity protests have even forced establishment politicians to speak publicly in support of the farmers protest, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a member of the Australian Parliament. I really agree with the community members who testified in public comment today who said that the overwhelming majority are facing a race to the bottom globally and unless we fight back, we are at a loss. I agree with those who said in public comment that they fought with us for the $15 minimum wage and we have direct stake in the farmers in India winning their demands. The Indian government has inflicted brutal repression against the farmers and the protesters, with police using batons, water cannons and gas. But as the farmers have said, the police are using tear gas against us. But we were already crying at this point. The protests have sustained for nearly three weeks. This is a remarkable. The protest actions of selected multiple transportation and commuting chokepoints with hundreds of thousands of protesters blocking roads and squatting on railway tracks. The farmer protests are also noteworthy in the level of preparation they carried out before launching the actions. For instance, farmers interviewed at the Delhi action say they are prepared enough to be able to sustain the action for months. The protests also have an impressive degree of coordination between the actions in metros such as Delhi and Mumbai and the actions in rural areas in the individual states. They have organized shifts with some attending the protest actions and others tending the land. Women's committees have helped with providing food or, as are Sikh community members, justified longer every day for the thousands of activists. The protests have not been short of food even for a day. This level of organization and confidence is one of the reasons why the farmers are not intimidated. Despite the brutal tear gas and water cannons used against them by the police, of course, such organizing is not the result of some clever top down management based on ideas of business unionism. Such a level of preparation can only be achieved by first building the political conviction, solidarity and cohesion among hundreds of thousands of oppressed people. The rank and file farmers strengthening the clarity that we have to fight together against the ruling class. That it will be a long and hard fight and will involve significant sacrifice, but that it is worth doing precisely because that is the only way we can successfully push back against the gross injustices faced by the overwhelming majority under this bankrupt system of capitalism. It is this type of solidarity that is enabling the protesters to spend night after night in the cold winter in northern India on the back of trucks and tractors. This is the kind of organizing needed for any serious strike action by the labor movement anywhere, because big corporations and the capitalist state have all the wealth and the resources to wait for protests and strikes to grow exhausted and demoralized. Yesterday, at the request of the South Asian community members, my office initiated a petition to urge President elect Joe Biden and Vice President elect Kamala Harris to make a public statement in solidarity with millions of Indian farmers protesting privatization, poverty and indebtedness. Members of the public can find a link to it on my social media accounts and on our council office blog. Nearly 350 people have now signed the petition just since last night, and as a number of the speakers in public testimony said, my office alongside the South Asian community organizations, the Sikh students organizations and labor unions , is organizing a car caravan rally on January eight in solidarity with the general strike in India, which is going to be extremely important because it is this kind of solidarity among workers and farmers that can really put the Modi Modi regime on the defensive, on the back foot. And we need escalating tactics like this in order to ensure that we don't get complacent and that we win our victories. I'm also proud of the track record of my Socialist Council office in helping to build international working class solidarity, which is crucial for the global fight back against capitalism. As was mentioned before, just in January and February this year. I know it feels like an age ago. I also kept thinking it was last year, but it just this year my office brought forward the resolution against Modi's anti-Muslim and for citizenship laws, which South Asian activists and socialists fought for together. And we saw the Modi pro Modi supporters, the Bucks, the the Sun guys who came here and spoke in such divisive, deeply rightwing language. Last year, we brought forward a proclamation condemning the repression by the Modi regime in Kashmir in August 2014. My office sent a public letter in solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, calling on Obama, then President Obama and the members of both Houses of Congress to condemn the bombardment and violence by the Israeli regime in Gaza. When the City Council passed a resolution from my office in February opposing Modi and the BJP's citizenship laws, we made Seattle the first city to take a position. Since then, five additional cities have done the same, with San Francisco being the sixth city to pass a resolution in July. And my general comments by echoing the slogan and adding another slogan of the movement. The movement has settled on 8000, which means farmers stay united or long live farmer unity. I think as we head into the January 8th action, which is absolutely crucial for hundreds of millions of workers who will be on strike alongside the farmers, along with the student movement, we have to also raise the slogan Kissan Mazdoor Zindabad, which is Long live the unity between farmers and workers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Salant Okay. We're going to go ahead and consider Amendment one now that we've heard general comments. So before we open it up for any additional comments on the underlying resolution, there is an amendment that was circulated previously today consistent with council rules. So I'm going to go ahead and recognize council members want for that motion of Amendment One.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I move Amendment one inserting the following sentences. Section three The Seattle City Council stand in solidarity with the farmers organizations, trade union federations and student unions in India. Organizing for a General Strike on January eight, 2021 to unite the movement of oppressed peoples, demanding the restoration of protections for small farmers, increasing the minimum wage, ending privatizations, and defending the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. We heard from a number of ordinary people today in public comments, specifically from the Sikh community and also the broader Asian community. And every single person of those spoke in favor of this amendment was the proposed amendment. The protest movement has already shown enormous strength, as I mentioned before, having lasted nearly three weeks with an impressive degree of organization and political strength. However, it would be fatal if we got complacent. The movement has to escalate in order to force the Modi regime to concede to the movement's demands. The Modi regime will keep trying various divide and conquer tricks to try and break the back of the movement, for example, labeling Sikh farmers as terrorists. They will keep trying these tactics if they don't succeed in their in that horrendous effort. Then the regime, the super wealthy and big business will simply try and wait out the movement, wait for protesters to get exhausted and demoralized. As members of the labor movement like myself know, we we have seen this happen and we know that when we are fighting the bosses, we need to have tactics that will escalate the struggle and put increased pressure on the bosses to force them to concede to workers and unions demands. So it is absolutely crucial that the trade union movement in India has announced the general strike for January eight. The call for the general strike, as I said, is being supported by 100 farmer organizations, ten trade union confederations that represent hundreds of millions of workers, union members and student organizations. The unions are demanding the restoration of protections for small farmers, increasing the minimum wage, establishing pensions and Social Security for workers, ending privatizations and defending the rights of religious and ethnic minority. To understand the potential impact of such an action and why, I am urging Council members to support this amendment. We should know that the Indian trade movement has carried out three general strike actions recently one in January 2019, one in January of this year, and a third one just weeks ago in late November. Each of those general strikes has been the single largest general strike in global labor history. The one in 2019 was the largest in global labor history, and the one in January this year was the largest. And then now the one that happened in November was the largest. The last two general strikes, including the one in November, brought 250 million work union members out, not 250,000 people. And so these are these are absolutely massive. These are earth shattering actions. And I think this is exactly the kind of earth shattering action that we need in order to be able to combat the hundreds of billions and indeed trillions of dollars that are facing the poor farmers and workers at the hands of the billionaire class. I really urge council members to support this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Solent Councilor Silent has made a motion to put Amendment One before us. Is there a second debate? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on Amendment one. Council members want you when you have already made comments about Amendment One. So I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the floor to see if there are any additional comments on Amendment one. And as usually is, the case councilors want, you will.
Speaker 1: Have the.
Speaker 0: Final.
Speaker 1: Word.
Speaker 0: On Amendment One. But for now, we're going to go ahead and open up for any additional comments on amendment. Councilmember Strauss, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmembers and the state in support for bringing this resolution forward. I will be supporting the base resolution since public comment. Councilmember stop underscore from Kent who brought this resolution to our city council for consideration. Called me to ask what other public commenters were speaking about when discussing Section three, as she had not previously been aware of Section three. She from my communications and my phone call with her just in the last number of hours. It is her preference to retain the focus of this resolution on sections one and two. And for those reasons, I will not be voting for this amendment, although I support this resolution and everything that is brought forward. Thank you, Councilmembers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. Any additional comments on Amendment one? Hey, hearing no additional comments on Amendment one? Councilmember Swann. Any closing remarks that you'd like to make before we take up the vote on this amendment?
Speaker 3: Yes. I appreciate Councilmember Strauss. I don't I completely disagree with Councilmember Strauss for not supporting this amendment and also the reasons he stated. I think they're quite stunning. But I do appreciate that Councilmember Strauss was open about why he was going to vote no on the amendment. And I think that's a rare instance of where it is. It can become clear to members of the public why certain things are happening in the halls of government. But unfortunately, nobody else has spoken to, which I'm not sure what to make of it. I do appreciate councilmember horrible seconding of my amendment so that we can at least have a discussion. But I think that it is extremely important to recognize that regardless of what ethnicity elected officials may have at the end of the day, that the test that we have, we as an ordinary people have to put them to is are they standing with the ordinary people of whatever issue is at hand or are they standing with the establishment? And I think it's very telling that, at least according to what Councilman Bustos has said, and I'm and I'm, you know, assuming that other council members or whoever other council members share that position, I would say that it is deeply unfortunate because it is not a question of one elected official, even if they may be from a certain community. Dozens of people from the same ethnic community testified in public comment, saying that they wanted you to support that action and they had their own version. Describe why they think it's important, because they understand that this action is has the potential to greatly escalate the struggle which the farmers and the workers understand the need to do. They understand that they need to build unity, which is why there was a general strike in November by the workers in solidarity with the farmers, because they understand that actually they not only strengthen the farmers movement, they strengthen their own movement, and that the struggles of oppressed peoples are interlinked. And so I just want all the ordinary people, community members sake and social South Asian community members to understand what is going on here. At the end of the day, we have to observe if politicians are doing the bidding of other establishment politicians or are they actually listening to community members who one after one after one came and said that they want the city council to support this amendment. So I will, of course, be voting yes on this amendment, and I still urge council members to vote yes on it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to close out debate on this particular amendment. So let's go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One. One.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Oh. Book?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas now. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Rosetta.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Peterson. It's just nice to see.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson had to leave.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately for Council President Gonzalez, no votes were in favor and four opposed.
Speaker 0: Okay. The the motion fails for a lack of majority one way or the other. So the amendment is not adopted. We're not going to move to consideration of the resolution, and I think we've had a lot of debate on it. Were there any additional comments on the resolution as proposed? Which data, please? Thank you very much, Madam President. So I want to be really clear as well that the folks that I'm hearing from, including members not only that have been elected, but members who are working directly with the Punjabi community and the community at large who've been asking for this. I think that folks want to send a clear message about what is currently happening in India. A message to the congressional delegation. And for me personally, that does not mean not wanting to support a general strike. I think that there is going to be another meeting and more opportunities for us to continue to show solidarity with the general strike. But I want to make sure that I'm following the lead of the Punjabi community who's been reaching out and asking for the specific language in the resolution today. I will be making sure that we're pushing out information about the general strike. I know that folks don't come to a strike easily. This is often the last line that gets brought. Sorry, the last line of effort to try to make sure that messages are being heard. We know time and time again that these farmers have tried. They have tried to negotiate. They have protested. They have put their lives in harm's way, both because of COVID and because of the ongoing repressive attacks from the police and the governments being exposed to very cold temperatures and water cannons. Their life is on the line. And so we know that they have done everything they can. Personally, I support the general strike. I'll be putting out messages from our office in support to make sure that folks know how to participate in the caravan. Thank you very much. Council member silent. But in following what what the Punjabi community has asked for today, which is a very clear resolution specific to a international I'm sorry, a national message across the globe. I am very excited about this resolution. I think it's an unfortunate sort of conversation about who we're following, but I don't think that those two things have to stand in isolation. We can send forward this clear resolution today and also stand in support of the upcoming general strike, which I plan to do, and I plan to send out messages from our office. So I just want to make sure folks here directly that this is absolutely something that I am interested in doing in support of those who have reached out initially. Very happy to have this resolution passed today. And that says and that said, I'm also going to be supporting the call for the general strike. I know that that is not a decision people come to lightly, often the last line of defense when thinking about the strategies in front of us. And it takes a huge act of courage to do so. So personally, I want to focus now where we were at, but wanted to stand in solidarity and follow. The lead of the Punjabi community has been reaching out to our office and more information forthcoming obviously on that first week of action in January. I think it comes from a mosquito. It was more silent.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I don't agree as a member of the labor movement myself that it's not easy for workers to go on strike. It is a very difficult decision because it requires a tremendous amount of sacrifice. There's a lot of uncertainty. There are lots of twists and turns because bosses or in this case, the more the regime and the billionaire class were not given easily, in fact, they will, in fact, try to wait out the movement as much as they can. And so during the strike action is requires a lot of resilience, a lot of strategic and tactical political clarity for the workers and continued solidarity for them to not be able to vote for the strike, to not be broken. But I'm not sure what is being achieved by this council not supporting this by not supporting the amendment for the strike action, because they have already declared the strike action. So when we agree that it's not easy for them to do this. So that means that it has been it has been an extremely hard and long and hard road for them. So they have already declared the strike action. I'm not sure how it helps to fight for the general strike by sending a message of, well, this is not what the Punjabi community wants. I also don't agree, unfortunately, with the idea that that not having the clause for the the general strike support is somehow following the lead of the Punjabi community. It's not some homogeneous community. We heard from dozens of Punjabi and Sikh working people today and dozens more and hundreds more have, you know, have spoken in different ways, not just today, that they are supporting this strike action that they wanted the city council to also supported. Absolutely agree that we all should be supporting the January 8th Act. And I appreciate you expressing support for the action that we are organizing. And I wanted to call on everybody, all the ordinary people, members of the public who are watching this. Let's make sure we organize a massive, massive, historic January 8th, 2021, car caravan rally in Seattle at 3 p.m.. I'm not saying the location yet because we are going to decide the location and let everybody know. But my point is that it is a let's make it a massive and successful action and let's stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the masses in India who are struggling for a better world. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. But that we're going to go ahead and close out debate here since the sponsors have spoken last on this particular resolution. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Stress? Yes. Verbal? Yes. Whereas. Yes. RUIZ Yes. Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Mosquera Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: It in favor of.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the police effects my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business? Is there any other business to come before the council? Council Member Mosquito. Thank you very much, Madam President. I would like to thank all of you as well. Council Member House President means that. Thanks to everyone this morning to you for stewarding us through a really tough and challenging 2020. And I appreciate the stewardship that you provided. Also want to thank my office and Aretha, who has been working on this resolution that just passed today and her presence at the rally at the Seattle center as well yesterday. And all of the work that our team has been doing between Aretha Friday and a lawyer interim, we got some 20,000 emails just specific to the budget in the last few weeks. And really they're going to continue to come from her office as we endeavor to get responses back out to everybody and look forward to working with all of you on various issues coming up in 2021. And I want to say thanks for all of your hard work this year on the budget. I know that we took a lot of your time and your family's time and your community time to work with the community, with our budget process here and and through the committee deliberations that were very lengthy at times. So thank you very much. Thanks to Essential Staff, our entire team and I look forward to working on more with Andrew on housing coming up and seasonal workers rights and what do you think on health issues and on everything related to community safety? And Lori, who's just been tremendous in our office on how we're responding to constituent inquiries, I just want to say thanks as per usual councilmember, whereas I couldn't get away with not doing it. Madam President, I'd like to also request to be excused on January one. There we go. There's the city council business. All right. There's been a motion for members data to be excused on January 4th. Is there any objection to that?
Speaker 1: I object. This better.
Speaker 0: Not cause I don't.
Speaker 1: Have a lot of paper before I object.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to take that objection in in the ingest and assume that there is no actual objection number. Ms.. Gay that will be excused for January 4th, 2020. Is there any other business to come before the Council? All right. Colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. This is our last regularly scheduled Marathon City Council meeting for the year of 2020. Our next regularly scheduled City Council Council meeting is on Monday, January 4th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful evening. We are adjourned. See you all in 2021. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION expressing the Seattle City Council’s solidarity with farmers protesting the passage of farming bills in India and in support of affected members of Seattle’s South Asian community. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_CB 119964 | Speaker 4: Every part of the public assets and Native Communities committees. Agenda Item one Constable 119964 relating to the sale department authorizing the Sale Center Director to execute the Third Amendment to the facility. Use and Occupancy Agreement between the City of Seattle and the sale of Repertory Theory Theater. The committee recommends the City Council.
Speaker 1: Pass the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Suarez, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So the Seattle Repertory Theater, like the rest of Seattle's arts community is facing, has faced severe economic challenges as they will be unable to hold in-person performances until the governor's restrictions are lifted to address the challenges caused by the pandemic. This proposed Third Amendment to the 1996 agreement would remove the obligation for the Seattle Repertory Theater to make their 2019 and 2020 fiscal year contributions to the fund. The 2019 Fund is 170,000 $571,000. And that 220,000. Fiscal year contribution is 174 836,000. So since they're not since they're unable to make that contribution to the fund, we want to move to make sure that we can allow them to use the fund for operating expenses through July through June, I'm sorry, 30th, 2022. I will clarify why 2019 is listed. While COVID struck beginning of 2020. The 2019 fiscal year contributions to the fund were due June 2020. But because of the pandemic, the schedule was not met. So basically the obligation for the Seattle Repertory Theater to make these donation. I'm not donations. These contributions couldn't be done in light of COVID. The SEAL Repertory Theater would be required to maintain a minimum balance of $160,000 in the fund. The fund, which is owned and managed by the Seattle Repertory Theater and per the 1996 agreement was to have been used solely for replacement, maintenance and repair purposes of the Bagley Rite Theater. The Salem Repertory Theater was founded in 1963 under the leadership of Bagley. Right. It is one of the oldest resident organizations on the Seattle Center campus. So the after our committee hearing last week, the Public Assets and Native Keys Committee would recommend that council pass council bill 119964. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Governor Juarez. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Oh, there we go. Yes. Memorable, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. I just want to express my thanks and appreciation, as I did in Committee to Seattle Center for working to address the dire needs of our arts organizations in this really difficult time and really appreciate sort of understanding that the the efforts of the city to to meet those needs will not have a negative impact on the ability of the theater to address maintenance needs, but will put the theater on better footing for when they are aiming to reopen. So thanks to Director Dellums for.
Speaker 1: His and his staff's work on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any other comments on the bill? All right. Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: PETERSON Yes. Strauss. Yes. Suarez I. HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Macheda i president gonzalez. I h in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will Kirk, please affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda item two. Constable 1199746 relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks Recreation to execute an amendment to the amended and restated concession agreement with Tennis Center at seven Point LLC at Warren G. Mechanism Park. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Center Department; authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute the Third Amendment to the Facility Use and Occupancy Agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Repertory Theater. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_CB 119746 | Speaker 4: Agenda item two. Constable 1199746 relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks Recreation to execute an amendment to the amended and restated concession agreement with Tennis Center at seven Point LLC at Warren G. Mechanism Park. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Chair. Consumer worries. This bill is also from your committee. So you are recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. First, I want to thank Councilor Peterson for his work to move these updates forward. The proposed council bill authorized an event, an amendment to do four important legal and community based changes and additions. Long time coming, but we saw this on the horizon. One is to update the language in the concession agreement. Number two was to add an additional five year term extension option to the concession agreement. Those are pretty common. We've seen these in the concession agreements in the past. Number three, to redefine public benefits, processes, requirements and offsets. That is free court time for youth and seniors. I want to loop back to the public benefits in a minute. And then finally, number four, amend the fee payment due date. Getting back to redefining the public benefits. As you know, we've worked on revamping that whole piece in the last four or five years. So we have a real expansion of public benefits, a real analysis of outreach, with an emphasis on access and equity and race and social justice. Basically keeping civic assets and keeping the public and public assets public. So this is another great way to update the contract and the concession agreement and the amendments and to expand the public benefits piece, which we have been doing across all the civic and public assets that the people of City of Seattle own. So with that, the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends that Council Pass Council Bill 119746 as amended. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Suarez, for that report. Colleagues, are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis, I. Morales Yes. Macheda yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Agent Faber. And unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item three Will the clerk please read item three into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute an amendment to the amended and restated Concession Agreement with Tennis Center at Sand Point, LLC at Warren G. Magnuson Park. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_CB 119953 | Speaker 4: That report at the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 119953 relating to the City Life Department accepting various easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County, Washington. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: You Council president, colleagues, we've got nine items from our Transportation Utilities Committee on this agenda. The first two are from Seattle City Light. The first one that was just read into the record counts for 119953 is similar to the next 1119954. These two measures are the routine approval of almost 600 easements needed by city life to provide service to new developments and other situations where service is physically changed. These easements allow the utility to locate wires across property not owned by either the service customer or the city government and to provide service to all customers in any new subdivision. The committee unanimously recommended approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the quick please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Hi. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. President Gonzalez. I 18 favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 16 Will the clerk please read the short title of item 16 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting various easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County, Washington; placing said easements under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_CB 119954 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 119954 relating to the City Department accepting various easements for overhead and underground mutual rights in King County, Washington, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk, because, Mr. Peterson, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report on this council bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council Bill 119954 is very similar to the one we just passed its various easements for Seattle City Light and the committee unanimously approved it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there comments on the bill and. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing now, will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Peterson?
Speaker 3: Yes. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 2: Suarez, I.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Macheda i. President Gonzalez, i. 18 favored unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 17 Will the clerk please read item 17 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting various easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County, Washington; placing said easements under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_CB 119961 | Speaker 4: Gentlemen. 18 Constable 119961 relating to the general public utilities authorizing the General Manager and chief executive officer of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire, accept and record on behalf of the City of Seattle, both temporary and permanent property rights from owners of property. Would you recommend the bill passed?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilor Peterson, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report on this council. Bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council Bill. 119961. This bill approves a few easements. Seattle Public Utilities obtained to facilitate construction of the ship Canal Water Quality Project. It's a large environmental capital project that includes storm water storage tunnel between Wallingford and Ballard. The overall project remains on budget. The committee will be receiving a briefing, an update on the status of the project early next year. The committee unanimously recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez I.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Macheda yes. President Gonzalez II is in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 19 Will the clerk please read the short title of item 19 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire, accept, and record on behalf of The City of Seattle both temporary and permanent property rights from owners of property located along the alignment of the planned combined sewage conveyance and storage tunnel between 24th Avenue NW and Shilshole Avenue NW in Ballard and Interlake Avenue N and N 35th Street in Wallingford, and from owners of property located along the alignment of the planned Ballard Conveyance pipeline between 28th Avenue NW and NW 56th Street and 24th Avenue NW and Shilshole Avenue NW, and for related infrastructure in 28th Avenue NW, that are necessary or convenient to construct, operate, and maintain the Ship Canal Water Quality Project and 3rd Avenue W Water Main Replacement Project, through negotiation or eminent domain (condemnation); placing an underground electrical easement under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; placing other real property rights acquired under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_CB 119962 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 119962 relating to sell public utilities authorizing the General Manager and chief executive officer of so publicly center to a stormwater facility construction and maintenance agreement with the State of Washington and granting non-exclusive easement with the State of Washington. Can you recommend the bill pass?
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. You are recognized in order to provide the committee report on this council bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Constable. 11996 to this measure will approve a maintenance agreement. Seattle Public Utilities, negotiated with the Washington State Department of Transportation, washed up regarding two adjacent stormwater ponds along I-5 in South Seattle. The committee unanimously recommended approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the Court please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Mesquita Yes. President Gonzalez, I. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 20 Will the clerk please read agenda item 20 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a stormwater facility construction and maintenance agreement with the State of Washington and grant a non-exclusive easement to the State of Washington for the stormwater facility, upon, under, and across a portion of the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., King County, Washington. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_Res 31981 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 22 Resolution 319814 links. The South Seattle Department of Transportation authorized contractor to act as the Authorized Representative Agent on behalf of the City of Seattle. The committee recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. You're recognized in order to provide the report on this bill.
Speaker 3: Resolution 31981 allows the Seattle Department of Transportation to apply for a grant that, if obtained, will provide significant funding $910,000 for construction of the Georgetown South Park Connection Trail Project. The committee unanimously approved this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Okay, colleagues, are there any additional comments on this resolution? Hearing no additional comments on this resolution. Will a quick please call the war on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple. Yes. Juarez.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Mean? Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Mesquita. I President Gonzalez I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 23 Will the clerk please read the short title of item 23 into the record? | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation; authorizing the Director to act as the authorized representative/agent on behalf of The City of Seattle and to legally bind The City of Seattle with respect to certain projects for which the City seeks grant funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072020_Res 31980 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 23 Resolution 31980. Granting conceptual approval to construct, install, maintain and operate below grade private utility lines. Committee recommended the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Casmir Peterson. You are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Resolution 31980. This resolution is a preliminary approval for development of a heat capturing project that needs a permit to locate pipes under city government streets. The project is in an environmentally beneficial way to capture, for use, heat from sewer lines that would otherwise be wasted. We'll see this project again with complete drawings, along with a permit application later. The committee unanimously recommended approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for that report. Colleagues, are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing non. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 2: Suarez I.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Bhaskara i president Gonzalez I 18 favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Adoption of other resolutions. Will the clerk please read agenda item 24 into the record? | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, install, maintain, and operate below-grade private utility lines under and across Roy Street, west of 8th Avenue N; Dexter Avenue N, north of Mercer Street; Roy Street, west of Dexter Avenue N; and the alley north of Mercer Street, west of Dexter Avenue N, south of Roy Street, and east of Aurora Avenue N, as proposed by McKinstry Company LLC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11302020_CB 119907 | Speaker 0: Will the clerk please read item one into the record? Agenda item one Council Bill 119907 relating to land use and zoning extending for six months, a moratorium established by Ordinance 1 to 5 764 and extended by ordinances 1 to 6 0061126090. On the finally acceptance, processing and or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use or change of principal or accessory use for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in section 23.84 or 8.03 of zero. Thank you, Madam Court, for reading that into the record. I move to pass Council Bill 119907. Is there a second leg? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Strauss, you're listed as the prime sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item. And then I will call for general comments by any other council members. Cosmo Address.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. Thank you, colleagues. This legislation would extend the existing moratorium on redeveloping manufactured home parks by an additional six months. We held a public hearing on this legislation two weeks ago at full council and did not pass this bill last week as due to budget, the budget being passed and taking up most of our priority time. The City Council first adopted this moratorium in January 2019 and has renewed it twice. The current moratorium that is enacted expires on January eight, and so an extension requires 30 days to take effect, which is why it's before us today in an expedited manner. In adopting the original moratorium, Council expressed its intention to consider permanent regulations to preserve mobile home parks and laid out a work plan for doing so in collaboration with the Department of Construction and Inspection and the Office of Planning and Community Development. This plan is being worked on, and right now this legislation before us today would extend the moratorium for an additional six months to allow that work to be completed. As I've shared before, my office has been working closely with Councilmember Juarez, who has been taking a lead role in this effort over the last number of months. And she's been working on it for years. I've been working on this for the last year. We expect to co-sponsor together that permanent legislation that will adopt the permanent regulations in the first quarter of next year, which is why this final extension of the moratorium, the temporary moratorium, is important so that we can finalize those last details on a permanent fix. Our offices also and our offices are also in contact with residents and housing in Mobile Home Park, as well as relevant city departments informing how those final steps are taken. I want to thank Councilmember Juarez for her ongoing attention to resolving this issue in a meaningful way, not being a lawyer. It is very helpful to have a smart lawyer on the team and for her work making sure that it was on the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee work plan as a top priority this year. Thank you. Council President Waters. Thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Macheda i. Peterson. I so want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Suarez, I. Herbold Yes. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. President Gonzalez I nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business colleagues we discussed this morning during at the council briefing meeting that council members will want will have a matter | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; extending for six months a moratorium established by Ordinance 125764, and extended by Ordinances 126006 and 126090, on the filing, acceptance, processing, and/or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use, or change a principal or accessory use, for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in Section 23.84A.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11232020_CB 119913 | Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? All right. Victory. First group completed. Moving now to the second group, which is items seven through 11. Will the clerk please read the short titles of items seven through 11 into the record?
Speaker 0: Agenda item seven 311 Council 119913 lead to fee and charges for permits and activities of the sale, department of constructions and inspections. The committee recommends that they'll pass countable 119914 going to the Department of Parks and Recreation, establishing the 2021 to 2022 fee schedule. The committee recommends the bill pass resolution 31975, authorizing an exception to the level of general fund support to set up parks and Recreation by three fourths of the City Council. The committee recommends Bill pass with Councilmembers Macheda Herbert Gonzalez, Forest, Lewis Morales, Peterson, Strauss and Favre and Councilmembers Salant to post Council Bill 119915 relating to drainage services of Seattle Public Utilities. The committee recommends the bill Pass Council Bill 119916 relating to wastewater services of Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk, for reading those into the record. Colleagues, with the exception of Agenda Item nine, which is the resolution related to Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, these items that we're about to consider and vote on were all passed unanimously out of the Select Budget Committee. Again, with exception is agenda item nine. And so I suspect that there may be comments on that particular agenda item when when I call for them. So for now, we're going to go through each item just like we did in the first group. And the first one up is agenda item seven. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119913. Agenda item seven. Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 5: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: 9 a.m. favored unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item eight. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119914. Agenda item eight. Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 5: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda. Yes.
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 0: Swan Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 5: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item nine Are there any comments on resolution 31975? Agenda item nine. As members of what you are recognized.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This bill gives the city the authority to do budget cuts to the Parks Department larger than would have would otherwise legally be allowed. I have argued that this budget is an austerity budget, cutting essential funds from departments like Seattle Parks and Recreation. Shockingly, some council members have claimed that the cuts do not exist. But if the cuts do not exist, then council members would not have any reason for this bill making the cuts to be legally allowed. In the Budget Committee meeting last Thursday, my office and the People's Budget Movement fought for a budget amendment to increase the tax rate of the Amazon tax to prevent all budget cuts across the city. If council members had supported that, then this bill authorizing cuts would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, no other council member voted yes on that approach. While this bill is only necessary to excuse the cuts to the general fund, the reality is that there are even more drastic cuts to other parts funding. There is an alternative to budget cuts and my office will continue to fight for it. So I will be voting no on this bill authorizing cuts to community centers, pools and park maintenance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Actually comes from a salon. Are there any additional comments on resolution 31975? Agenda item nine. Hearing, no additional comments will occur. Please call the role on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 5: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Mosqueda Yes.
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 0: Sarwan no. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation? Item ten. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119915. Agenda item ten. Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Morales. S Mosqueda. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 11. See. Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119916. Agenda item 11. Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 3: DG Council President, colleagues, this is an increase in wastewater rates that's passed through from King County. And we do have a statement of legislative intent that was approved at committee to look deeper into this issue where these rates from King County are just passed directly on to our ratepayers here in Seattle. So I will be reluctantly voting yes on this. We don't really have much choice because they're passed through, but we are going to be looking into this further in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Appreciate that. Reminder, Councilmember Peterson, any additional comments on agenda item 11 Council Bill 119916. Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Mosquera. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sergeant.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Juarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: 9 a.m. favored unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. We just made it through group two. Now we are going to group three. Will the clerk please read the short titles of items 12 through 16 into the record? Agenda items 12 316. | 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 22.900C.010, 22.900D.090, 22.900D.100, 22.900D.150, and 22.900G.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and repealing Section 22.900E.060 of the SMC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11232020_CB 119922 | Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Park. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the first please affix my signature to the legislation. Next grouping items 17 through 21. Will the clerk please read the short titles of items 17 through 21 into the record.
Speaker 0: And item 17 through 21 taxable 119922 relating to the drainage and wastewater system of the city of Seattle. The committee recommends Table Tennis Council 119923 relating to the drainage and wastewater system of the city of Seattle. Can we recommend the bill? Pass Council Bill 119924 relating to the solid waste system system of city Seattle. The committee recommends people pass Council Bill 119925 relating to the municipal water system of the city of Seattle. The committee recommends Bill Pass and Council 119926 relating to the municipal water system of the city. SEATTLE The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam Clerk, again, colleagues in the grouping of agenda item 17 through 21, these are all pieces of legislation that were discussed during the Budget Committee and all passed out of the Select Budget Committee unanimously for consideration by the City Council today. So we'll go ahead and start with agenda item 17. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119922? Agenda item 17. Hearing no comments. Will the court please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 5: Morales s.
Speaker 0: Mosquera yes.
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 0: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 18. Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119923. Agenda item 18. Hearing no comments. Will the court please call the role in the passage of the bill?
Speaker 5: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Mosquera.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Juarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: 9 a.m. favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will please affix my signature to the legislation. Item 19 Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119924. Agenda Item 19. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please callable?
Speaker 0: Morales s mosquera yes.
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 4: Sarwan Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 20. Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119925. Agenda Item 20. Hearing no comments. Will the court please call the roll?
Speaker 0: Morales Macheda. Yes.
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 0: So why.
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Purple, yes.
Speaker 5: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the book please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 21 Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119926. Agenda Item 21. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the will on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Morales s mosquera. Yes.
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Next grouping items 22 through 29. Will the clerk please read the short title of items 22 through 29 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the drainage and wastewater system of The City of Seattle; amending Ordinance 125454, as amended by Ordinance 125712, to increase the authorized principal amount of drainage and wastewater revenue bonds to be issued for the purposes of paying all or part of the cost of carrying out the system or plan of additions and betterments to and extensions of the existing drainage and wastewater system; extending the initial authorization date of those bonds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11232020_CB 119947 | Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Next grouping items 22 through 29. Will the clerk please read the short title of items 22 through 29 into the record?
Speaker 0: And items 22 329 Council 119947 relating to the financing of the Seattle Department of Transportation, the committee recommended to pass Constable 119928 relating to election tax revenue. The committee recommends the bill passed Resolution 319 76 modifying financial policies for the Arts and Culture Fund. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Council Bill 119929 relating to sale center parking charges. The committee recommends it will pass Council Bill 119930 relating to adjusting the nine year move Seattle Levy appropriation amounts. The committee recommends to pass Council Bill 119932 relating to taxation. The committee recommends the bill passed Resolution 31977 approving interest rate set by the Seattle City Employees Retirement System Board of Administration for 2021. The committee recommends that the resolution be adopted and resolution 31978 and Bennie ordinance excuse me, amending Resolution 3133 for establishing the City Council's intent to fund the Seattle City Employees Retirement System. They recommend that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay, colleagues, we're going to go ahead and vote on items 22 through 29. Again, that these items are all considered in the Select Budget Committee and where unanimously passed out of committee with the recommendation of the city council, adopt these legislative bills or resolutions during today's full council. So are there any comments on Council Bill 119947. Agenda Item 22. Hearing that will the Kirk please call the role on the passage of the bill or else?
Speaker 0: Yes. Macheda. Yes. Petersen.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sir. What?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Our fault. Yes. Juarez. Yes. Lewis?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Kirk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the Court please a fix my signature to the legislation? Item 23. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119928. Agenda item 23. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill or Alice?
Speaker 0: Yes. Macheda Yes.
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 0: Sir. Why.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes. Juarez. Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor none opposed.
Speaker 1: And give the bill passes and a terrible sign up. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation? Hey. Item 24. Are there any comments on resolution 31976? Agenda item 24. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda.
Speaker 6: Oh, yes.
Speaker 0: PETERSON.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sergeant.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 5: Juarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 25 Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119929. Agenda Item 25. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 5: So sorry. Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 26 Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119930. Agenda Item 26. Hearing no comments. Will the court please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 5: Morales s.
Speaker 0: Macheda. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sir. What?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. SUAREZ Yes.
Speaker 3: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please to fix my signature to legislation? Item 27. Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119932. Agenda item 27. Hearing no comments. Will the court please call the role on the passage of the bill or else?
Speaker 0: Yes. Macheda. Yes. Petersen.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: What?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will Leclerc, please affix my signature to the legislation. I'm 28. Are there any comments on resolution 31977? Agenda item 28. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 0: Morales. Yes. Mosqueda. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sir. What?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 1: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 29. Are there any comments on on resolution 31978? Agenda item 29. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution or Alice?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda. Yes. Pietersen?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sarwan.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Next grouping agendas, agenda items 30 and 31. Will the clerk please read the short title of items 30 and 31 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of the Seattle Department of Transportation; authorizing the loan of funds in the amount of $25,000,000 from the Information Technology Fund to the Transportation Fund to support essential transportation programs. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11232020_CB 119951 | Speaker 1: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation? Okay. Next grouping items 32 through 34 with a quick please read the short titles of items 32 through 34 into the record.
Speaker 0: Agenda Items 32 to 34 Council vote 119951 relating to the cell transportation benefit districts. The committee recommends the bill passes amended, but council members Macheda Gonzalez, Suarez, Luis Morales, Savant and Strauss in favor. Councilmember Herbold oppose and with an abstention from Councilmember Peterson. Council 119936 relating to transportation network company drivers. The committee recommends the bill pass and council vote 119937 relating to taxation. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay. Agenda item 32. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119951 Agenda item 32. Council members want Americans, Mr. Peterson.
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 5: Just 1/2. I'm going to my point.
Speaker 4: Yes, this bill increases the vehicle license fee, also known as card tabs by $20 to fund transportation cards. One of the most deeply regressive and punishing taxes in Seattle, I know many have opined that that having card tabs will actually have a good impact against car emissions, which are one of the most important factors in reducing carbon emissions and actually taking Seattle toward zero emissions. Absolutely. We need to do everything in our power to reduce emissions and take them to zero. But in reality, if you look at the economics of car jobs, what ends up happening is it punishes that section of poor and working class people who end up having to rely on their vehicle just to get to their livelihood and to their days, especially because many of them have been pushed farther and farther away from their place of business. Yes, it is also true that there are many, that there's a big section of our poor and working class neighbors who cannot afford cars, and this does not affect them. But that is ignoring the fact that such deeply regressive taxes are actually punishing to the poor and low income and working class people who are affected. And that what happens is literally when poor people cannot afford to pay their car tax, they get their licenses revoked and often get arrested for driving without a license. As I mentioned in the committee meeting last week when I was arrested during a direct action demonstration for the $15 minimum wage outside Alaska Airlines offices in SeaTac in 2014. I was held overnight in a jail cell with low income, and for women who are one and all being arrested because of poverty related traffic infractions, including unpaid cards. That is only anecdotal evidence, but it is very much in line with the statistical evidence of how this impacts ordinary people and poor people. Unfortunately, in committee, when I moved to replace the regressive Khadafi with a microscopic increase in the Amazon tax on pandemic profiteering corporations, every other council member voted no when given a choice. All eight other council members, all Democrats, supported the regressive tax on workers rather than a tax on big business. Now our only options are to support this regressive tax or lose essential transportation funding. And I am absolutely not going to support any loss in transportation funding. So I will vote yes on this bill. But I wonder the register that the City Council did have a choice of a progressive revenue source and refused to make that choice.
Speaker 1: He goes from because Peterson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. So this is Casper 119951 about the transportation benefit district related to the transportation benefits issue, the vehicle licenses. So this is a tough one for me because I had wanted the money to go straight to bridge maintenance and this. So the council budget action we took separately was to have it go directly to bridge maintenance and that that failed on a 4 to 5 vote or the alternative pass in a54 vote to have a have a process to discuss that and see what the uses of funds should be. So I want to help to shepherd this process in a good, safe manner. There are other sources of transportation dollars as well, so I know that we'll be having a broader discussion about that. I did. I was on the record weeks ago saying that I would support an increase to the vehicle license fee. So I want to I want to honor that and move forward with this. I also appreciate the comments made by Councilmember Herbold last week about about this. And so, again, this is a tough issue. I think I'm just going to go on the side of voting in favor of it, because we want to get the clock started on on collecting this revenue, because I know we can put it to good use collectively. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Peterson. I appreciate those comments. Any other comments? I see Councilman Mesquita, then Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you, colleagues, for all of the work that you've done to support this revenue effort, but also to, I think, strengthen the final language that accompanied it. I appreciate Aaron House working in our office on the amendment language Councilmember Perez, the council president Gonzalez included and passed and I want to thank members of the building construction trades, ironworkers, laborers who will have a seat at the table as we look at the data for determining where the investments go. And just again, to underscore my comments from earlier, recognizing that there is a lot of shared priorities when we look at infrastructure related to bridges that our busses and bikers and pedestrians do use these bridges. So looking forward to that conversation and having a data driven analysis to really point this in the right direction here in the very short time frame that we've now scaled back. So thanks to the community at large and looking forward to getting more information from you all as you can be in very soon, but I think was the right thing to do for folks together. And thanks again to our friends from the building trades for being part of that discussion, along with the transit advocates and broader community that will be coming together.
Speaker 1: So. Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Herbert Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I voted for this previously in the in the Budget Committee. Certainly was disappointed that the initial proposal on the dedication of these resources for bridge maintenance didn't go through. I will be voting in favor again today at the full council, but remain committed that if not on this funding resource at the end of the stakeholder process, that this Council will continue to look for four ways to find additional resources to meet the maintenance funding goals outlined in the recent audit. I'm for bridge maintenance and that will still be considered a potential source as we go through the community stakeholder process and to determine where some of these resources can go. I and and by voting today, I am affirming that that is a process that should go forward and that we should have this discussion about how we are going to make these important investments. So with that, I'll be voting in favor, and I appreciate the moment to just make those remarks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those remarks. Councilmember Herbold. You're a mutant, so you are ready. I wasn't muted. Oh, my goodness. All right, well, so.
Speaker 0: Just trying to keep things.
Speaker 1: Interesting here. Again, council members voted five four to such a substitute.
Speaker 0: A version that adopted a fee. This is a.
Speaker 1: Version that I was a co-sponsor of. But at that time, the the the vote was to remove the specified funding for bridge maintenance instead. In this version, a stakeholder process will develop a proposal for use of the funds. I voted no on the revised proposal because I'm concerned that the Council is handing the decision of whether we should provide funding necessary to partially implement auditor recommendations to a stakeholder group who might decide that the funds should be used for other purposes. I believe it's up to the Council and the mayor to make the tough decisions on how to implement recommendations of the city auditor. Sometimes that that means funding items that there are competing needs for. But by doing so, because the city auditor has identified it as as as critical. I'm concerned that this practice creates a troubling precedent that undermines SNC 3.40.050, which reads that under the section audit report's follow up required that it is city policy to follow up on audit reports by the city auditor. And folks might argue, well, we can we can find other funds to follow up on audit reports by the city auditor. I just want to note that the move levy goes through 2024. The Council won't have the opportunity to discuss Levy funding until that time. And so our options for dedicated transportation funding to address maintenance on our critical bridges is very limited. The 2015 Move It Move Levy was set up a little differently than the previous Bridging the Gap levy, and the previous levy dedicated a higher proportion of funds to maintenance than the move levy does. So again, the MOVE Levy started moving in a direction away from maintaining critical infrastructure. If we're going to move towards maintaining critical transportation infrastructure that is multimodal transportation infrastructure, we are not going to have the opportunity to do so for some time. The mayor, as we all know, has chosen to proceed with the repair for the West Seattle Bridge. I wholeheartedly agree with this decision, in part due to significantly lower capital costs and the time it required to to build a new bridge. The ongoing maintenance costs will be higher for the West Seattle Bridge. And so this is going to be an issue that I am going to be continuing to weigh in on. And, you know, again, as I said, just just to keep things interesting here, I'm going to actually vote consistently with my my committee vote and not support this legislation. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda. And is there anyone else who wanted to make any comments on Kaspersky to please.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much council members. And I'm always nervous when people want to keep things interesting and appreciate the comments that were made. But I did just want to write and say for the record earlier in my comments about the support from the building construction trades. I wanted to thank the ironworkers. They sent a letter in that said the iron workers support the budget for bridge maintenance being proposed by Councilmember Peterson. But we also understand the need for community oversight group. We feel it should be made up of labor and community stakeholders. We're excited to have a seat at the table and looking forward to working with you. That's the piece I wanted to read. And for the record and again, thank our friends in the building trades and make sure that that comment got recorded for the record. It's.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for those comments and that conversation. We had a really protracted conversation about the amendment that led to this final council bill in Budget Committee. So I don't want to belabor the point. I do want to thank the original sponsors, Councilmembers Peterson, Lewis and Herbold, for bringing forward the legislation to authorize a 40 million vehicle license fee. There has been some comments in committee that this is an increase in the license fee. It's actually a decrease in the vehicle license fee. Folks, through the end of the year will be paying $80 in their vehicle license fee. And starting in 2021, that will be reduced to a total of $40. So this is not an increase in in the vehicle license fee. And I wanted to make sure that the record was correct with regard to to that particular issue. Secondly, I and I continue to to hear and understand and appreciate Councilmember Herbals comments and concerns around the the question about the stakeholder process and and its relevance to future policy decisions by the City Council in short order related to how we're going to spend that the dollars and I remain committed to making sure that we have the benefit of that stakeholder information. But of course, at the end of the day, it's always up to the City Council to make budget appropriation authorities within and within our charter mandated duties. So again, there will be recommendations but not mandates coming out of the stakeholder group. And I think we will benefit from having the stakeholder group come together and take a look at best use of these dollars. I recognize that the vehicle license fee in the past has been largely dedicated to transit purposes and not to bridge maintenance. But we have a new set of information before us that does provide us with additional information around the need to take care of our bridges as sort of a basic part of our infrastructure that connects busses and cyclists and pedestrians and single agency vehicle users throughout the city. And I think it's important for us to take that into consideration. So so I hope we will be able to have that abbreviated stakeholder process that will yield us some really rich information and recommendations that we can consider in our deliberations as we look towards shaping a spending plan. I also want to acknowledge that there that Councilmember Hubbard, you've mentioned that some city resources related to constant revenue streams or consistent revenue streams for bridge maintenance. And I also just just think we'd be remiss in not acknowledging that we also have some great members of our congressional delegation, for example, who have been championing additional funding at the federal level for bridge maintenance needs, especially the West Seattle Bridge. So I want to thank Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal from our congressional district here in particular, who just last week was able to secure some additional funding for the West Seattle Bridge. And I think that there are going to be, I hope now with the new administration, more opportunities for us to work closely with our federal delegation, to continue to advocate for federal dollars for for this this particular need in in sort of a long term strategy. So I think there's a lot of work that we can do here. The vehicle license fee gets us about $7.2 million a year. Our needs related to bridges is a total of $100 million. So we certainly need a lot more resources available to to really meet the minimal need, which I understand the city auditor identified as about $34 million. So I think we're all committed to to figuring this out into making sure that we can balance all of the varying needs related to our infrastructure and our transit network. So I appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with all of you on those important issues. All right. Well, I think I don't see any additional comments here. So we're going to go ahead and close that debate. And I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Morales.
Speaker 6: Mosquera by.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 0: So what? Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold No.
Speaker 5: SUAREZ Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 33. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119936. Agenda item 33. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Mascara Yes.
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 5: Juarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Please affix my signature to the legislation. Agenda Item 34 Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119937. Agenda item 34. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda I.
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. We have arrived now at agenda items 35 and 36 colleagues, as I mentioned, at the top of the agenda. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD); authorizing a $40 vehicle license fee pursuant to RCW 36.73.065 and 82.80.140; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11092020_Res 31979 | Speaker 0: Agenda Item eight Resolution 319 79 relating to the findings and recommendations of the hearing seminar for the City of Seattle on the final assessment role for the Waterfront Local Improvement District. Thank you so much. I move to adopt resolution 31979. Is there a second? Second? Thank you. It's been. We've been seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Juarez, you are the prime sponsor of this resolution and an are recognized in order to address the item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. As I shared this morning here, an examiner filed his initial report of findings and recommendations on the waterfront land with the city clerk on September 8th, 2020. An initial report, the hearing examiner recommended the remand of 17 properties to the city appraiser for further analysis of their valuation before making a final recommendation on the final assessment of the remanded properties. The law department and city staff have recommended council reschedule the December and January dates to streamline the appeals process. So in adopting Resolution 31979 includes a few of these a following expectations. Number one, direct the city appraiser to submit further analysis of the 17 recommended properties to the hearing examiner no later than November 30th, 2020. Number two direct the hearing examiner to consolidate any findings, recommendations and decisions on the Remanded Properties with the findings and recommendations of the September eight initial report into a final report. Number three Request the hearing examiner to file a final report with the city clerk no later than February 1st, 2021, and before, I think , provide for appeals for the final report and finally reschedule the hearings of multiple appeals from the initial report, the December 1st, 2020 hearings to March 2nd, 2021, and the January 5th 2021 hearing to April six, 2021, adopting Resolution 31979 would not make any decisions regarding the final assessment of any property in the waterfront LYD Nor regarding the approval of the waterfront final assessment role. As Chair of the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee, I recommend Council adopted a resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council President Thank you so much, Councilmember Juarez, for that for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Okay. Well, I just want to thank you customers for continuing to shepherd through this process. I know it's been a lot of moving pieces in.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: Three years. Girl.
Speaker 0: I finally appreciate you staying on top of it and helping us work through the procedural steps that are still still on our plate. So thank thanks so much for that.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Of course. Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Suarez.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Morales. I was scared. I. Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbal. Yes. President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any other further business to come before the Council? Hearing none. Colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, November 16th, 2020 at 2:00 PM. I want to thank you all for your attention and I hope that you all have a really wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned. Thank you for reading. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for The City of Seattle on the Final Assessment Roll for the Waterfront Local Improvement District (LID #6751); remanding certain properties to the City Appraiser for further analysis concerning the valuation of the properties consistent with recommendations of the Initial Report; returning jurisdiction to the Hearing Examiner for final recommendations on the remanded properties; directing the Hearing Examiner to file final findings, recommendations, or decisions on the Final Assessment Roll for the Waterfront LID (“Final Report”) with the City Clerk; providing for appeal from the Final Report; and postponing hearings on appeals from the Initial Report previously scheduled via Resolutions 31969, 31972, 31973, and 31974. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11022020_CB 119905 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affixed my signature to the legislation committee reports of the City Council. Item one Will the clerk please read item one into the record? And then one counts. About 119905 fell into the lease of city property authorizing the Director of Finance, Administrative Services or the directors designee to execute a 99 year lease agreement with Africa. Town Community Land Trust for Former Fire Station six, located at 101 23rd Avenue. Seattle, Washington. 981224. The use as the William GROSS Center for Cultural Innovation to provide for culturally responsive services, to support the African American community and the central area, to create pathways to self-determination and for future development and expanded activation of the property as described in the lease. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I need to pass Council Bill 119905. Is there a second? Second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Member must get it. You are the sponsor of this bill and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you very much, Madam President. I really am excited about this and the next item on our agenda today. This legislation and the following one come to the Council after many years of advocacy from members in the community. We recognize the long wait that these organizations have gone through and their strong advocacy and their continued commitment to making sure that the plans for these two areas and these two sites continue to move forward. We both through this council and previous councils, have worked with them and and helped to advance this legislation in front of us , recognizing the opportunity that this place provides for us to create a true community space. We do recognize that during budget deliberations, we don't often take up additional pieces of legislation. But given the long wait that these organizations have gone through, it's an incredible opportunity and privilege for us to be able to move this forward today. I want to thank the council president who's been working with us to carve out time during both the council briefing to make sure that both pieces of legislation had the time and the opportunity to provide the historical context to it, and also to make sure that we got these items added to the agenda. This is an incredibly important opportunity for us to both highlight the work that's gone into these efforts, but also to have public recognition for the long advocacy that it took to get here. Last week, we heard from representatives from Africa, town, community, land trusts one worry from flourish financial and please come again about what this site will mean, particularly for black youth in the neighborhood named after the entrepreneur, the building developer of the site of the Central District, William GROSS. This center would invest in education, skills and job opportunities for community members, particularly youth serving as a hub for innovation already taking place in the Central District. This community asset will help close the gap we are already seeing in Seattle where there is an astronomical economic growth that is not resulting in all communities benefiting. In fact, economic disparities have grown, particularly in Seattle's black, indigenous and people of color communities. The opportunity to provide support through Africa, town, community, land trust. And from this former site, which was Fire Station six for the use of William Grove Center for Cultural Innovation, couldn't come fast enough and really excited about the vote today. Thank you, Councilmember Muscat, for those comments. And I see that comes more. Salon also has her hands up. And colleagues, for those of you who may also want to make comments, please do let me know because first one, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I am, of course, very happy to be voting yes on this and finally voting on the legislation, leasing the former fire station six to Africa down. Community organizers have been demanding this for years and this legislation has long been overdue. In a sense, today we are celebrating the property transfers of the former fire station six and in the upcoming item, the central into community control. After years of organizing and the efforts of hundreds of community members. And at the same time, we have to ask why does it take years? And in the case of the central over a decade to get a central single building into. Permanent community needs. Why did the mayor said on this legislation for almost three years of our term and why did she finally agreed to move on it now? Ultimately, I believe that we would not have had this legislation in front of us had it not been for the tremendous impact of the Justice for George Floyd movement all around the world, tens of millions of people took to the streets in multiracial protests against police violence. In fact, just in the United States, we had over 26 million show up. But also in opposition to the crushing neglect and underinvestment in our black and brown communities by the political establishment in cities around the country and around the country, the political establishment have, under the pressure of that movement, conceded real community investment, which is a victory for the movement even, and however small they are very important nonetheless. But at the end of the day, the political establishment is not conceded. It's power in any real sense in city after city. The police have not been defunded by 50%. Or do you find it at all? In reality, although some small changes have been made in different cities, which is also important. But they but we have not seen the scale of affordable housing that our community needs, communities need. And what we see is political establishments making the smallest investments that they can get away with in the face of community pressure. It is excellent that these property transfers are going through. It's a testament to the organizing of Africa Down and the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole. And while welcoming this development, we also should remember that Africa donors proposed to develop a whole city block in the heart of the Central District, at the site of the former Cairo Center, to provide a full square block of affordable housing to help prevent and reverse the displacement of working class black people from the central area. And as of now, only Councilmember Morales has supported the amendment from my office to the budget amendment from my office to make sure that this project is fully funded by the city. And I really urge all council members to support this because it should not take another five, ten or 15 years for them to win that project as well, because we know that affordable housing is in dire crisis and whatever investments we can make this year, we should make them, especially in the face of the pandemic. So again, I'm happy to vote yes and will continue to support African Downs community development in the budget vote later this month. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Salon. Any other comments on the bill? A hearing and seeing none. Will the court please call the role on the passage of the Bill Herbold. Yes.
Speaker 1: Juarez. Hi, Louis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Mosquera.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Strauss. Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item number two Will the court please read agenda item two into the record? Agenda Item two.
Speaker 1: Countable. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the lease of City property; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services or the Director’s designee to execute a 99 year lease agreement with Africatown Community Land Trust for former Fire Station 6 located at 101 23rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98122, for use as the William Grose Center for Cultural Innovation to provide for culturally responsive services that support the African-American community in the Central Area to create pathways to self-determination, and for future development and expanded activation of the property as described in the lease. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11022020_CB 119906 | Speaker 1: Countable.
Speaker 0: 119906 relating to the transfer of city property located at 530th Avenue, South Seattle, Washington. Authorizing the conveyance of the property to Central Area Senior Center of Washington nonprofit corporation, consistent with the intent of Resolution 31856m to provide for the continued delivery of social services. Making findings of facts of the consideration for the transfer superseding resolution 31837. For the purposes of this ordinance of upgrading the Director of Finance, Administrative Services or designee to execute and deliver documents necessary to carry out the convenience of such property on the terms and conditions of this ordinance. That was a mouthful. Thank you, Amelia, for reading that title into the record. I will move to pass Council Bill 119906. Is there a second back up? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember said you are the sponsor of this bill as well and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam President. This ordinance, well, the short title is that it would authorize the transfer to the Central Area Senior Center, the property at 530th Avenue for the continued delivery of social services. So this is the senior center folks who have been for a long time advocating to have the ability to have the reins and be able to continue to invest in the community and provide the critical services that they offer. So a very diverse group of seniors, mostly in the black community, and really excited again about this piece of legislation. Council members will recall that last month we passed legislation transferring the birth of our place property to the organization. This transfer follows up on that as mutual offsetting benefits sites that have been occupied by community organizations for decades. And the city has been in the process of transferring to community organizations since the Nichols administration in late 2018. The council then passed a resolution asking the executive to ensure that the transfer of the properties that have a mutual and offsetting benefits lease to the organizations currently residing in those facilities be accomplished no later than March of 2019. And as we talked about last week, here we are October 2020. It's been a long process to get here, but we are here and we are celebrating. Over the last couple of years, the central area senior center has been in negotiations with an interdepartmental team and the mayor's office on this transfer. And we know that this process has not exactly went straight forward and the goalposts seem to have been moved at various points along the way. But we're excited to be able to join with them in applauding this effort today, applaud the organization for hanging in there and their continue to push to make sure that this transfer actually happens. The Central Area Senior Center has been providing vital services in the community for over 50 years, and their mission is to celebrate and serve all seniors, especially those of African-American and African immigrant backgrounds that live in King County. Last Monday, we heard about all of the great work of the organization and how this transfer one will ensure that they're able to continue this work into the future and this transfer of one able the senior center to modernize the building to accommodate for even more programs, redesign the interior, update the systems and parking, and reflect the rich, historical and cultural significant heritage associated with the central mission as associated with the center's mission, founding and vision. So we're excited about this legislation today. And congratulations again. Thank you. Council members get it? Are there any additional comments? Council members want, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. President Gonzalez and I join Councilmember Mosquito in congratulating the community members who have for a decade, for over a decade, advocated for the central area senior center property to be transferred to the community organizations to be retained fully for public use. They have struggled through years of city hall inertia and opposition to make this happen. Just to add a few points about what the seniors did to achieve the success. On April 23rd, 2019, a nearly 100 seniors rallied at City Hall alongside Africa Town Community Land Trust and many other community members that were there supporting them. At a rally in City Hall, in the lobby and alongside my office, and many of them were enthusiastically chanting, no more delays in reference to Mayor Dawkins, stop continued stalling. And I wanted to also once again thank Diane Ferguson and others for their leadership of this community effort. Right after the rally, the day the seniors attended the Council Committee meeting, chaired by my office to hear our resolution calling on the mayor to move forward with the property transfers. And after that, the seniors along with. Staff from my office deliver dozens of letters directly to the mayor's office, calling for the transfer of the central and board place to community control so that the services can be run permanently for public benefit, run by the community and to everyone, regardless of income. Then in the week following, more than 250 other community members who also wrote letters to the mayor calling for the transparent preservation of the centers, it would it may seem like this property transfer would not make a material difference between a property owned by the city of Seattle, rented at no cost to the Central Area Senior Center, which has been the case in the past, and transferring ownership to the Seattle area Central Area Senior Center. However, it does make one important difference. This property transfer protects the central from the possibility of valuable land under their feet being sold out from under their feet whenever the political establishment might want to raise funds that way, rather than looking for raising progressive revenues. And this is very important, especially given the prime location that the central is located at. Anybody who has visited the central area senior center will know exactly what I'm talking about. It is an incredible location with unbelievable views. And no doubt many corporate developers have had their eye on it and must not forget that the Mercer Mega BLOCK sale at the end of 2019 was accepted by community organizations. Only because the block and generate I'm sorry, the money it generated was promised to go to affordable housing and to stop displacement, a promise that unfortunately the mayor has once again let down the community on in our proposed budget. The Central provides an incalculable service to the seniors in the Central District, which is my neighborhood, and I'm delighted to vote in favor of this legislation, transferring the senior center permanently to the community thinking.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Solondz. Any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you so much. And thank you both to Councilmember Mascara and so on for sharing the. Not not not necessarily going all the way back on the history on this, but at least the recent history. I really appreciate reading into the record elements from the resolution that the Council passed in 2018. I worked with Councilmember O'Brien on that resolution, as I know many of us on the council did, and that was a resolution that we took action on because of the community frustration on on the lack of progress on the disposition of these properties over the years. I do have a question. I don't know if council member Muscat or you might know, given your role as chair of the committee or if the District Council member might know. But I'm wondering what the status of the Greenwood Senior Center that is one of the three properties that we lifted in the 2018 resolution as as properties that had gone through many iterations under many mayors. And those three properties of, I think, seven or eight different are mutually offsetting benefit. These properties had been identified as sort of ready to go, had been been reviewed extensively about whether or not they would be appropriate to to use as land to develop housing instead. And just just wondering what the status is on on that one, because it is the last one of the three that we identified in the 2018 resolution as priorities. Eagles council member Herbold for those comments and for the question related to their goal is at the Greenwood Community Center. Oak Greenwood Senior Center, a Greenwood Senior Center. Thank you so much. So I'm just going to open it up here for either the district representative or the good chair of our housing committee who might have some additional information on that related issue. So, Councilman Mosquito, do you have anything or does the district representative have anything on this? I am happy to defer to the district representative and also we'll be looking into it on our hands as well. And always, of course, the Greenwood area kind of depends on what side of Greenwood you're on is it determines your district rep . But I think Councilmember Strauss is off mute, so perhaps he has some information or insight on this particular issue.
Speaker 3: I believe that is in District six. That would be right in my district. And I know having spoken with Miller on, we had resolved any outstanding questions at this time, although not having this on the docket for today, I did not prepare my notes and unfortunately, I did not get a response from him in these last 30 seconds. So I believe that the issue is resolved. Councilmember Herbold, we will follow up if that is not the case.
Speaker 0: Really appreciate it. Thank you so much. That's great. Thank you so much. Of course, we are always looking for opportunities to identify additional, you know, additional projects where we can replicate some of this good work. And so look forward to getting an update from council central staff when they have the capacity to do so. And certainly from Councilmember Strauss, if he learned some information from consultation with the staff, really appreciate the question. Any other comments on this bill? K hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Herbold. Yes.
Speaker 1: Juarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sir. What?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Well, the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Items three through 21. Will the clerk please read items three through 21 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the transfer of City property located at 500 30th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington; authorizing the conveyance of the property to the Central Area Senior Center, a Washington non-profit corporation, consistent with the intent of Resolution 31856 and to provide for the continued delivery of social services; making findings of fact about the consideration for the transfer; superseding Resolution 31837 for the purposes of this ordinance; and authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services or designee to execute and deliver documents necessary to carry out the conveyance of such property on the terms and conditions of this ordinance. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10262020_CB 119942 | Speaker 0: Committee reports of the city council. The clerk. Please read item one into the record report. Thank you. Agenda item one Constable 119942. Amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget. Amending Ordinance 126148 amended proviso and ratified confirming search and prior acts. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 119942. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilor Lewis, you're the sponsor of this bill and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'm just. Just. Just one moment. I'm sorry. Is this the time where I'm supposed to move, to amend, or. Or are we going to do that?
Speaker 0: Councilor Lewis. We can't. Is this. So I see that you do have an amendment. You are welcome to ask that the Council consider the amendment before you address the underlying bill. Or you can address the underlying bill first and then have us consider the amendment. I'm happy to go in whatever order you think would make most sense, that would help the Council have the most productive conversation about about the bill that will ultimately be before us. So if you want to if you want to address the amendment first. Completely happy to to have that happen first.
Speaker 3: I think I would like to address the amendment first technical in nature. So I move to amend Council Bill 119942 as presented on Amendment One, which was recently distributed.
Speaker 0: Excellent. We need a second on that amendment. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment one. Councilmember Lewis, please feel free to address Amendment One.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, as I mentioned at briefing this morning, Amendment One is technical in nature, and that is the the opinion of the city attorney's office, as well as central staff. And in distributing this amendment last week, clarifies the the amount of money HST is being being given and how that can be spent. Then, you know, a necessary change to make sure that this and that this legislation, the changes, the provisions from the summer session can go forward as we intended to. So I would ask that we we vote on this and then move on to discussing the legislation more holistically.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Governor Lewis. Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? No hearing. None. I will ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One as described by Council Member Lewis.
Speaker 1: Our house guests. Her bold.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Rallies. Spider. Wow. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: So, aunt.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council, President Gonzalez says.
Speaker 0: Eight in favor, nine opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Customer Louis, I will hand it back over to you to address the bill as amended before we hear other comments from your colleagues and is as is required by the rules, you will have the last word to close out debate. Once we've heard from others.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Madam President. And it is good to see that at 201 it was distributed to all council members. We did get the updated framework agreement between the executive and the providers to continue to go through and go forward on this conversation that has been convened to really make sure that we are working together as a council, a provider community and a mayor to start making material progress on getting outreach and services to folks who really, really need it right now, especially now that we are very clearly on the doorstep of winter. This framework and the conversation around it has been very productive for all of us to make sure that we are talking and working through ending 2020 with action and making sure that we are getting these resources out into the field to people who need them, resources around and around hygiene and behavioral, mental health and all the other things that are authorized in this bill and where there is an agreement and a framework to spend these resources and get them out to the folks that need them. But I want to be clear about what this legislation doesn't do. This legislation does not make any commitments in terms of what this city side of things on managing outreach is going to be for 2021. We have a variety of proposals that have come forward. The executive sat down a proposal for the team that they would like to have in a city similar to the proposal that is in this legislation to have a coordinating team that is not out in the field, to have a engagement policy that is centered on provider outreach for folks with expertize and connections in our community to be the the face and the implementers of our outreach policy and for the city to be in a coordinating and service providing role that is enhancing the mission of those providers. This is a is a good start to finish out 2020. It's good that we have been able to convene a conversation where we are moving closer to a consensus in this area. And we will continue to talk about what the model for 2021 is going to look like throughout the fall budget session. But we cannot wait any longer based on the the urgency and the need to really start deploying these resources. That is evident in all the districts of the city, that sense of urgency. So with that, I just want to say this isn't the end, this is the beginning. We have a long way to go still. But this is a good start where everybody has been working in good faith. I encourage everyone to read the framework that was distributed to everyone. I have. I have briefly glanced it, but definitely want to spend more time with that document. But this really does represent a material step forward on a new model of outreach that is no longer going to overemphasize the role of police, no longer going to overemphasize, or rather, I should say under emphasized the need for our service provider community to be the face of these efforts in all the neighborhoods that they serve. And with that, I would move that we or I look forward to further conversation, but we will certainly encourage and hope that we move forward with this today and that we continue to build on this in the 2021 budget and make sure that the resources we have appropriated in 2020 do get out there in the field, as is the expectation of the provider community in supporting this measure today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, are there any questions or comments on the bill from from my colleagues. Okay. Kids were silent. And then Casmir Morales.
Speaker 4: Others. I intend to vote no on this bill because what it actually does is shrink the scale of the proviso that was passed by the council to stop the encampment removals or as a homeless activist themselves have said stop the sweeps by almost a third shrinks the scale of the proviso by almost a third from $2.9 million to $2 million. This proviso basically said that the mayor could only use the funds allocated to the so called navigation team, which does the sweeps of homeless people, that it could only use those funds to do genuine outreach of homeless services instead. Councilmember Lewis says that everybody has been working on good faith and I think that's true of the. Workers at REACH and the employees of the Human Services Department. But I don't believe that that's true of the mayor's office, which actually has been an obstacle to getting any kind of change away from a removals of homeless encampments and homeless human human beings. Everything else that has been discussed as part of this bill, such as those shared principles and agreed framework of the service providers. All of which, of course, is moving in a good direction. Could have happened anyway and do not actually require this legislation. This legislation is precisely for shrinking the scale of the proposal. So what the Council is really voting on now is whether or not to shrink the 2020 job, the sweeps ratio from $2.9 billion to $2 million. And the only reason that's being discussed is because Melder can refuse to follow the proviso since it was passed by the city council in August. In fact, as of last Friday, my office checked with city council staff and it's still not being acted on. The proviso has not been acted on. It's true that because the mayor vetoed the budget, it did not legally take effect until last Thursday. But there was nothing stopping the mayor from voluntarily following the proviso earlier. So I don't I don't actually take these claims about a sense of urgency, any serious you know, I don't take it at face value. The only reason Mayor Durkan chose not to follow the proviso was because she was confident the city council would give her retroactive permission to do so. And here is a bill to do just that. I will say also, I'm really taken aback that this retroactive permission has been considered before the mayor actually takes any material steps to follow the proviso in any way. I mean, where is the funding for the service providers to do homeless outreach? Perhaps it would be different if it were December and the mayor had beautiful have dutifully followed the legal requirements of the proviso for two months and was then after that asking for retroactive permission for her slow start. But this bill gives her permission for being laid before she even begins. So what's to prevent her from delaying another couple of months and then bringing another bill retroactively giving permission for the next delay? I mean, we don't know that that's not going to happen. The sweeps of homeless encampments are cruel, inhumane and ineffective. People are removed again and again and again, sometimes from the same locations, because there's nowhere affordable to go. There are no alternatives. There have been well over a thousand sweeps and they're clearly not working. And they are wasting millions of dollars, forcing people to move, losing their belongings and becoming more and more desperate after one traumatic event after another. The mayor should have stopped, start sweeping people years ago, and it's not possible for my office to support a bill to retroactively give her permission for delaying even after a stop. The proviso has been that. So I'll be voting. No, thank you.
Speaker 0: You council members want Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I do have a couple of questions for the sponsor before I move on. Councilmember Lewis, can you talk a little bit about how Tim described in your memo, in your amendment sorry, is materially different from the HST team that the executive has proposed for 2021 on the 2021 budget.
Speaker 3: Yes, I can answer that question. This proviso change is not prescriptive in terms of the division of labor as to what these eight years can and can't do. It represents a four employee reduction from the number of HST employees who are on the old navigation team. So it's a smaller team. The team that we got a presentation about three weeks ago is also eight after years. So it would they could use those eight years in any way they see fit. That is consistent with the conditions of the proviso which explicitly says that they cannot be doing direct outreach. So they can essentially be doing things other than direct outreach, like coordinating with providers and coordinating with city departments to provide assistance to the mission of the providers. And it's it's important to note that that $245,000, which is the only amount of money that's released, so only quite a little less than a quarter million dollars is released for the last two months of this year for that HST team that expires at the end of the year. And it does not guarantee that HST will have those eight years any longer than December 31st. That would depend on what our conversations are this fall in terms of what we want, the long term team, whatever it is to to look like beyond that. And that is something I would add that the ongoing work that the mayor's office and the provider community are doing to go back and forth on this is also heavily discussing, you know, what will be the makeup of the team and what will their roles be. And, you know.
Speaker 1: So can I just. Sorry. I guess what I'm trying to understand and maybe this is a question for Jeff is is Jeff Jeff on Councilman Morales?
Speaker 0: Jeff was available this morning at council briefing. That was the time to ask questions of council central staff.
Speaker 1: So so I just want to be clear that I understand the 2021 proposal calls for eight team members. And as I understand it, the roles are team manager, outreach manager, communications manager, field coordinator, data analyst, department coordinator and two systems navigators. Right.
Speaker 3: That's my memory from the presentation and from reviewing the slides. So those.
Speaker 1: Are right. So those are all roles that existed on the previous team and are continuing. So I guess what I'm trying to understand is that aside from the the intent to shift, you know, coordinate outreach work, we know how this team would be different from the navigation team.
Speaker 3: Right. So, I mean, unlike the old navigation team, there are privies or sideboards in the proviso that limit what they can be doing. And I mean, that was important to the provider community since they don't want a team that's going to be out there competing with on the ground outreach efforts with a monopoly of resources that other providers don't have access to. And that is something that under this if if the the team were to have that mission, they would not be able to access this money or those fees. So, you know, I mean, that is a material difference. We will no longer have city employees be agents of outrage and certainly won't have police be integrated as part of that team. That proviso remains fully enshrined in the 2020 package.
Speaker 1: So it's again, I'm sorry, I'll just one more point, I guess, and I'll I'll wrap up. I just feel like this proposal amends the proviso that we passed this summer by shifting port 9 million away from the navigation team to service providers was the proposal. You didn't support. And I understand. But what I don't see is how this amendment itself does anything more than bring just these 2021 proposed navigation team online two months earlier than proposed. And what's frustrating for me and disheartening is that this legislative body voted to pass a budget, unequivocally stated our intent to shift away from a navigation time model and provide more resources to providers. We voted not once, but twice. So I want to thank the service providers who I know have been having long and frequent conversations with the executive branch. They've really been at the table to hammer out a deal for these dollars to finally get out the door. I want to thank the providers for working on this framework, which is wholly separate from this legislation. Excited to see that. And I and I know that those conversations do need to continue to make sure that the last unresolved issues are met. And my understanding is that there is a commitment to meet again with the executive, between the executive and providers in the next couple of days so that we can make sure these resources get put to their intended use. But I have to say that I believe this legislation, which in my mind disregards the incredible ongoing work that has led to this framework. Really, the only purpose of this is to bring back some version of the navigation team. I said, is also my understanding that a deal with the executive that would address some serious concerns that several providers have. That and a deal to address those issues is contingent on passing this amendment. So so I will be voting in favor of it solely to help make sure that those issues are addressed. Those concerns are addressed, and that deal can happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for those comments. Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the work that's been done thus far to get us to this this point.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 0: You know, first off, many thanks to the outreach providers who worked tirelessly over the last few weeks on coming to this agreement about a new framework for outreach and encampment management. I remember at the end of September, I think it was September 30th when we received a letter from Deputy Mayor six killer about the next steps after council action to override the mayor's veto on three three issues. One of those issues was the end of the navigation team. And in that letter, there was no description on how to activate the funds provided by the Council for Outreach. I immediately reached out to representatives from our provider community with the request that they mobilize to help build something new with the funds provided by the Council. I want to really just thank you for responding with urgency, and I appreciate the many, many hours that you have been spending working with the executive on on the on the framework. Recognize that the framework is a is a beginning place, not an end place. I want to thank also Councilmember Councilmember Lewis for leading the discussion and Deputy Mayor six Kilmer for being a willing partner in the discussions and really being open and operating and in a way that shows, I think, a lot of goodwill towards something that the council, the executive and the provider community can get behind together as a unified front. I understand that the framework that was shared with council members. Again, it's a new effort to do this work differently and for us all to work together to build this new approach in alignment. As I mentioned before, the framework itself isn't the end of the process. It's just the beginning. There is more work to be done to operationalize the framework over the next several weeks and to ensure that the new approach truly serves the needs of people living unsheltered, of groups, of people living in encampments, and of the housed, neighbors and neighboring businesses. This action will reinforce council efforts from September to make available funds to the executive so that outreach can continue in 2020. Again, it's a mark of good faith in which the conversations have proceeded. I think I just want to uplift one portion of the shared framework that I think is particularly important to highlight. It says the city concurs that removals will not be the first response and will collaborate with providers to address obstructions in behavior through thoughtful and respectful dialog and problem solving, engaging both unsheltered and housed residents. Addressing specific neighborhood needs and priorities. And you know. Neighborhood needs. Include everybody to be present in the neighborhood, from people living unsheltered to housed people and people who work or frequent parks or businesses there. And I think this new framework recognizes the value of everyone in in this necessary problem solving model. And really, that's that's what I see. I see this as a shift towards a problem solving model rather than a model that assumes that when outreach is sent out, the purpose of the outreach is to remove the encampment. The agreement also addresses the need to for the city to continue to commit significant resources not only to outreach, but to shelter, housing, trash removal, hygiene, health promotion and harm reduction, including sharps containers and health health outreach in coordination with public health. I'm really glad that this agreement has been reached in time for council to be able to consider what it might mean for the 2021 budget as well. And if we can accomplish this work today from a foundation of shared principles, I think this will help propel us for those ongoing discussions from this agreed upon Starting Point. I've been in ongoing conversations with outreach providers who are on the front lines of this work every day. I know they've indicated their support with the transmission of this new framework. I will be voting to approve this legislation and I'm also marking my commitment to continue to be in conversation with the executive and providers. And as Councilmember Lewis, I do know that you you referenced the receipt of the 201 new framework. Have we have we done what we need to do to include it as a supporting document in the official record? I think that would be a useful thing to do as well. Thank you.
Speaker 3: And and councilmember horrible. That might be a question for the for the clerk on how we procedurally do that. But I would be more than I'd be totally supportive of that. Mr..
Speaker 0: Madam Clerk, I do think there was a question that was deferred by the bill's sponsor to you. I'm going to ask that Councilmember Herbold, repeat the question so that the clerk may have an opportunity to hear the full question and respond accordingly. You are on mute. We received at 201 an updated framework that the provider community has sent to us, and just wondering whether or not there's a way to include it as a supporting document in the official record. It doesn't necessarily need to be an amendment at this point. I think there is another discussion about memorializing this framework through a resolution. But if we could at least ensure that it is attached to the to the materials for for today's meeting. I think that would be really useful. Thank you for repeating that question, Councilmember Herbold. Yes. If the council would like to add the actual updated version of the framework to the record, I just we just need confirmation that all council members have received it via email and after the meeting we can add the updated version to the record as a supporting document. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, can you confirm for the clerk that the updated framework you are referencing during this meeting has in fact been circulated to all council members?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I can confirm that the document titled Shared Principles and Agreed Framework for Response to People Living on Sheltered 2022 2021 was emailed by Alison Risinger to the entire council at 201 and I can I can see all of our emails keyed on it. And so can can confirm that even Councilmember Juarez, who is excused today, received it as well. So.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you, Madam Kirk. Does that suffice for the confirmation that you need in order to attach this to the final record? Yes, this is the correct and this is information needed in order to add a supporting document. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. And Casmir Lewis, if someone in your office could be so kind as to forward that final document that was circulated to all council members at 2:01 p.m. to the clerk, that would be helpful to them in order to update the record accordingly. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, as chair of our Homelessness Strategies and Investments Committee and Casper Herbold. I want to say it sounds like deputy mayor, six killer and those in HST Human Services Department were involved helping to craft this. So thanks to them. I am concerned about the the shrinking of the city government team that's been involved with this effort. Essentially, it's going from, I believe, 14 offices down to eight figures approximately. And many constituents have contacted our office to share their concerns about the rise of visible, unauthorized encampments. We know that the Centers for Disease Control guidelines regarding social distancing and spacing requirements in congregate shelter models presents a problem, and city has acted to stand up shelters and provide hygiene and outreach. But I believe we need to have that role, a strong role of coordinating from from the city government, city government leadership on coordinating the outreach efforts. And I know we voted unanimously to remove the police department as a standard part of the team. So I'm glad to see this incorporated continuing as part of this compromise. There are times when SPD will need to be involved. I know firefighters are going out to encampments when there are fire hazards. And and so those want to have the police department available just in case something were to arise there. So, again, my chief concern throughout this discussion has been making sure the city government has a strong coordination role. And because ultimately the city and the county governments are responsible for addressing the problems of public health and safety and addressing homelessness. I'm very much looking forward to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority taking shape so that we can coordinate our efforts regionally to tackle this regional problem. So even though I am concerned about the shrinking role of city government and I wish it were a larger role, I hope it can be we can value our city employees in the role and expertize that they bring to the table and see about expanding their role in the future. Today, I will support this compromise, however. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments from my colleagues? Okay. Hearing and I'm sorry. Okay. Councilman Moscato, please. Thank you very much, council president. And thanks to the folks who spoke today, especially those who articulated the urgent need for us to get out the door right now. I mean, that's the reality of the situation we're in. The average dollars that we allocated were not given to community partners to help with outreach. And instead of helping folks out in the community, the messages we've been receiving are that council has not stepped in to provide an alternative to the navigation team, which is just not true . So I really appreciate that this is what the providers want because right now they are seeing for a lack of those dollars being allocated to the community, people going without the outreach services that they need, connections to housing and essential support like trash cleanup and making sure that people get the assistance they need to have food and ideally referrals to the right place. So it's in the spirit that many council members have already brought up about needing to just get the money out the door and wanting to see the good work of those community partners get funded. That I'll be looking forward to voting for this and recognizing that this is very much still in alignment with what the principles were from our earlier actions in making sure that homelessness outreach is not being led or done in conjunction with those who are sworn officers, and that there's the appropriate role for our excellent city team to be coordinating behind the scenes to make sure that people get the referrals that they need and into hopefully case management. And that's that's that's an important role for our city to continue to do, but making sure that the community partners with the trusted relationships are out there doing the hard work. So thanks to them for sending in the framework and to all of us, I think this is a good indication of how we can continue to make sure that those trusted partners are getting the dollars. And that's that's really the most important thing right now as folks deal with COVID and and the now, what, five year crisis of housing and homelessness affordability issues. So with that, I'll be voting yes, Councilperson. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda, any other comments? I'm going to ask Martin Lewis to close out debate with any final comments and then we will take up the bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be I'll be brief. You know, I. Understand we're folks who have some skepticism about this legislation are coming from based on the history of the old navigation team and a lot of the issues we've seen over the last three years around collaboration between the city and the provider community, which I think we can all agree has has not in and of itself been able to solve our homelessness crisis. And we see every day thousands of our neighbors living without basic necessities, without basic hygiene facilities, and without as as Councilmember Strauss often says, for walls and a door that locks. And this bill is not going to solve all of that immediately, but it is a step in the right direction to start this collaborative process of working through this with all of the principal operators in this area. I would note that while we are revising the proviso from the summer, only $245,000 is going back to the Human Services Department, $245,000 for the last two months of the year, and over $2 million is going to be released to our service providers. Also, based on revisions of what that money can be going to, based on collaboration and conversation with providers, on what they really need, based on what they're experiencing right now out in the field. And that includes more money for behavioral mental health services, flexible financial assistance, case management to expand existing case management contracts, housing navigation, as well as technology needs for service providers to enhance their mission in the field. So while we still have a lot of work to do in this, this one thing is not going to solve all of it. This is a really important step forward in continuing to come together to to really bring action and respond to what we are seeing in the city. There were folks in public comment who were stating their frustration about the city having been bogged down in really important disagreements about the future direction of what our homelessness response is going to look like. And this is the first step to all of us realizing our common interest in this and moving forward in a way that can hopefully finally bridge the divide and get people that the really critical resources that they need and that this council has appropriated money to address. So with that, Madam President, I look forward to the vote and look forward to the next steps in working through this policy area through the 2021 budget process.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those closing remarks about this council bill. I want to thank everybody else on the council who also made comments about the bill and look forward to supporting supporting this effort and the long term ongoing efforts that are going to be necessary to really make a difference in this area. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Else. Yes, for both.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Where else? As.
Speaker 0: ROSQUETA Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. No. Council. President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor, one opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the first please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Other business. Is there any other further business to come before the council? Hey, no other business colleagues. This does conclude items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, November 2nd, 2020 at 2:00 PM. That is it for today. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; amending Ordinance 126148; amending a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10192020_CB 119875 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item one Council Bill 119 875 relating to the South Park immigration operation, an amendment to the Interlocal statement between the City of Seattle and the South Park District.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I moved to pass Council Bill 11987875. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill and sponsor this bill. I will address it first and then open the floor to comments from my colleagues. We've discussed this amendment for a few months now. On April 28th, 2014, the Seattle City Council approved ordinance 124468, which authorized the Interlocal agreement between the City of Seattle and the Metropolitan Park District for implementation of Park and Recreation Services and infrastructure in Seattle. pre-COVID, the original schedule would have been to use this year 2020 to plan the next six years cycle of Metropolitan Park District spending. The spending plan, which is scheduled for 2020 21 to 2026. However, COVID has shifted our timelines and we must adjust. Council Bill 119875. We must adjust. I'm sorry. Council Bill 119875 is an amendment to the Interlocal agreement which authorizes the delay in the event of an emergency by COVID 19. The MPD board will consider Resolution 36 and 37 later this afternoon, which concurrently will complete the Interlocal agreement amended. But on the what we call the Metropolitan Park District side, I recommend Council adopt this bill. Are there any comments on the bill? Will the clerk please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: So aren't. Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss that.
Speaker 2: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales. Rosetta. Councilmember Mosquera. Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: 17 favorite animals.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we'll just go forward without mosquito.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
Speaker 2: Madam President, I'm sorry. I couldn't not get off me. Yes, I.
Speaker 0: Am glad to see that. I'm not the only one that does that. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you for.
Speaker 2: Receiving a favor. And unopposed.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. So we are going to get into the appointments, 21 of them, the ones that we discussed this morning, that council member Herbert through this morning. Thank you very much. Well, the clerk please read items 222 into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Park District. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10192020_Res 31974 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item 23 Resolution 31974. Setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Robert Wexler. Hearing Center Case Number CW f0149.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm moved to adopt resolution 31974. There a second.
Speaker 2: I can.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Council member. That's me. As the sponsor, I will address the item. This bill sets the time and place for a hearing on what appeal to the hearing examiners findings and recommendation report of the waterfront lead or local improvement district number 6751. This resolution sets the hearing of the appeal to January 5th, 2021, and the regularly scheduled Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. To meet the requirements of the quasi judicial rules. Council must take action this week via this resolution. And this is a mandatory procedural matter, and we have voted on this in the past. I recommend council confirm Resolution 31974. Second. Okay. Okay. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 2: Salon? Yes. Strauss Yeah. Herbold? Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Where else? You know, that's. Sarah, I. Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez. Yes. Vote in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? That's the game you hear over there making comments. Slide show that. Oh, okay. So other business. Are there any other further business to come before the council? Okay. Well, I have some there's no objection. I will be excused from the October 26 city council meeting. Hearing no objection. I am excused for the October 26 council meeting. Okay, colleagues, this concludes the items on a business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, October 26 at two. But before you go, before we adjourn, we will return at 530 for our Metropolitan Park District Board meeting in which you are all board members for public comment, a public hearing. We're going to review two resolutions and have a presentation by superintendent basis again today. And with that, we are now joined. Thank you very much. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Robert Wexler, Hearing Examiner Case Number CWF-0149, from the findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751, and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of the hearing in the manner required by law. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10052020_CB 119884 | Speaker 3: Third part of the City Council agenda? Item one Constable 11998119884 Photo Parking Area Modifying the 2021 assessment by update and amending ordinance 125 678.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I moved past Council Bill 119884. Is there a second.
Speaker 1: I can open?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilman Morales, you are listed as the prime sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 4: Thank you, colleagues. As I mentioned a couple.
Speaker 1: Of weeks ago is a.
Speaker 3: Display of assessment.
Speaker 4: For the central.
Speaker 3: Bank. I want to clarify.
Speaker 4: That this bill did.
Speaker 3: Not require.
Speaker 1: A public hearing.
Speaker 4: And because we're not.
Speaker 3: Actually voting on a rate change.
Speaker 1: This would delay the assessment date update, which means that the assessment would remain the same for the last two years.
Speaker 4: And the Ratepayer Advisory Board agreed that because of the economic impact of COVID 19.
Speaker 3: Of rate payers would.
Speaker 1: Benefit from holding steady. And so.
Speaker 4: In 2022.
Speaker 1: They would.
Speaker 4: That is when they would make.
Speaker 3: The changes.
Speaker 4: To the.
Speaker 3: Assessment rate.
Speaker 1: There are questions I'm happy to take them, but it's a fairly small change.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 4: That mentioned before the rate payers have been advised and a letter went out to.
Speaker 2: Them a few weeks ago.
Speaker 0: I think it counts and everyone else. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Let's get a. I.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: So want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Her? Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the SODO Parking and Business Improvement Area; modifying the 2021 assessment values update; and amending Ordinance 125678. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10052020_CB 119903 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item three Council Bill 119903 relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the third quarter 2020 employment ordinance, returning positions to the Civil Service System and establishing a new title and corresponding rate of pay all by a two thirds vote of the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119903. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill. I will go ahead and address it and then open up the Florida. Any comments or questions? Colleagues, as I mentioned this morning, this legislation does two things. First, it returns eight positions to the civil service system. And second, it creates a new job title in the Legislative Department. Central staff has not identified any issues or concerns with the transmitted legislation. With regard to the eight positions, SAIL Department Human Resources Director Bobby Hughes has determined that the work performed by these eight positions no longer meet the criteria for civil service exemption, and he recommends returning the positions to civil service. The October 2nd memo, drafted by central staff analyst Carina Bull, provides a table of the list of these positions. By way of summary, these positions are in various departments, including the Office of Planning and Community Development, Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education and Early Learning Finance and Administrative Services. Office of Arts and Culture. Seattle Department of Transportation and the Community Police Commission. Of the eight positions, only two positions at Ascot and one position at PCD are currently filled. The remaining positions are vacant. The impact of these positions is that they are returned to the civil service system, which means that the employees in these positions now or in the future will be afforded a range of additional job protections, including merit based hiring and promotions, probationary periods of employment, opportunity to correct performance issues and for cause termination rather than at will employment. The additional rules related to this reclassification are detailed in Ms.. Bowles October 2nd memorandum. The second component of this bill relates to the Legislative Department. This legislation also accepts our Director Hume's recommendation to create a new job title of manager legislative. This new job title would delineate responsibilities among professional and managerial staff that currently have the same title of strategic advisor and creates an opportunity for career progression and succession planning within the Council Central Staff Division. In conclusion, this legislation is cost neutral. The executive has indicated that returning these positions to the civil service system would not increase costs because the designated positions would remain at the same pay rate after the proposed change. In other words, this legislation changes the job protections for these positions, but does not modify the existing ranges of available pay for the for the eight positions I've described with regard to the new job title in the Legislative Department, the pay ban for that position is parallel to that of a strategic advisor in the Legislative Department. This legislation does not modify the pay band available for this job title creation. Any additional costs for this job title can and will be absorbed by the Legislative Department's existing budget authority and would not require a new appropriation of funds moving forward. I'm happy to hear any additional comments or take any questions on the bill. Hearing. No additional comments will work. Please. Kolawole on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Oscar I.
Speaker 2: PETERSON Hi.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple? Yes.
Speaker 2: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES That's. President Gonzalez s eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? All right. Report of land use to neighborhoods committee item four. Will the clerk please read item four into the record?
Speaker 3: Three report at the L.A. Sun has committed to and four counts about 119877 have waited so long due to a few decision and meeting procedures, temporarily modifying suspensions, procedures and titles 23 and 25% on this proposal. The committee recommends that the bill passes amended with a desire to report with the staff together. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Third Quarter 2020 Employment Ordinance; returning positions to the civil service system; and establishing a new title and corresponding rate of pay; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10052020_CB 119898 | Speaker 3: The report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee at 1035. Campbell 119898 related to city life departments amending subsection 21.49 points two zero 86.80 of the SAT on the code for defined the net wholesale revenue target used rate stabilization accounts operations for 2021 through 2,021% 2024. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, you are chair of the committee and are recognized to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President So this council bill 119898 passed unanimously out of the Transportation Utilities Committee. This legislation sets the 2021 to 2024 baseline targets for a rate stabilization account, which helps Seattle see light to better manage and reduce risk from the volatility of the wholesale energy market on the utility's revenues. The good news is that the revenue from selling our excess energy is up this year and the utility forecasts that the current rate surcharges are likely to be reduced or removed in 2021. So with along with no general rate increase in 2021, that means our customers will likely experience further rate release in 2021. Again, this passed unanimously out of committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Ms.. Skinner, I. Peterson. I so want.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple? Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. President Gonzalez, I. Favor favored unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item six Will the clerk please read item six into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda Item six. Constable 119899 Police Department and then inspection 21.2 49.1 25. At the same time as the code updated, the City Lights Department's open access, transmission, tariff and rates to meet changes in costs and regulations. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending subsection 21.49.086.D of the Seattle Municipal Code to define the Net Wholesale Revenue target used in Rate Stabilization Account operations for 2021-2024. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10052020_CB 119899 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item six. Constable 119899 Police Department and then inspection 21.2 49.1 25. At the same time as the code updated, the City Lights Department's open access, transmission, tariff and rates to meet changes in costs and regulations. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Councilor Peterson, you're the chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee report on this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President This is another technical measure for utility management. This legislation council bill 119899 amends our 2009 open access transmission tariff which governs how others can transmit their electricity between points on Seattle City Lights Transmission Systems. This updated version is necessary to account for the changing business needs of the utility and address expiring contracts with other transmission users. According to this fiscal note, this legislation will have minimal to no impact on city light. It passed our committee unanimously.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Must get a. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item number seven Will the clerk please read item seven into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda Item seven Capital 119895 Relations Department granting authority for the Department to offer incentives program and the electrification of transportation for its customers, including the promotion of electric vehicle adoption and advertising programs to promote the utility services, incentives or rebates. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Section 21.49.125 of the Seattle Municipal Code; updating the City Light Department’s Open Access Transmission Tariff and rates to meet changes in costs and regulations. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119882 | Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item three. Will the clerk please read item three into the record? Agenda Item.
Speaker 3: Three accountable 119882 authorizing the director of the Department of Finance Administrative Services to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of National Kidney National Resources.
Speaker 0: On behalf of the City of Seattle.
Speaker 3: A waterway permit and three.
Speaker 0: Sequential waterway permits.
Speaker 3: For the Seattle Police Department's Harbor Patrol. Use of.
Speaker 0: Waterway 20. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 119882. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Herbold, you are the prime sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you so much. As the title suggests, the legislation executes and accepts a waterway permit and three sequential waterway permits for the Seattle Police Department's Harbor Patrol. Use of what is called Waterway 20. This is the area to the west of the city owned Speedy Harbor Patrol facility adjacent to Gasworks Park. The area contains a dock, a holding pen enclosed by a log boom and a concrete boat ramp. This is on land that is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Harbor Patrol has been using it for some time for temporary storage of navigational hazards, impounded or stolen vehicles, evidence and other uses. And as it relates to navigational hazards. This is detritus that they collect in the water as a condition of the permit. Frsc will have to meet with the Wallingford Council and the Center for Wooden Boats on a monthly basis in order to create a future conceptual plan for the use of Waterway 20, which meets the interests of both the city and the Community Council. It was a really interesting article that appeared in Crosscut a few weeks ago about the history of the waterways. Notes that the Harbor Patrol has been using it since 1962 and this would approve a permit to do so. There's been strong community interest in public access to the water at this particular location, and I'm really pleased that the permit itself addresses this by including as a condition of the permit. The Air Force will meet with the Wallingford Community Council and the Center for Wooden Boats on a monthly basis in order to create this future conceptual plan. The permit is through June 30th, 2022. It does not include an automatic right to renewal. The permit states that the city and the one for Community Council have not reached consensus by the end of the permit. The state shall deny the application for a new permit unless the state, in its sole discretion, waives the requirement of a consensus conceptual use plan. I also want to just real quickly give a shout out to some of the advocates, the Shoreline Access advocates who've been maintaining the site over a very long period of time. Ted Hunter and Lee Ryan are two of the many names that come to mind. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbals, are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Harvell. I couldn't have said it better. And, you know, when I was a legislative aide, I would go to these community council meetings and this issue was brought up when I was a legislative aide about the desire to have more public access to the waterfront. And this is something, as you said, that they've been working on very hard for a long time. And this one, I think the Finance Administrative Services Department for for putting this forward, working with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to get this done. It's an important step toward getting public access in the future. So thank you for your work, Councilmember both as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Peterson, are there any additional comments on the bill? During lunch. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Macheda.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: The what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Juarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: 9 a.m. favor. Unopposed. Opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item number four. Will the clerk please read item four into the record? Agenda item for Capital 119896. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of The City of Seattle, a waterway permit and three sequential waterway permits, for the Seattle Police Department’s Harbor Patrol use of Waterway 20. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119896 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item number four. Will the clerk please read item four into the record? Agenda item for Capital 119896.
Speaker 3: Relating to the city, white and Seattle Public Police departments. Temporarily removing the charge of interest, as we put it, would be a consumption and utilization account to preceding several sections.
Speaker 0: Under Title 21, but.
Speaker 3: Authorize and require the collection of interest on delinquent utility consumption and relocation accounts and replying. Confirming search and prior.
Speaker 0: Thank you, madam. And in the past, Council Bill 119896. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, you are the sponsor of this legislation and are recognized in order to address the item.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Council President. As I mentioned at council briefing this morning, this council bill 119896 is another example of the relief that we've all been providing during the COVID pandemic. Specifically, this legislation is needed to extend for another several months the ordinance that we passed earlier this year to prevent charges for late payments on utility bills. This financial release applies to both of the utility enterprises that we own and operate Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities. Happy to support this extension and thank Mayor Durkan and her general managers of each utility, Deborah Smith and Mommy Harrah, for figuring out a way to make this happen financially. This relief extends through the end of this year and we can visit it again at that time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Mosquito, did you have your hand raised? Yes, because of arms data, please. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I am happy to be voting to extend the suspension of late fees until January 2021. But want to note, as I think Councilmember Peterson, you just articulated as well, it's possible that we will likely need to revisit the timeline before it expires at the beginning of next year. We know that the crisis of the COVID impacts will not end at the beginning of next year. And in fact, given compounding crises that are in front of us may even be more acute as various protections and support systems erode, either at this at the federal level or local supports expire. So I just wanted to lift that point up and say, I think this is a really good step for us to be taking right now. But also note that advocates such as Puget Sound Sage are working at the state level for utility relief, recognizing these bills are an important piece of the affordability puzzle, and that without them there are serious hardships that folks are experiencing, whether it's struggling to pay rent or put food on the table or care for families. And although there is a moratorium on shut offs in place, that's in Seattle during COVID emergency, we don't want any households to be racking up utility late fees during this pandemic. And therefore, it's extremely likely, in my opinion, that we will need to revisit the change prior to the January 1st, 2021 expiration. But every little bit matters and is really important right now. So excited to support Councilmember Peterson on this effort and looking forward to future conversations on this. Thank you, Governor Mosquito. Are there any additional comments on the bill? All right, colleagues, hearing no additional comments, will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales. Morales. Yes. Macheda. Hi, Petersen.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: The one? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez. I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, none opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Agenda item number five. Will the clerk please read item five into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments; temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; superseding several sections under Title 21 that authorize and require the collection of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.