meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_CB 120077
|
Speaker 5: Jan the item for Council Bill 120077 an ordinance relating to the termination of residential rental tenancies providing a defense to eviction for rent due during the city's COVID 19 civil emergency. And amending Section 22.20 6.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill passed with a divided report, with council members swap Morales and Lewis in favor and Councilmember Peterson opposed.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Okay. Thank you so much, Councilmember. So once you're the chair of the committee, so I am going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report and then we'll take it from there. Oh, you're on mute.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Thank you, President Gonzalez. This legislation is sponsored by Councilmember Morales, and so I will turn it over to her to make introductory remarks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Now I muted myself advertently. Okay. Thank you for for facilitating that that hand back over to Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Ellis, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you to walk us through this reporting.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Chair. So on. And Council President Gonzalez. I am excited to bring this before my colleagues. I do want to begin by thanking the members of the State House Stay Healthy Coalition. We've been working with them for several months now and I'm really excited to be bringing this forward at their request. And I do specifically want to thank representatives from the Housing Justice Project, El Centro de la Raza. Washington can be Seattle, a black LGBTQ ally. Ship Transit Riders, Union Tenants Union, real change share the cities, the landlords at Solid Ground and Lehigh and many, many others who've been part of this work. I think it's really important that they are pushing us as a council for more tenant protections and really holding us accountable to our neighbors who rent in the city. So just a little bit of background. According to the National Equity Atlas. County renters owe an average of 40 $700 in back rent. Combined, approximately 39,000 letters owe $186 million in pandemic related rent. And we know that over a third of black, Latino and native communities are burdened with rent debt. These are some of the same neighbors whose work often requires that they are at increased risk of exposure to COVID. We also know that they are disproportionately uninsured, that something like a medical emergency during a pandemic could significantly affect people's ability to pay for food and child care and other bills. These really are some of the essential workers that we've been talking about and hearing about for the last year. And the people without whom our city would have kind of fallen apart last year. So it's really important that we do what we can to help help protect them. We know that 58% of people are facing a pandemic related financial hardship are low income themselves already. 59% are people of color, and 71% lost employment related income in the last year. So when you couple this with the fact that in just a few weeks, the eviction moratorium at this point is set to end, you can understand the urgency to provide a defense to eviction for renters who have fallen behind because of financial hardship. The impending avalanche of evictions is more than just an issue of money. It's a systemic issue brought on by generations of disinvestment. Why that is. Seattle Public Schools calling brought on by generations of disinvestment. And we know that, you know, this this this disinvestment in communities of color and our racist housing policies have really continued to haunt us. And that's part of the challenge here we're trying to solve for some of these problems that are that are long standing . So what will this bill do? This bill would allow tenants to assert a financial hardship defense at any time. If you're a renter who's faced or will face financial hardship during the civil emergency, you will be protected. If a landlord does serve an eviction notice to tenants based on nonpayment of rent, they must include a statement that notifies tenants of their right to assert a defense based on nonpayment of rent caused by a financial hardship during the COVID emergency. Once in court, tenants will have access to representation now that we have a right to counsel legislation that we passed earlier this year and as part of that right to counsel process, tenants are asked to self-certify that they are facing financial hardship. So following that certification, renters will be allowed to assert this defense, as I've mentioned in council briefing this morning. And I do think that this is important to reiterate landlords have resources available as well. King County executive recently announced that King County will be offering slots to $150 million in rental assistance to tenants and landlords. Here at the city. We are also offering just over $20 million in rent assistance. So I think it's important that landlords are aware of that and that they access those resources before considering evicting someone. I will have some closing comments, but I will leave it at that colleagues and I'm happy to answer any questions that could help.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales, for that report. Are there any additional comments on the 120077? See, I see a couple of hands raised as member. So what is next? And then Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzalez, and thank you. I'm happy to support those renters rights bill. And I was happy to co-sponsor it in the Renters Rights Committee. As was stated, it creates a defense to eviction, protecting renters from being evicted for being behind on their name.
Speaker 0: Stop. Innocence. Sorry. Sorry. Councilmember Mosqueda, you are not mute. And that was my cracker. I'm sorry. Code. Sorry. Councilmember silent. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: No problem. It creates a defense to eviction, protecting renters from being evicted for being behind on their rent during the COVID emergency. It is very important. And at the same time, we should recognize it's not the same as canceling corporate debt, both renter debt and mortgage debt for working class homeowners, which is what we really need to be fighting for. And because renters would still owe that back rent, it will hurt people's credit. And sometimes people might even face lawsuits. But at the very least, it is extremely important that the city council pass this bill because it will mean that people won't be evicted and forced into homelessness for that back rent that was accumulated that renters were forced to accumulate during COVID. So I hope all council members will vote yes on this. And I also wanted to note that this is both an economic justice and a racial justice bill. Because of the pandemic racism under capitalism, communities of color are facing far greater COVID related debt burdens on top of the preexisting debt burden discrimination and therefore are at a great power greater risk of eviction once the eviction moratoriums end. And on that note, it's extremely important that the city council passed this resolution urging the mayor and the governor to extend the eviction moratorium. And we need to be following up with that to make sure that they actually do it. Last September, industry analyst apartment list dot com which is which is a website for landlords and is followed by corporate landlords reported that 31% of renters had unpaid rent and the report went on for the share of white renters with unpaid rent is well below the overall rate at 24%. Meanwhile, black and Hispanic renters are far more likely to own a 48% and 41%, respectively. So even though corporate landlord websites are acknowledging the disparities between white renters and renters of color, and renters of color are facing a very dire situation. And so it's really important that we pass this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: It's so much I can see where we are there. Casimir Petersen I didn't see that you were in the queue. Do you still want to make comments? Go ahead. Floor is yours.
Speaker 4: Me too.
Speaker 0: I'll put you in the queue. Thank you. Customer. We're going to have more Peterson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Just to provide context, again, for the Renters Rights Committee that we had a couple of weeks ago for this council bill. 110 0077. I had offered two amendments at committee on May 26th. The First Amendment would have exempted small landlords, and the second would have allowed this regulatory change for 18 months so that it corresponds to the potential lingering effects of the COVID recession. I think we want to be mindful of the financial challenges faced by smaller housing providers who lack the economies of scale to absorb these costs. I also don't think it's appropriate to make such regulatory legislation permanent at this time. Neither of my opponents passed, so I voted no at committee, and as nothing has changed in a material way since that time, I'll be voting no today. Again, while this legislation is framed as being related to COVID civil emergency, it would be permanent. Rather than making wholesale permanent regulatory changes to existing contractual relationships, I put the entire burden on to the housing provider regardless of their hardship. I believe we should instead get more funding in the hands of the housing providers and the tenants to make them whole. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, because there was.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President I'm going to just say some brief comments about all three bills. I reluctantly voted yes for the school year evictions, but not for some of the reasons that Council Peterson outlined. But mainly my main concern and I did vote yes, is ultimately we do want to protect children in their families and educators. But I do feel like, as we were advised by legal, that there's going to be some issues on the definition and how broad that bill is. But nevertheless, I voted yes because I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. However, on this bill, I cannot vote yes on this one. I think that my main concern with the whole slate here and I think we heard this from legal counsel as well, and also including the preemption arguments and the recent variant case is that we really do need a comprehensive review of city tenant protections that work with state law. And I think this pandemic field recession has really changed the landlord tenant and the as we learned from legal counsel, the preemption landscape. So I think this piecemeal approach on long term consequences is really going to be difficult to unwind. And so it regarding Council Bill 120077 this is a defense, so it is not correct to say that you will be protected. It means that you have a defense when you go to court. That doesn't mean it's going to be successful. I'm always concerned about raising expectations. So what you're going to have is somebody to come into court, assert the defense of COVID. That's why you couldn't pay your rent during the moratorium. That doesn't mean that a judge or jury is going to buy that, and that doesn't mean that you don't get to walk away from responsibilities. Of course, these are not I'm not passing judgment because all of us have been affected by this by this recession and what it's done, but obviously to renters. But a morea a moratorium doesn't mean that you don't have to pay. It just means that at some point you have to pay. Later you have to work something out with your landlord, with notice. And so with that and what we've learned from legal counsel and the briefings that we've had and how it works with state law and the it I don't think it works with state law. I think that's been was made very clear to us. But in any event, I'm sorry, but I cannot support this today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Juarez, for those comments. Really appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I'm not seeing any of their hands raised. So, Councilmember Morales, you will get the last word as the prime sponsor and we'll close out debate after your comments and call the bill to vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Colleagues. So I do want to acknowledge and thank council members a lot for joining me in sponsoring this. I neglected to mention that beginning of my remarks. Colleagues, we know that thousands of our neighbors will find themselves caught with a growing mountain of debt and a looming deadline for when that that comes due. And if we don't do something to provide a defense for renters now, we will face depression level, depression era levels of homelessness. So, you know, our system is already overburdened. This is a huge issue that we've been talking about. And even if a quarter of the renters who currently owe rent that fall into homelessness, our entire system could collapse. So this is about providing some protection in the form of a defense so that there is at least an opportunity for them to to have a discussion, to be able to work out the payments as council member , as is talked about. And these are things that we have also been discussing throughout this year as we talk about how to make sure that there are different levels, different mechanisms in place for folks. So we have to respond to this impending crisis with the gravity that it deserves. We have to take action now so that renters who have faced a financial hardship don't face eviction, too. And as Council Member Water said, we aren't saying that folks don't owe the rent. We're saying that while they are dealing with a hardship during this era, during this time, that there is some protection from them from getting evicted . This is the reason why they can't pay the rent for now. So passing this bill will do just that and will help keep tens of thousands of renters from the threat of eviction. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill today and give them that then that protection and assistance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember morales that does conclude debate on Council Bill 120077. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas now. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales as. ROSQUETA. I.
Speaker 1: Peterson. You know, salon?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez. I. Five in favor to oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it will the first please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, Clark, please read item five into the record.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120090 An ordinance relating to new residential rental tenancies. Giving a tenant a right of first refusal of a new tenancy after the expiration of a tenancy for a specified time. Requiring a landlord to have just cause for declining to give a tenant the right of first refusal requiring notice in advance of asserting
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the termination of residential rental tenancies; providing a defense to eviction for rent due during the City’s COVID-19 civil emergency; and amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_CB 120090
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120090 An ordinance relating to new residential rental tenancies. Giving a tenant a right of first refusal of a new tenancy after the expiration of a tenancy for a specified time. Requiring a landlord to have just cause for declining to give a tenant the right of first refusal requiring notice in advance of asserting just cause. Creating a private right for action for the tenant. Providing a defense to eviction. When a landlord fails to give a tenant a right of first refusal, allowing a tenant to rescind a termination agreement and amending section 7.24.30 14.0 8.050 and 22.20 6.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass with a divided report with Council member Sergeant Morales and Lewis in favor and Council Peterson opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Sala and Morales is customer Morales going to take the lead on addressing this one or are you just one?
Speaker 3: Oh, since we're both sponsoring, I'll speak as committee chair then of course, Councilman Morales and also Luis, I'm sure will want to add points.
Speaker 0: Perfect. Take it away.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This bill, as I said, is jointly sponsored by Councilmember Morales, his office and my office and co-sponsored by Councilmember Lewis. This bill creates a right of first refusal for renters to renew their lease unless a landlord has a just cause for refusing to renew the lease. As I've said before, this issue has been discussed by the Sustainable Living and Renters Rights Committee since March, and I really appreciate members engaging on this issue and appreciate being able to work alongside the Councilmember Morales office on this bill. We've heard as a committee from two panels of impacted renters and renter rights activists. We also discussed two previous draft of the legislation developed by our two offices, and through those discussions and technical feedback, it has become clear that what renters really need in these situations is the right of first refusal, where a landlord is required to give the current tenant the first chance to sign a new lease before offering that lease to any other renters unless there is a just cause. When there is need a new lease long before there's any question of eviction. I mean, we've heard from hundreds of renters who've been in the situation or who are about to be in this situation and who are strongly advocating for the passage of this bill to make sure that Seattle, just those protections cover all renters. Few renters who are told by their landlord that they will not have their lease renewed are going to refuse to leave because the law says they cannot be evicted because in real life, renters will end up doing what's called self eviction, which is starting to look for a new place to live, even though they know that it's unjust and that they cannot be evicted because understandably they don't feel confident with having to potentially fight it out in court. And in the course of discussing our bill in the committee, we heard from dozens of renters who called in for public comment and several who testified at the committee table who all recognize this legislation as basic common sense. And I wanted to express my gratitude to all the rank and file renters, not only those who testified publicly, but also who signed the petition community petition release from my office and just hundreds of rank and file renters who have spoken up about this issue. But I wanted to quote Lee, who is a Starbucks worker and a trans activist who also testified at our committee who said, quote, As a barista in this city, I struggled for months to find an affordable apartment to rent. Now, the apartment that I moved into has become less affordable each time I renew Molly's because they raise the rent every year. I'm afraid each time my lease is up that they will refuse to renew my lease, essentially putting me on the street and quote and maddeningly whom I quoted earlier, a public school educator who spoke in favor of the ban on solo evictions, but also spoke in favor of this bill, who said for the first time that I was evicted. It was after living in the house along with five roommates through two full six month leases without any problems filling. Our rooms are paying rent on time. After the conclusion of the second lease, however, our landlord abruptly decided that he would not renew our lease and that we would all be having to move out. The second time I was evicted, my landlord told us he was planning to convert our unit into an Airbnb and that we would not be able to renew our lease despite having no problems with us as tenants, unquote. So this bill puts the right of first refusal into the part of Seattle's law, which is Chapter 7.24 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has the power to enforce. That means that if the landlord does not offer a new lease and does not have a just cause 60 to 90 days before the end of the lease, that's called the date that they can back up in court. Then CCI has the power to follow up, investigate the other landlord that they either need to offer a new lease or present a just cause not do. Is DCA going to issue a citation or a notice of violation and started showing fines if a landlord refuses to follow the law, all this can happen before the lease ends . So ideally these issues can be resolved and the renter can get a new lease without anyone going to eviction court. And besides discussing with renters, we also discussed in my office with some landlords who contacted us that as I resigned from the council this morning, several small landlords we have spoken to support renters like legislation. Some even signed our community petitions, but some landlords that we talked to oppose this legislation. One of the landlords made an argument to us against this legislation where he said they are that some renters are a quote unquote headache and the end of the lease is a convenient time to get rid of the so-called headache renters. But the fact is, over the last seven years, my office has supported many renters facing abuse from their landlord. So when I hear claims like renters are a headache, I would ask what that means. I mean, this legislation allows landlords to refuse to a new lease if they have a just cause to refuse to do so. But, you know, it's a question of having been complying with Seattle just cause the list of just causes to review refused to renew this lease, not just any headache. So, in other words, if a renter reports a landlord to the Seattle Department of Construction inspections or housing code violations or violating the renters rights, that might be a headache for the landlord, but it is completely legal and just for the rent out you seek redressal. And it's not a just cause to kick out the renter. And as I said before, it is not a hypothetical example. This is a case that we've seen happen many times. Just in closing and the initial remarks, of course, I speak in closing again. But but last week's Councilmember Morales, his office in my office distributed four technical amendments to this legislation, clarifying the language. The amendments are attached to the agenda, and none of them make any substantive change. And after Councilmember Morales and Lois make introductory remarks, we can move those technical amendments. If Dr. Morales wants to move those amendments, that's. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember. Silent for the initial introduction of that particular bill, Councilmember Morales or Lewis, do you have any additional comments you'd like to make? Yeah. Morales, please.
Speaker 1: Q I'll be brief. I do think, Councilmember Salmon, for providing a good overview of the technical aspects of how this will work. And I think, you know, for 40 years, tenants have benefited from some kind of just cost protection in the city, which is has been great. Those protections for no guarantee that their home will continue to be their home once their current lease ends. And that's what we are trying to solve for here. So this bill brings, I think, the best elements of the two previous bills that councilmembers and I were working on, and much like the prior legislation, proposes a really simple fix that will ensure all tenants, regardless of where they are in their lease term or what kind of contract they have, that they'll be protected from a threat of no fault, no cause removal from their homes. It provides tenants the first right of refusal to either stay in their home on a new lease or a month to month lease or to voluntarily leave. And it also allows landlords to pursue removal if they have reason to cause reason for doing so. And then lastly, it does strengthen the tenants bargaining power by allowing them to rescind a mutual this termination in the case where they were pressured into signing one. So this is another way to make sure that we are keeping folks, our neighbors who rent, keeping some protections for them, extending protections from them, and also ensures that more renters in our city will benefit from tenant relocation assistance that is offered by the city. So, you know, as we as we start to move through recovery, as the emergency tenant protections are lifted, it's important that our neighbors who rent continue to receive some stability. And this is another way for us to make sure that that happens. I do want to thank Devon Silver now on my staff. He's been a trooper, really making sure that all these different tenant protections, the work that we're doing to try to protect our homeless neighbors all reflect what we are hearing from community and from our our houseless neighbors and from our renters in communities. So I really want to thank him for helping Shepherd bring their ideas into our council office and before full council today. And he is all I have, Councilman. That's all, Alex.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilman Morales. Because we're. Lewis, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to be brief on this and rest mostly on my comments that I made a committee. You know, I did have the opportunity then to address that. Several of the issues that have been raised by a lot of folks that have concerns over this bill are are mostly.
Speaker 0: Addressed by the.
Speaker 2: Fact that with with just cause there can be notice provided. So it's not a, you know, if you still do not want to, for whatever reason, renew a lease. So this is a pretty reasonable change to make sure that the spirit of our just cause eviction protections are defending tenants when they.
Speaker 0: Are.
Speaker 2: Seeking a renewal to roll their tenancy that they've depended on and the place where they have found community and living as our neighbors. And to continue to do that, I think we in a lot of ways tend to take for granted the the investment the tenants make when they really put down roots and become part of the neighborhoods in our city. And this is really making sure that we continue to hold tenants as as equal members of our neighborhoods and not somehow folks that that are more fungible and that don't deserve the kind of security that folks who own homes can enjoy. And I think this gets us one step closer to that. And I'm happy to support this. And I don't really have anything else to add, but the co-sponsors did not add. So in the interest of time, I think I'll leave it there.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Customer Louis. Are there any additional comments before we close out debate? Actually, we're not going to close that debate because we have four amendments we need to consider. So I. I got ahead of myself there. Okay. So looks like there's no additional comments from the sponsors of the bill. So now we're going to go ahead and consider we have four different amendments to consider, and I am going to hand it back over to council. So want to give me some direction on who is going to advance those amendments.
Speaker 3: But it doesn't matter to me. Councilmember Rawlins, did you want to move the first three amendments and I'll move the last one.
Speaker 1: Sure works for me. Shall I? I move. Amendment 1/2.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved and seconded to adopt a proposed amendment one where. Morales, would you like to describe Amendment One?
Speaker 1: Sure. As I said, this is a technical amendment that acknowledges that federal law supersedes local law in this matter.
Speaker 0: Three. Any comments or questions on proposed Amendment one? Hearing none. Will the court please call the rule on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 1: Or as I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Mosquito I.
Speaker 2: PETERSON Hi.
Speaker 1: Suzanne.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and then oppose.
Speaker 0: The motion carries the amendment is adopted and the amended bill an amended bill is before the Council proposed amendment to Councilor Morales.
Speaker 1: I move amendment to.
Speaker 0: Is there a second chicken? It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill is presented on amendments to. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Morales to address Amendment two and then we'll take comments.
Speaker 1: Sure. This amendment just clarifies that a new lease will start on the day following the expiration of the previous lease.
Speaker 0: Pretty straightforward. Are there any additional comments on proposed amendment to. Hearing none will accept. Please call the role on the adoption of amendment to.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales. S. Was scary.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Want yes council president Giddens follows.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven and seven unopposed oppose.
Speaker 0: The motion carries the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is before the council. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilman Morales for Amendment three.
Speaker 1: No. I move Amendment three.
Speaker 0: Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Wanted an Amendment three. So Casmir Morales I'll let you quickly address it and then we'll take comments, if any.
Speaker 1: Sure. This just clarifies that a landlord and tenant can agree to a new lease before the 60 to 90 day window mandated in this legislation.
Speaker 0: Any comments or questions on proposed Amendment three? Harry. None will accept. Please call a vote on the adoption of Amendment three.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales as mosquera.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Petersen I.
Speaker 1: So want. Yes. Council President Nicholas.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries. The amendment is adopted and bill is before the council. Council Member So once you have amendments, once.
Speaker 3: I move amendment for.
Speaker 0: The second.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment four because they were silent. Would you like to address Amendment four?
Speaker 3: Yes. This is also a technical amendment it refutes if it removes redundant language about how mutual termination agreements work when the renter has a housing voucher.
Speaker 0: Are there any additional comments or questions on proposed amendments for. Hearing that all the parties call the roll on the adoption of Amendment four. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes. Must to. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Swan. Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzales. I seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is before the council. Okay. That does cover all of the proposed amendments. So we now have a fully amended bill before the Council. Are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I think I would have been able to support this legislation. Council 4120090 Especially with these technical and these good technical amendments today. If a similar state law had not recently passed, but a similar state law has recently passed House Bill one, two, three, six and in my opinion, counts 4120090 is preempted by the state law, which includes but is not limited to that House Bill 1236. As I understand it, local laws are generally preempted by state laws that conflict on the same subject matter, even if the state law does not expressly include a preemption clause. So it's not clear to me why the city council is proceeding to adopt a city law that could burden the city with substantial legal risk. So consistent with my vote at the committee level, I'll be voting no on Council Bill 1290090 because of the concerns of preemption in state government. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any other comments about the bill as amended? Right. I'm not seeing any hands raised because, remember, Sam wants more Alice or Lewis. Any closing remarks?
Speaker 3: I do the closing remarks, but I'm going to do all this to.
Speaker 0: She's saying she doesn't have anything else she wants to say. And I'm not seeing Councilmember Lewis. So you get the last word, councilmember silent and then we'll call this bill to a vote.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Contreras and Gonzalez. And thank you again to Member Morales for your office's work on this alongside our office. It's really important that we have brought this bill to potential passage in a few minutes. And thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for co-sponsoring. This bill is part of the overall important victories that renters are winning today in Seattle as protection from unjust and devastating eviction. With this bill, we are closing the loophole, as Morales said, for decades left renters on external leases like a one year lease or a six month lease with zero protections at the end of the lease . And, you know, we we in this council meeting, we passed legislation providing renters with additional eviction protections for rent due to COVID eviction protections for children during the school year. And we've urged the mayor and the governor to extend the eviction moratorium. These are all crucial victories. But we also need to be clear that eviction is only one issue renters face. It's a very crucial issue. But in addition to that, we also know that renters are facing unaffordable rent increases. And as far as the corporate landlord lobby is concerned, it's going to be business as usual. Now that vaccinations have been available and the economy is starting to go back to what seems like a little bit of normalcy since the last year. But nationwide, we're seeing every time average rents increase. And this was pre-pandemic, every time average rent increase by $100. Homelessness increases by 15%. The staggering causal link between rent increase and homelessness increase and rent in Seattle have increased by $100 many times over. So as I've informed the city council before, my office has prepared several renters rights bills related to rent increases. Including rent control that we will be bringing to the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee later this month. But first, what we are. What we have is a bill that we will introduce requiring landlords to give renters six months notice for rent increases, which has been a successful measure in cities around the world. So we won't be charting new terrain here. We will be following other cities that have already passed such a law. We also have sent to the City Attorney's Office for introduction a bill that creates relocation assistance for renters who are forced to move by unacceptable rent increases. And as I said, we showed a draft rent control bill that will limit rent reasons to more no more than the rate of inflation and is devoid of the many problematic loopholes that laws in New York or California have introduced, which end up affecting renters badly and also damages the credibility of the ability of rent control to actually provide protections. For the last several years, I've called for a renter's bill of rights centering around rent control, but also including all these other issues. And I thank Morales for also calling for such a bill of rights that is really important. And once again, I want to thank our in our office everyone in my office specifically want to recognize Eduardo and Jonathan Rosenblum, who were part of really making sure that we had everything ready and making sure that we had all our technical work and our organizing work ready to go. I wanted to thank Adam, Jim Koski and Nick Jones, and sarcasm are also and also the volunteers who have been working with our office and talking to renters around the city. I wanted to thank everyone who called in support of the renters rights bills today and in the previous committee meetings. And I urge everybody who is watching to join us at the next meeting of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on June 22nd to begin the discussion of the upcoming Renters Rights Bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: It's so much conspiracy and that does conclude debate on this particular bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas now. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes.
Speaker 0: Mesquita I.
Speaker 2: Peterson So.
Speaker 1: Excellent.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Five in favor.
Speaker 0: Two opposed the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business? Is there any other further business to come before the Council? Hearing than colleagues. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Tuesday. I'm sorry, is that right? Tuesday? I think it's a monday. Monday, June 14th. Monday, June 14th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Bye bye.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to new residential rental tenancies; giving a tenant a right of first refusal of a new tenancy after the expiration of a tenancy for a specified time; requiring a landlord to have just cause for declining to give a tenant the right of first refusal; requiring notice in advance of asserting just cause; creating a private right for action for the tenant; providing a defense to eviction when a landlord fails to give a tenant a right of first refusal; allowing a tenant to rescind a termination agreement; and amending Sections 7.24.030, 14.08.050, and 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 120080
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item number one Will the clerk please read item one into the record? Agenda Item one Council Bill 120080. An ordinance relating to land use and zoning extending for six months. A moratorium established by ordinance 125764 and extending an order by ordinances 126006126090 and 126241 on the filing, 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 23.8 4a032 of the Seattle Municipal Code and ratifying and confirming certain.
Speaker 1: Acts of a.
Speaker 0: For a public hearing. Are folks just toggling between screens here? Okay. So as Presiding Officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 120080 relating to land use and zoning extending for six months, a moratorium established by Ordinance one two. Five, 764 and extend by ordinances 126006126090 and 126241 on the filing, 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 23.8 for 8.032 of the settlement of Civil Code in ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The online registration to sign up to speak at this hearing opened at 12:00 noon today, and I'll call on speakers in the order of registration. The online registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing. The rules apply to the public comment period also apply to this public hearing. If there are any speakers, each speaker will be provided 2 minutes and a 10/2 warning to wrap up comments. Speakers microphones will be needed at the end of the a lot of public comment time public comment relating to Council Bill 120080 is only being accepted at this public hearing. Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name. And let me take a look here and see if anyone has signed up for public comment on this particular council bill. I do not see anyone signed up for public comment on this particular council bill. So at this time I do not have anyone remotely present to speak on Council Bill 120080. Will staff please confirm there is not a member of the public in the queue before I close this public hearing?
Speaker 2: For an outside.
Speaker 0: Council member or council president Gonzalez, this is Deputy Clerk Schwinn. We still would like to open the public hearing and closed. I did. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I already went. I already went through the whole opening of it. So now I'm at the point of asking whether there is anyone remotely present to speak on Council Bill. Thank you. Will staff please confirmed that there is no one from the public available to speak during this open public hearing?
Speaker 2: Confirmed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Again, being that there is not a member of the public remotely present for this public hearing on Council Bill 120080. This public hearing is now closed, so we will move to item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the recorder's? Madam quirky meeting you did. Thank you. Agenda Item two Council Bill 120089 An Ordinance Relating to the Sea, The City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilize utilization accounts.
|
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, 126090, and 126241, 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; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 120089
|
Speaker 0: Madam quirky meeting you did. Thank you. Agenda Item two Council Bill 120089 An Ordinance Relating to the Sea, The City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilize utilization accounts. That's the short title. I'm finished. Okay. Sorry. My script did not call for the short titles. I wanted to make sure I gave you the time in case there was a little technological hiccup. But thank you for reading the short title into the record. I moved past Council Bill 120089 as their second second. Thank you so much, President Petersen. You're the sponsor of this bill. So when I handed over to you to walk us through the legislation.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President colleagues, as I noted at our council briefing this morning, Council Bill 120089 would extend the temporary suspension of interest charges on delinquent utility account balances for Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City Light customers during the COVID emergency. This will benefit customers who may be struggling with their bills from either of our city owned utilities. This bill is the third extension of this pandemic relief policy. It was on the introduction referral calendar May 24th. The three previous bills also went straight to the full council. We passed the previous ordinances in May and March 2020, September 2020 and December 2020. This relief bill would extend the suspension of interest charged through the end of this year. Thank.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments will part. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Whereas. Councilmember, whereas. It's. Lewis. Yes. Where else? Yes. Well, Sarah, I. Peterson. All right. So what? Yes. Council President Gonzales. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item three? Agenda Item three Council Bill 120087 An Ordinance relating to Appropriations for the Seattle Office for Civil Rights amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget.
|
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
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 119981
|
Speaker 0: Motion carries in the appointment is confirmed. Item seven Will the court please read the short title of item seven into the record?
Speaker 4: The Report of the Public.
Speaker 0: Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item seven Council. Bill 119981 An Ordinance amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 through 2026 Capital Improvement Program, CIPA. The committee recommends that City Council does not pass as amended the Council bill with a divided report. With council members Gonzalez, Morales and Sawant in favor of the recommendation and councilmembers Herbold and Lewis opposed to the recommendation. All right, colleagues, thank you so much. I'm going to go ahead and move this bill so that it can be placed before us for consideration and discussion and a vote. So I will move to pass. Council Bill 119981. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's the second I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold, who is the chair of this committee, and she is going to address this item for us.
Speaker 4: Thank you, counselor. President Gonzales. Would you like me to just do what I hope can be a pretty quick overview of the bill before we start talking about amendments?
Speaker 0: Yes. So let's discuss that base bill as it came out of committee. And then it's a little confusing because they came out with a do not recommend. Do not recommend passage by the committee. But I still think you can have a conversation and chew up for the viewing public. The components of the base bill that received the do not recommend vote by the majority of the committee. And then we can consider amendments. After we consider amendments, we will have we will open it up for a discussion on the bill as amended. So hold on to your comments about the bill as a whole until we have gone through the exercise of the amendments, and that would be the the cleanest, most logical way to go through this particular piece of legislation.
Speaker 4: Sorry I understood your direction, and I'm trying to follow it. And then the last thing you said seemed to contradict it. I was going to speak to what the bill is. That's that is before us now. Is is that your understanding?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. You are different because you're the sponsor of the legislation. I'm the chair of the committee. So because you are the chair of the committee, you get to speak to the base of the bill. What I'm asking is other colleagues to hold on to their comments related to the entirety of the bill for when we have an amended bill before us to debate and vote on.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. My apologies. So just want to first off clarify that this legislation is not about the police department budget for officer hiring. The budget for officer hiring was fully funded in the 2021 budget adopted in November. Nor is this bill about a particular number. This bill is about until school oversight. SBT Funding As Background. The City of Seattle is under a consent decree with the US Department of Justice. Any item covered by that consent decree require review and approval by the judge overseeing the country and the court appointed monitor developments in this legislation after it was originally introduced or driven by the consent decree process and specific statements from the Monitor in court about this bill. Back in August 2020, the Council adopted Resolution 31962 that the Council will not support any amendments, increase the speed needed to offset over time expenditures above both funds budgeted in 2020 or 2021. Nevertheless, an additional $5.4 million in spending request came from SPG in late 2020 and that not align with previous resolution because council voted to add 5.4 million in funds in late 2023 to our policy tonight. So Council stated our our intent to propose legislation for the 2021 as budget. After this bill was introduced. Judge Roberts oversees the council. I mean, so the consent decree had sharp criticism of the Council on Budget issues. The Monitor subsequently noted concerns have been raised about the possibility of various cuts to city's budget impacting City of Seattle's ability to comply with a range of requirements of the consent decree. In response to the judge and the Monitor's comments, I sponsored a revised version of the bill on March 23rd, including nearly $3 million in cuts to police budget, with 2 million going forward for Tory budgeting, 1 million in spending moved from MPD to other departments and releasing a $5 million budget proviso. A committee majority of three councilmembers didn't support it, saying this new version of the bill before the committee. It also allowed for funding for civilian positions and technology requests that speedy made at the March 9th meeting of the asked what those technology requests include, they include a new early intervention system and recognition that the system currently employed is inadequate. And that early intervention system is intended to predict and guide interventions for employees with signs that they need support as a way of of enhancing police oversight of police officers who may be displaying a bullying activity in the course.
Speaker 1: Of the work.
Speaker 4: It also included some analytics platform and capacity building tools that will allow, among other things, for the analysis that we are all doing together, the council and the mayor and community members and the public for analysis on 911 alternative responses, new bill also provided funding for public disclosure response positions, as recommended by the city auditor in his 2015 report and extensively reported on by the Seattle Times and called out by the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission director as problematic, left unaddressed and also put in storage as recommended by the Inspector General. Because PD has insufficient space for physical storage of evidence, the majority of committee members voted to substitute the introduced bill with this new version. Monitor, meanwhile, asked a series of questions of the police department and upon receiving the reply from the police department, wrote to the Council that even after the committee meeting supporting the smaller cut and lifting the $5 million proviso he wrote Caught in the Monitor are increasingly concerned about the reduction of funding the Seattle Police Department. In response, I proposed an amendment noting central staff now estimates up to 13 million in salary savings and releasing a $2.5 million spending proviso out of order layoffs. Based on sustained misconduct, it's not possible. It's time due to the intersection. Look at the civil service rules and state law that the legislation includes. Additional funds can be spent on all again as identified by the monitor. So that is the background and the description of the bill before us today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much for the description of the of the base bill. Colleagues, again, you will have an opportunity to either ask questions about the base bill or make comments on the base bill. But I did want to get us to consider some of these proposed amendments before we open it up for a broader discussion and debate around the bill. I just think that the conversation will be. Richer and and more accurate if we have a final amended bill before us for for debate. So if that's okay, I'd like to go ahead and ask Councilmember Herbold to address her first proposal, the proposed Amendment one, if there's no objection with that. All right. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Councilmember This one should be super easy. This is a technical amendment that was distributed via email to councilmembers this morning. It was inadvertently left off the agenda, and a little staff noted its technical amendment recommended by the city attorney's office. I move to amend Council Bill 11 9981 presented on Amendment One, which was included on the record of Council Bill 11 9981 and distributed via email to customers this morning.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Great has been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment One. Are there any additional comments on the proposed Amendment one? Again, this is just an amendment with technical what has been described as technical modifications to the base bill. And so it's just a vote on the amendment itself. Councilmember Sala.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzalez. As was explained, this amendment is an entirely technical amendment, so I will be voting yes on the amendment. I just wanted to be clear to members of the public that I oppose the bill as a whole and will vote against it when it's time for the final vote in a moment. This is just a vote on the technical amendment. Now, I also wonder to just also add my comments, to make it clear for the record coming out of the committee, because of the way the minutes appear for the bills that have more no votes than yes votes out of committee is confusing, as council members have stated. I voted no on the bill in the committee because the majority of the committee voted no. The minutes show a do not pass recommendation and then list all the no votes as a yes do not pass, which is very confusing. But just to be clear to members of the public, I voted no on this bill in the committee and will do so again. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that. Okay. Any additional comments on proposed Amendment one? Hearing none. Will the court please call a role on the adoption of amendment?
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Revolt. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales Yes, was I? Petersen All right. Sloan Yes. Council President Gonzales. I remain in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council. I understand that comes from Lewes, has a proposed amendment as well. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Lewis to make his motion and see if there is a second.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I move amendment to.
Speaker 0: Is there a second that. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment two. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Lewis to walk us through Amendment two. And then we will have discussion, debate and a vote on proposed.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you, Madam President. I'm bringing amendment to as a as an option for the council to consider and potentially a new way for us to think about. A corresponding bifurcated strategy for how to consider our ongoing process of defunding the Seattle Police Department and reinvesting in alternative public safety investments. And I want to say at the top that, you know, the amendment in no way implies from me a lack of commitment to participatory budgeting. I do not think that the money that has been apportioned already, the $30 million apportioned for the participatory budgeting process should in any way be reallocated from that process. Since we know in the legislation passed earlier this meeting from Councilmember Morales that we will be setting up a very deliberative process with enough time to be supplemented by additional appropriations on top of the 30 million. I would be supportive of putting additional money into that participatory budgeting process. You know, I do bring this amendment for us to have a discussion and a conversation of ways that we might be able to. At the same time, we are building toward that participatory budgeting process, make some more short term investments in some other public safety programs that we know are working extremely well and could be responsive to the massive need that we see in the community. And that, I believe, has eroded confidence from some community members in our ability to be responsive to the public safety challenges the city is facing. And in a way that the police will not be, frankly, responsive under the investments that we're making here or under some of the staffing investments through the staffing plan that we funded. The big issue as I see it and I'm digressing a little bit and talking more generally about our public safety concerns based on the emails that all of our officers get, is that a lot of community members who are very compassionate are frustrated for a variety of different reasons, as well as some who are frankly not that compassionate but are frustrated for a lot of different reasons. With the state of unsanctioned encampments and chronic homelessness in the city of Seattle, and with the inability of us as a city to provide an appropriate level of shelter and care in a way that is culturally competent, that has resources for the actual issues people are facing, and that.
Speaker 1: Gives community members.
Speaker 2: A contact or someone that they can call that is not the police to intervene in these kinds of circumstances. The just care program, which we talked about last week in which I talked about at briefing this morning, is something that could be scaled to provide that level of response for every neighborhood instead of just the Chinatown International District and Pioneer Square, where it currently serves. There are plans to expand it under our American Recovery Act appropriations, but that still is not going to be to an extent where they can do the work they're doing on a city wide basis. So if you just wanted to talk just really briefly, a little bit more about just care, this amendment would move the $2 million instead of moving it into the participatory budgeting process, would move it into the procurement that we are pursuing with the county to protect and expand the trust care program. As we heard last week, the Just Care Program is composed of a consortium of providers, many of which are bipoc led. You know, obviously we heard from Dominic Davis, who was on our panel, who works with the consortium to provide culturally competent security at a number of the hotels that the consortium leases. Asian Counseling and Referral Service is a foundational partner. The Public Defender Association and the Chief Seattle Club have all been a part of this multi provider effort to really, really get into these areas that have been the subject of public discourse around the public safety discussion and resolve the underlying problem for all stakeholders involved to provide safety , security and health care to the people that are currently living in encampments, who provide a resource that is an alternative to the police from business owners, to to intervene in some of these situations. And it has been directly responsive to the issues that we're facing. I have concerns as we're a year into and there's been a lot of retrospectives on the action that we are taking as a city to continue down this path of developing community based alternatives. That council efforts are losing momentum in a lot of respects. It's because of, as far as I can tell it, what my predecessor, Councilmember Bagshaw, called the sea test, the ability for people to see and understand what the alternatives are, how they're responsive to their needs, how it affects their daily life. I say this as someone who is uniquely positioned because I have constituents who have seen the sea test. I have people who have reached out to my office that are not necessarily historic proponents of housing first and harm reduction, but they've seen it work and they've seen it be responsive to their concerns. And they are they have the zeal of converts and they're leaning into it. This is the kind of momentum that will help to drive broader restructuring, to set a new national standard of centering harm reduction, housing first, and culturally competent care as a replacement for militarized policing. I'm worried that if we're not able to to quickly respond and give other neighborhoods that impression of some of these alternatives, I'm worried that it's that the inevitable inertia of things is going to lead ultimately to backsliding, be it backsliding that's ordered by a federal court who is impatient with the process or unconvinced of the of the merits of waiting for community investments that are taking a while to get off the ground, be it the backsliding of future mayors or councils. I am worried about losing the moment and just, you know, using this amendment more broadly to can be in this conversation that perhaps some of these community investments should be made out of order of the broader participatory budgeting process in order to build public will and in order to be directly responsive to to situations where, frankly, people in these encampments are suffering from diseases typically common in third world circumstances, being exposed to being victims of violent crime that we know recently culminated in a murder over the weekend of a neighbor who was unhoused. And we sit here with resources and money where we could continue to build on the work of standing up this alternative system that is city wide and that can be enjoyed by every neighborhood. You know, again, you know, I do want to conclude that, you know, I mean, this $2 million alone is not going to do that. But I do think we could start to set an expectation that as we expand and build out a just care citywide network of care, that that money should come from the Seattle Police Department. It is money going into what community members typically think and associate at the police department should be doing. I have lots of I have a whole email inbox, as I'm sure my colleagues do, of people.
Speaker 1: Saying we.
Speaker 2: Need police to show up to this encampment and then have a whole colloquy with that person being like, you can have 50 police show up at that encampment. They can't do anything. The police cannot provide mental health care. The police cannot provide a referral to a shelter space. The what the police will do is show up and say they cannot do anything and then drive on. Which is another thing that is common. And a lot of emails I have because they're telling the truth, they actually can't do anything when they show up to these encampments unless they can establish probable cause immediately for a crime happening right in front of them. And then if they do that and they put the person experiencing homelessness in jail, they're going to be back on the street in a few hours because the jail also cannot provide mental health care or treatment or the things that our homeless neighbors need to be successful. Adjust, care can't. And I think that we have an opportunity to have a conversation of putting this nexus in where in addition to funding the broader cornucopia of things we're going to invest in through through participatory budgeting, that we also carve some money out of it to intentionally, strategically build a city wide network that we do it at the expense of the police department since it is caseload that is being transferred. I think there's a nexus in that makes sense. And, you know, maybe it won't be.
Speaker 1: Through this amendment, maybe it'll be through a different conversation that we have.
Speaker 2: But we're accumulating salary savings for officers that are leaving the department under the proviso that we set in the fall. I think we can be strategic with those salary savings to treat a citywide just care response system the way the same way we do treat the police department on the fire department as a permanent and ongoing institutional pillar of our public safety system that has the resources dedicated in such a way that they can build capacity and scale up and depend on that appropriation on a rolling basis. And, you know, my amendment is a way to introduce that conversation into the discourse of.
Speaker 0: What we're doing here at the council.
Speaker 2: You know, I understand it probably won't necessarily be successful today. I am sensitive about the fact that it was previously earmarked for participatory budgeting and and this would be rerouting it. And I like I acknowledge that I have a cognitive dissonance about that. And I'm not necessarily thrilled about that. But I'm also just saying this out of very sincere frustration, not with my colleagues here and not with the provider community, but just generally that there are resources there as well to address these ongoing problems. And they seem solvable to me. And we had that whole hearing with just care, where it seems eminently solvable. If the people doing the work can get the resources and support from neighbors that they need.
Speaker 1: And, you know, maybe we don't do it here.
Speaker 2: And I did want to keep up the conversation, and I appreciate your consideration. And with that, I'll yield back to the floor for comments, questions, and I appreciate the time to talk about it.
Speaker 0: It comes from Lewis. I am going to ask if folks have any comments or questions on that amendment. If you could use your raise the hand feature in Zoom, that would be helpful to me. And keeping track of those who would like to make comments on Amendment two. First in the queue is Councilmember Herbold, followed by Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 4: Mostly as the sponsor of the underlying legislation, who with the proposal to allocate these funds originally to participatory budgeting. I just want to say I, I welcome this discussion and I welcome this amendment. I think a lot has changed since December of last year. Whereas with today's vote on comes from Morales's legislation, we are still strongly in support of that $30 million investment in participatory budgeting. But the idea of adding to a pot of funds that it is not likely that we will see those investments on the ground until 2022. At this point, really to me underscores the need to look at where we could be spending dollars on programs that are on the ground working and making a difference for for all of our communities that are communities of of neighbors who are unhoused as well as communities of of business people and and residents who who have homes . So I really appreciate the creativity for Councilmember Lewis here and the sense of urgency, really. I was at the LAPD African-American Advisory Council meeting a couple weeks ago. I mentioned that in briefings a couple of weeks ago, and they were really distraught that they were not seeing investments in alternatives. And they were really concerned about an increase of violence in their in their communities. And, you know, just giving. Again, this is not this is not a criticism of of any city department or of our processes. But just to give another example, the $14 million in additional capacity building for public safety investments that the council voted on last November are not projected to be out the door until until August. And I think people are rightfully concerned about those investments and other investments within the context of our reductions to the police department being ones that can produce public safety outcomes. So again, thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for bringing this forward for discussion.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Next up, as Councilmember Morales and then Councilmember someone.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for bringing this forward. I will say that I don't intend to support the Bass bill here, but I do think that this is exactly what we mean. Supporting this sort of a deep investment in a program like Just Cares is exactly what we mean when we say that we should be shifting the SBT budget into critical services. Community safety means lots of different things and certainly supporting investments, a greater investment in our homeless services and community members and something as innovative and comprehensive as Just Cares meets that goal and meets that criteria. So I, I will be supporting this amendment. And whether we do this here or we do it with, you know, in a different way later this year, I think this is exactly the kind of direction we need to be going. And I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: As you can see here, Morales comes from a slum.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I support increasing funding for just care and I also support the participatory budgeting funds. So I oppose this amendment which pits those two good programs against each other. Remember, this was a bill to cut $5.4 million from the police department's budget to make up for the $5.4 million that they stole from the city last year by spending more than they were authorized to in amendment after amendment. This bill to remove $5.4 million from the police department was then reduced to 3.3 million and then a 5 million SBT proviso was effectively lifted and then a 2.5 million proviso was effectively lifted. So now this bill increases the funds that the police department has access to by 4.5 million, rather than decreasing it by 5.4 million. It has become the opposite of what it was when it started. Why does the funding for just care have to be taken from the funding for participatory budgeting? It should come from the money allocated to the police department, as has been promised by the Council again and again. My office this morning consulted with a leader in the Decriminalize Seattle organization this morning, this morning about this amendment, which they said they had not previously seen. And they raised that this amendment obscures the fact that the police department's budget is not being cut and instead good programs are being paid against each other. I agree with the arguments that Councilmember Lewis made that just get is a much better use of funds than the police. Absolutely. But unfortunately, what this amendment does is take those funds from participatory budgeting, not from the police. I would be happy to support an amendment that increases funds for just care by taking the money from the police budget, not in the form of putting good programs against each other. And so I will be voting no on this amendment. Councilmember Lewis expressed this going forward with what he called the cognitive dissonance of using funds that was previously planned for participatory budgeting. But let's be clear that this is particularly problematic because this bill as a whole no longer cuts $5.4 million from the police department. That was not the case. Then this amendment might have been different. So I'll be voting no.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your service. Are there any other comments or questions on proposed amendment to. Okay. All right, colleagues, I just really quickly wanted to chime in on this particular amendment. I don't think that the intent of Councilmember Lewis is to hit two good programs against each other. I see the intent and the desire here is to have additional resources to support a program that many of us have been very supportive of historically and I think will continue to be supportive of programs that are modeled after the Just Care Pilot program. I think my concern with this particular amendment is, is is that I do worry that what it would do is effectively take money that we had designated for participatory budget processes. And ahead of the designated process in the provisos that I sponsored last fall. Begin, begin the process of re appropriating those dollars to a different use. So I'm concerned about about that cognitive dissonance that Councilmember Lewis described in his opening remarks. But I also worried that that we have not done the necessary work with some of the impacted stakeholders to ensure that they understand what the effect and the impact would be of adoption of this particular amendment in the context of the of the the Base Council bill. So for for those reasons, I'm not going to be able to support the amendment in its current process and form and presentation. That does not mean that I am not supportive of just care and models like just care. I think we've all taken really strong votes and have taken important, important steps to make sure that that model is continued to be supported. And we, in fact, have the Seattle rescue plan before us. That was on today's introduction referral calendar that allocates no less than $49 million to additional homelessness and housing needs throughout the city, and will continue to have those conversations not just as part of tranche one of those federal dollars, but as tranche two of federal dollars. And I just want to make sure that that the viewing public understands that that that. Will continue to be an opportunity to meet the needs described by Councilmember Lewis, which I absolutely believe 100% of this council is an agreement that we need to do, and we must do more and more urgently to to meet the needs of those. We're unhoused in the impacts that that that creates on the city as a whole. So for that reason, we're going to be able to. To support this particular amendment at this juncture. Any other comments or questions before Casimir Lewis gets the last word. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So because we're loose, I'm going to ask you to make closing comments so we can close out debate here and call this amendment to a roll call.
Speaker 2: Go. I'll be brief, council president, because I know that there's probably going to be a lot of speeches on the underlying bill. So, you know, I appreciate the council's consideration and I do own that. This was sort of a spur of the moment amendment, so it wasn't really socialized with a lot of our partners. So, I mean, I'll own that. I do appreciate the discussion that it generated. I do think we should start to think of some of the salary savings that are being realized from police department attrition for projects like this, regardless of whether this amendment passes or fails. You know, I mean, another consideration that I'll just say here to you, I mean, for people who are advocates more about taking those savings and doubling down on. You know, increasing the resources for the police department. You know, the police department can only staff up so much in a given year. We funded their their hiring plan for the year already. This entire bill has absolutely no bearing on that. Our provider community can staff up faster to do some of the public safety work that a lot of people clamoring for for more police don't know it yet, but they're actually clamoring for people like just care to get hired . And I think that it could be a way for us to have a conversation that connect. There's a traditional salary savings where it's like, you know, we could hire more cops, not going to be here for three or four years because of how long it takes to hire them. Or we could hire some of these things that happen quicker. And, you know, hopefully this amendment discussion queues up a discussion like that. And, you know, I'm ready to to vote on it and move on to the underlying bill.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. That does conclude discussion on proposed Amendment two. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call a role on the adoption of amendment.
Speaker 1: To the House. Yes. Revolt? Yes. Whereas. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. No. What's that? I like Peterson. Oh. Salon? No. Council? President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Five in favor, four oppose.
Speaker 0: The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the Council. Are there. Now I'm going to open it up to comments on the bill as amended. So are there any further comments on the bill as amended? And Councilmember Herbold, you'll get the last word on the bill as we close out, as we close that debate. So, councilor slot, I see that your hand is raised. If anyone else wants to speak to the to the bill as amended, please do let me know by raising your hand because of this one, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This bill has become a farce. It has been amended and amended until it now does almost exactly the opposite of what it initially claimed to do. It is the bill that formally would have removed $5.4 million from the police department for socially beneficial purposes. And now, effectively, this bill increases the police department's budget by $4.5 million. As George Orwell said in 1984. Quote, The Ministry of Peace concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Truth concerned with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, and nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy. They are deliberate exercises in doublethink. And. This bill has become an important case study into how the political establishment, including the Democratic Party, shelters the police from accountability again and again. When the police murder of George Floyd inspired a mass movement for black lives across the country and around the world, thousands of Seattleites took to the streets, tens of thousands to the streets to protest police violence. Those overwhelmingly peaceful protesters were met with yet more police violence. Tens of millions of dollars in police overtime. Tear gas, pepper spray, blast balls, flashbang grenades. Airplanes with forward looking infrared. Real time video and mass arrests were used by the police to essentially wage urban warfare against the people of Seattle in the context of the largest street protest movement in U.S. history. The majority of the city council. Seven of the nine council members pledged to support the movement's demand to defund the police by at least 50%. City councils in other cities made similar promises when it came to the budget. However, on the Seattle City Council, I was the only elected representative to stand with the movement's demand. Not only did the majority of the council, all Democrats refuse to follow through on their pledge to defund the police by 50%. But also at the last council meeting of 2020, when the Council was told that the police had overspent their budget by $5.4 million to brutalize the Black Lives Matter movement. The majority of the council voted to retroactively give the police those $5.4 million extra. Again, I was the only council member to vote no. At the time, the majority of the council promised to take that $5.4 million from the city's 2021 budget to hold them accountable. And I warned at that time that that could not be trusted. And here we are. Do council members remember their promises to the Justice for George Floyd movement? Council members and members saying they support defunding the police by 50% last summer. Then do council members remember saying that they cannot defund the police by 50% in 2020 because reducing the number of police officers would take up to four months , but that they promised to do so in 2021. Then do council members remember saying they cannot defund the police by 50% in 2021 because that would require reducing the number of officers in 2021? And before they do that, they will first need to research out of order layoffs. As a side note, doing police layoffs out of order was never a demand of the Black Lives Matter movement. Then do council members remember adding $5.4 million to the police budget in December of 2020, but promising to remove it again in 2021? Now going team members are saying that out of order layoffs of police are not possible. And please forget that they ever promised to reduce the size of the police force and forget about removing $5.4 million that the police extorted in 2020. No. Rather than a bill that has the police breaking even by cutting in 2021, what was added in 2020? This bill has been amended again and again until it actually add to the police's available budget. It cuts $3 million from the police budget with one hand and gives the police access to $7.5 million with the other hand by lifting two provisos. As Malcolm X famously said, If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, that's not progress. Essentially, the R consequence, the police department's consequence for going over budget last year is to get extra money this year. This is what police accountability looks like to the Democratic Party's establishment. Ultimately, this is about the power of mass movements on the streets. At the height of the movement, council members promised to defund the police by 50%. A couple of months later, that was reduced to just a couple percentage points 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 that we must depend on our own strength and not put our faith in the establishment. Finally, I would also like to respond to the excuse that has been circulated that the Council cannot defund the police without the agreement of the federal monitor. I want to be clear. Also, members vote on the budget, not the Federal Monitor and council members are responsible for their own votes. If council members agree with the Federal Monitor or any other part of the political establishment, that is their political decision. But it is not something that the federal monitor decides it down to. The city council is the city's highest legislative body. I do not agree with the Federal Monitor or any part of the political establishment. And my vote as my votes always and including this one, will reflect that. If council members were serious about defunding the police, they would pass the budget that defund the police. What would Judge Roberts to place an injunction on the city budget as a whole? That's not realistic. So instead, we get letters from the federal monitor expressing concern and council members fear mongering that those letters are legally binding court decisions , which they are not. Of course, if council members were serious about defunding the police, they would certainly not be increasing the police budget, which is what this bill does now. Working people will both need to get organized and fight to win an elected community oversight board with full powers over the police, including hiring and firing subpoena powers and policies and procedures. My observation from having talked to hundreds of people in a politically broad spectrum is that even the working people who are not sure about defunding also strongly support an elected community oversight with full powers over the police. This bill is not accountability. It is the opposite. And if you track its progression over the last year, it shows the myriad of ways the political establishment protects the police from accountability. There are conservative politicians who openly advocate for police violence. There are liberal politicians who pretend to be horrified by police violence but always have an excuse for not following through on their promises. There are federal courts who throughout history have defended the power structures of the ruling class against movements and ordinary people to the point that the consent decree against police violence is used to prevent grassroots efforts to stop police violence. This is what it means when our movement says we need system change. This is why I am a socialist. I voted against the substitute bills in the committee that transformed a $5.4 million. Police got to a $4.5 million police ad because those substitute amendments have gone from this bill. I will now vote no on this final bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kels. Verizon. Are there any other comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember words, please.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm going to vote to support. And I hope I say this right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to support Councilmember Herbold, which means that she. So you'll figure that part out. But let me just say what I what I want to say, and I'm not going to. I always respect what Councilmember Stewart has to share with us. But in the real world, we don't always have the luxury to just talk about the political establishment or completely disagree all the time with a federal court judge or a court monitor. And sometimes it's just not realistic to just completely and decisively decide that you're going to wipe out a whole police department. We do have a charter that we have to uphold, whether it's one officer or 1200 officers. We have to have something there. And I think what this council has demonstrated in the last year is that public safety is community safety, and community safety is protectors, not warriors. And more officers doesn't make us more safe. And I think we all agree on that. I don't think there's no need to. Point fingers and call names and we call the Democratic establishment or whatever. So meanwhile, back on Earth, I just want to say this, particularly to Councilmember Morales. I want to end this chapter because I think it's caused, as you've all heard me say before, a lot of trauma. And I want to start the healing. And I think Councilwoman Morales, with her hard work and tenacity, is going to allow us not only to close the chapter, but to begin a new chapter with participatory budgeting. And I agree with the council president. We're not pitting one idea against the other. Both can be true and it will continue to be true. And we will continue to do that because as elected leaders, we can't just pander to our base or to a echo chamber. We have to represent all of Seattle and the needs of our city. And if anything, over this year, I think what we've learned is that we are going to reimagine and redirect funds from the police to upstream projects to take away from the harm in the trauma that has happened in our communities. Everyone agrees about that, and for the first time, what we're learning is we're finally putting together a plan. It's not perfect, and not everyone will always agree. And I want to thank Council member Lewis for bringing this forward to shift the 2 million over to the just care. So whether it's participatory budgeting, whether it's just care, these are conversations that we weren't having a year ago or six months ago. And now we are through the leadership of everybody. I am in the camp of closure. Being decisive, being a leader, making a decision and moving forward and moving on. And I'm also in the camp of believing in this great city and healing. And I think that's what's going to happen today. That's how I'm going to vote today. And. I think we've all been through a lot, and I don't think it does us any good to continue the divisiveness. We've all experienced different levels of frustration, and I think Councilmember Lewis outlined some of that. When people come to us, call us when they want camp removals, when they are upset about the homeless, when they're upset about the police. And I think that we've seen it in the city. Sorry about that. And we've seen it nationally, not just in this great city, but across this nation. And I'm ready to turn the page. And get some stuff done. So I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And you can't awards for those comments. I really appreciate it. Next up is Customer Morales.
Speaker 1: I will be brief. I will say that I voted against this bill twice in committee, so I don't think my vote is going to be a surprise here. And, you know, I think for me, this really does come back to the original intent of this bill, which had been to hold the department accountable for their overspending. They've already acknowledged that they could absorb the, you know, reduction through salary savings. And if they find later that they have additional needs, they can always come back to council to request additional funds. That's how we hold the department accountable. The only thing that in their request that isn't new, that we know that they are obliged to pay is the separation pay. And again, salary savings could cover this. So my feeling about this is that Sbv created its own funding crisis when they decided to overspend on overtime last summer, and giving the department more funding won't prevent crime. It won't address homelessness or reduce substance abuse. It won't improve mental health outcomes for our community members. Only investing in community services will do that. And so our goal, I think, which we share, should be investing public dollars in a way that can actually change community conditions on the ground so that it leads to better health and well-being for our neighbors. And rewarding city for overspending outside of its budget authority won't accomplish that. So I cannot support this bill and will be voting whichever way it is that registers that disagreement.
Speaker 0: Okay. Because there's some.
Speaker 1: Some.
Speaker 0: Some lack of procedural understanding, as you all frame your thoughts here, a yes vote on council bill. Whatever the bill is, number is is an actual yes vote on passage of the bill. A no vote is you're voting the bill down. So. And look at Councilmember Herbold is disagreeing with me and also confused. She thinks she's supposed to also vote no. So that that I'm going to call upon the clerk. My understanding is that there is a recommendation from the committee to not pass the bill. But my understanding is that that doesn't that doesn't change how a yes or no vote effectuate the passage of this bill. So, Madam Clerk, can you just help us understand, is it the inverse or is it business as usual in terms of how we vote here? Council President Gonzalez It is confusing because the committee recommendation was to not pass, but in order to bring it forward today, we had to make a motion to pass the bill. So the motion before us right now is to pass this bill as we just had it amended. So if you are in favor of the underlying bill, you are going to vote to pass it. But if you're opposed to the underlying bill, you're going to not. Which is totally opposite of what came out of committee. But that's where we're at. I apologize for the confusion. No, no, no. I just want to note for the record that my procedural prowess and I remain the queen of process here. So I am feeling like that's a win already for this week. So again.
Speaker 5: If you want this bill to pass.
Speaker 0: In spite of the committee recommendation, you're going to vote yes. Okay. You want this bill to fail consistent with the committee's recommendation for a do not pass thing, you're going to vote no on the. Okay.
Speaker 5: You are the queen.
Speaker 0: Somebody send me a crown. All right. Next up is I think hold on. Let me look at this. Got a little Keesmaat Peterson is next. And then Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president. First, I'd like to commend Councilmember Herbold for her hard work as chair of Public Safety Committee and her her work to craft a compromise on this bill. Even though I'm not an agreement on several elements of it, I just want to commend her for trying to work through this and come up with a compromise and echo many of the comments that council from Juarez mentioned. I have worked hard to be clear and consistent for my constituents, and at this time I cannot support what I see as additional cuts to public safety until effective alternatives are in place. This council bill is complex, especially with the amendments, but at the end of the day, it continues to reduce resources from our police department at a time when we are seeing record breaking attrition of officers. So I will be voting no. I believe it's premature to label the loss of police officers through attrition as budgetary savings that can be immediately scooped away and spent elsewhere. The record breaking attrition of officers is alarming, and response times to priority number one calls are too long. By the end of the year, I want to be sure the department has the funds it needs to hire more crime prevention officers, to retain good officers to ramp up recruitment of diverse and progressive officers, to implement the federal consent decree and heed the warnings of the federal judge and monitor to increase training to return experienced officers to community policing work instead of working overtime on patrol. Yes, let's let's lift the budget provisos to free up some of those dollars, but not by ultimately cutting more with the other hand. While the intentions were positive, I believe this bill has become a distraction since it was can since it was conceived six months ago. Despite the well-intentioned amendments at committee and today, I believe this bill sends an unproductive and negative message to the remaining government workers and public safety field who are already stretched thin. It also takes time and attention away from the most impactful task at hand for justice and reform. And that's revamping the unjust, inflexible and expensive contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild. So I look forward to getting back to supporting the work of our Labor Relations Policy Committee so they can revise the police contract in a way that's positive for the community, for the officers, for the budget, and for sustainable and systemic justice. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Maybe it gets more. PIERSON Because we're almost at a place. Thank you. Council President. I, too, want to thank council member Herbold. Cosmo Herbold Thank you very much. As Chair of Public Safety. You have really taken the reins in shepherding this bill through your committee. And we know that that's been no small task, that this has been months of work, and it's been increasingly made more difficult when the chief and the executive offices have weighed in, when the judge and the court monitor have been weighing in. This legislation, I believe, was intended to hold us accountable for their overspending last year. And our intent, as we described at the end of last year, was to use the council's power of the purse and the legislative branch, as we are supposed to do, to ensure that the executive agencies spend within the bounds of their budget and to make sure that there has been a reckoning or a balancing between this year's budget in a speedy and last year's overspend. As we heard in the Budget Committee just last month, it is very highly irregular for our council to be asked to authorize spending after the fact and to have a retroactive authority granted should be something that is very uncommon and happen very infrequently. But that's not been the practice here as it relates to speed. Not only is it highly irregular, it's out of alignment with what we see in the states are S.W. 3532 A where it says there shall be no orders, authorizations, allowance, allowances, contracts or payments made or attempted to be made in excess of the expenditure allowances authorized in the final budget or is adopted or modified, and any such attempt in excess expenditure shall be void. That's what the RTW says. Yet that's exactly what happened last year. And so the provisos that we put into place we now know were ignored or dismissed by speeding at the time , and instead what spending was authorized for last year is our priorities that the Council did not want to see prioritized. And what it left on the table for funding was things that the Council absolutely wants prioritized, like payment for family leave and benefits and severance. These are items that we could not simply just not pay. So at the time, just as a reminder, the council authorized an after the fact authorization for those payments. That overspend total was 5.4 million. And there was a desire and I think there continues to be a desire by me that this budget rectifies that overspend and that this year's budget corrects for the overspend that SPV created in terms of their debt from last year, that the $5.4 million number is not arbitrary. It comes from the following three items in last year's overspend by a speedy 1.9 million FEMA reimbursement, 1.9 million in parental leave payback, and 1.6 million in separation pay. All of these things we knew were important to pay, but unfortunately, those were left to be paid instead of the department paid money on items that we heard about during testimony today. We've seen the videos and we've heard from firsthand, firsthand accounts of where people had been that with excessive force for expressing their First Amendment rights at the protests that were taking place just a year ago this week. The testimonials today constitute, I think, a makeshift tribunal on what was experienced at the time of protests a year ago. And we remain, I think, as a council committed to making sure that there is accountability for those pieces, not only accountability for the overspend in the budget, but accountability for the situations that we continue to hear about on a daily basis and that we're outlined in today's public testimony. We remain in the midst of a federal consent decree that's almost a decade old now. And we also remain committed to addressing the call for action from the folks who have been calling in for over a year to make sure that we align we realign our investments into things like mental health and case managers, making sure that homeless folks have social service providers showing up, and that when there's a traffic infraction, that we don't have armed officers showing up for these things. The council has begun some very important efforts, a lot of those efforts led by Councilmember Herbold through her committee and ongoing work in the budget last year. And I appreciate that those investors initial investments were made to align our values to what the community has been calling for and to divest in areas that have been overinvested in over the year. On this bill. I think that what we are trying to do is what we were trying to do was respond to the need to balance that $5.4 million addition that council was forced to make last year and to remove it from this year's budget. And doing that while also having to respond to the calls from the court monitor and judge, I think that made this bill a little bit out of alignment with what we were originally intending to do. I disagree with the concerns and the fears cited by the court in the monitor, and I hope that the court and the court monitor do listen to all of the public testimony that was provided today through this quasi tribunal that was offered via public comment, and that there is a careful examination of the central staff memo that accompanied the conversation around this bill. Notably, the Council has not put speedy in a position where they are not able to respond to emergency calls or perform basic functions. And the department does have the resources to fulfill the full hiring plan as we funded last year. Central Staff's Memo does the math that shows that Spd's entire staffing model is still fully funded and that it is expected that there will be 13 millions in salary savings over the course of this year. I think it's important to continue to remember that Spd's hiring plan, as requested by the mayor and the department, is still intact and that it can be what was known to be reasonably accomplished was fully funded. Through the committee process, we've learned that due to continued higher than attrition rates, that $13 million in salary savings is anticipated. And I am hopeful that with this bill, if it does not pass today, that we can direct those funds, those 13 million to things where I think that there is common agreement between what the bill offers and what I think we all would like to see. And that's more a quick response and accurate and adequate response to the public records request. Making sure more funding goes into community service officers. The I.T. needs the physical storage of space. And even if we were to fund all of those things and fully fund the and fully make the $5.4 million cut so that we could both fund just cares and participatory budgeting, there would still be over $5 million in unspent dollars at the end of this year. I think today's testimony was very powerful. I think it's heartbreaking that the stories have continued to surface about the violence, which has upset her. And I do hope that this testimony from today helps to paint a full picture of the issues that we have been trying to address, trying to rectify in this year's actions and last year's budget. But unfortunately, on this bill today, I will be voting no because I am concerned about the $5 million proviso that's being lifted. I'm concerned that there's not a full $5.4 million cut, though I appreciate that. It's a mere $3 million in cuts that's been suggested here. And I will continue to work with my colleagues here and look forward to continuing to work with the community to continue the path to make sure that we are holding accountable the department that overspent their budget outside of what the RTW directs the department to stay with within, and that we continue our efforts to reimagine and reinvest in community services and decrease the situations in which an armed officer is being required to show up again. The city of Austin, Seattle, New York and Los Angeles are among the four cities that are continually held up as being on the right path towards reimagining. And that work is not done, and we will continue even after today. But I appreciate the work that's gone into this, and I recognize the incredible obstacles that the good chair has had to address. Well, considering this legislation and I really appreciate her work and we're going to we will not be able to. Thank you, Councilor Muscat. Are there any other comments? On the bill as amended. Okay, colleagues, I just really wanted to quickly make some remarks as well. I do want to, like so many others have. Start by acknowledging Councilmember Herbold is hard work over the last several months to make progress on this legislation and to try to develop a sound and well-reasoned approach to this particular budget action that the Council has literally been considering since December. And so I do really appreciate her willingness, councilmember her willingness to engage all of the parties that have expressed concern or interest in our legislation over the past several months. That includes community advocates, CPD and the mayor's office, and also the Monitor and Department of Justice Representatives, as well as members of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. And I think that the fact that it appears that almost all of the stakeholders involved in this budget action or who have interest in this budget action, appear to be to be similarly dissatisfied with the current version of this legislation. I don't think that that's a reflection on Councilmember Hubbard's policy work and efforts in the background to get us a piece of legislation that we could potentially support. But I do think it's a reflection and the result of, quite simply put, the deep division that exists in our city on the issue of policing and and their budgets. So I think, you know, fortunately, despite Councilmember Hubbell's well-intentioned and thoughtful attempts to find a compromise solution here on this particular bill, I will be voting consistent with my vote in committee, which is a vote against this bill, as I expressed during the Public Safety Committee's discussion of this legislation. My reasons for voting no on this bill are a little different. I feel I feel primarily that it's premature for us to be making several of the budget actions that the bill proposes. We compromise on including cuts to the Seattle Police Department's budget that the Monitor has significant concerns with. I believe it's important that we have further engagement with the Monitor to provide additional explanation about how this cut will impact or more importantly, not impact the department's ongoing operations, specifically the staffing plan. It also, of course, lifts the $5 million proviso on the speedy staffing plan. In my opinion, I think it's still too early in the year to fully lift or begin the process of lifting the proviso in order to give us additional flexibility with our budget. I'd like to continue to have you know, we of course, continue to have significant policy disagreements with with leadership about how they manage the department's budget, including overtime. And so I continue to believe that this proviso right now serves an important role as an accountability mechanism. And it's my position that the council needs to retain this proviso, the $5 million proviso in place until later in the year, so that we can effectively execute our oversight role and ensure the Department is not expending resources in a manner counter to the policies set by this Council. So again, I think that more appropriate time for us to consider those lives would be in the fall budget process when we have a better understanding and fuller context of what MPD budget will be at the end of the year. We know that the executive will be back before the Council with proposed budget changes later this year. That's going to include costs associated with grant acceptances, special events, overtime cost, separation, pay, pay, family medical leave reimbursement. These are all issues that may need to be addressed, may need to be addressed via a supplemental ordinance or through the ordinary budget process. So months from now, when the council's making these decisions on a city's budget. I believe we will have more flexibility to take more thoughtful action if the proviso is still in place and if any of the other provisos are still in place. So for these reasons, I am going to vote consistent with my committee vote, which is a no vote on this particular version of the Council bill, but do deeply appreciate everybody's hard work on. This is not easy and I know that we are all reaching our votes for some similar reasons and some different reasons. But. But I hope we can continue to move forward on this really critical issue together with as much consensus as possible. So with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to close out debate so we can call this bill to a roll call. You. Sorry about that.
Speaker 4: Just a quick note. So closing out the discussion first, want to respond to a number of the comments I heard from folks during public testimony, speaking to their experiences with excessive use of less lethal weapons, which can be lethal. I appreciate the testimony and regret these experiences in our city. I do want to say that this is another issue that is under the purview of the consent decree. The Council adopted legislation prohibiting the use of most less lethal weapons. The judge overseeing the consent decree placed a restraining order on the council's legislation and criticized the legislation for not protecting public safety. The legislation under the consent decree requires his approval, so just barreling ahead in this instant means that nothing has happened. We have no ban or regulations unless lethal weapons similarly barreling ahead with the budget bill risk the same outcome that no budget reduction will happen. In my opinion, calling your vote about a political win on either side of this issue. Yes, those who don't support any cut at all don't like this bill. And those who want the cut to be bigger don't like it either. But this bill is not about a number. It's about bringing about accountability. The objective of this bill is to exercise fiscal oversight of the Seattle Police Department while simultaneously funding important public safety investments in areas where there was broad agreement and heeding the authority of the consent decree in these matters where the court is suggesting suggesting our actions overlap with consent decree obligation over the last to still was voted out of committee with a do not pass recommendation with three votes in opposition to despite the fact that the majority of committee members three members voted in favor of the amendment on May 11th and in favor of substituting the original bill for a smaller budget reduction in March over the summer and fall budget cycles. The council listened to people calling for a 50% cut to the Seattle police to budget budget. And we also listen to people who opposed it. And we demonstrated that we can listen to multiple voices in our city and compromise to meet our objective, objective to redefine public safety in our city. The ability to listen to multiple voices is critical to change moving forward. The councilmember mosquitoes point that request for funding after the fact should be rare. I agree, but it's June and this separation and technology needs funding. Funding needs were identified by speed in February. If this bill fails, we are virtually guaranteeing that this dysfunction will happen again later this year. To council President Gonzalez's point about the timing of the $5 Million proviso left. Just a reminder, this is not a full lift. This is a gradual lift as we get reports from us. PD and respectfully. This was in the amendments supported back in March that that we, the majority of committee members voted in favor of bringing it in front of us. And if there was concerns about that approach, I would have happily considered a different approach had I known. Speedy's highest spending is during the summer and as we found out last year during the supplemental budget process, most of the money will already have been spent. We'll hear a vote today. Please do not allow both those who do not want us to exercise oversight of a speedy budget at all, as well as those who advocate for an all or nothing approach to revert us back to the status quo. If this bill doesn't pass, there will be no budget cut at all. So council members who wish to support the investments in the bill and the Council's fiscal accountability over a speedy. I urge you to vote. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your final remarks. That does conclude debate on this particular bill. So at this point, I'm going to ask the clerk there, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: KRAUSS No. Her bold. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. MORALES No. Must get to.
Speaker 0: Know.
Speaker 1: PETERSON No. Silent? No. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 5: Three in favor, five opposed.
Speaker 0: Key. The motion fails and the bill does not pass. Okay, colleagues, thank you so much for that conversation and that debate. Again, I really want to appreciate all of the hard work that has that went into that very long legislative process. And again, that my deep gratitude and thanks to Councilmember Herbold, who is our current public safety and Human Services Chair, having served in that role for four years, I understand how difficult and challenging it is, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and the work that you continue to do. And and I know that you will continue to lead us and work with all of us on these really important issues. So thank you so much for your effort. Okay. Next up is item eight. Will the court please read the short title of item eight into the record?
|
Council Bill (CB)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; and adding or modifying provisos.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 120086
|
Speaker 4: The Report of the land used in neighborhoods.
Speaker 0: Committee agenda Item eight Council Bill 120086 An ordinance relating to the transfer of city.
Speaker 4: Property located at.
Speaker 0: 5 to 5 North 85th Street. Authorizing the convenience of the property to the Finnie Neighborhood Association, a Washington nonprofit corporation consistent with the intent of Resolution 31856 and to provide for the continued delivery of social services.
Speaker 4: The committee recommends the.
Speaker 0: Bill pass as amended. Thank you so much, Cassandra Strauss. You are the chair of the committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through the report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President and thank you, Deputy Clerk Schwinn. CB 12086 Transferring the property at 525 North 85th Street to the Finney Neighborhood Association enacts a transfer of the Greenwood Senior Center from the city to the Finney Neighborhood Association, which currently operates the the Senior Center. This transfer is being done in line with the city's process for mutually offsetting benefit properties, and it was meant to be transmitted to council last year alongside the transfers of Byrd Barr Place in the Central Area Senior Center. Unfortunately, it was delayed and it's now before us, so this was intended to be part of that package. Under the terms of the transfer, if any neighborhood association would receive ownership of the property and would be obligated to continue providing the social services associated with the senior center. Additionally, should a future redevelopment on the site occur, the agreement requires that affordable housing that any housing be affordable to 80% of the area. Median income and at least half of the units would be affordable to 60% of the area median income. We made one amendment in committee from Councilmember Peterson. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for your amendment to clarify language that allows the city to reclaim ownership in the event that any neighborhood association does not meet its obligations. I can tell you many in our community have been very eagerly awaiting the passage of this bill, and I look forward to passage today. I recommend a yes vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing on the clock. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: Sounds great. Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Suarez I. Lewis? Yes. Morales s most thorough. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: So aren't. Yes. Council. President Gonzalez, I am in favor when opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item nine into the record? Agenda Item nine Council Bill.
Speaker 4: 120084 An Ordinance.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the transfer of City property located at 525 North 85th Street; authorizing the conveyance of the property to the Phinney Neighborhood Association, 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_06012021_CB 120084
|
Speaker 4: 120084 An Ordinance.
Speaker 0: Relating to land disturbing activity. Updating the greeting code to align with updates to other codes and amending sections. 22.170.02. 0.050.060.070.110.190 of the Seattle Animal Code.
Speaker 4: The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. And colleagues, my apologies for not using my camera. My my Wi-Fi here is glitching a little bit, so it seems to improve when I turn the video off. If that resolves, I'll make sure to turn my video back on. But in the meantime, to hand this over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the chair of the committee and is going to walk us through this piece of legislation.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president and thank you, Deputy Clerk, showing the this legislation and the next two bills are all related to the technical codes that are updated regularly by the State Department of Construction Inspection. These bills come to council after years long process processes that begin with updates to internal guidelines and eventually continues on to state level updates and finally, city level updates. This legislation specifically is updating the grading code, which is flat surfaces without subterranean anything and no buildings. This will be the first update to the grading codes since 2009 and the updates are minimal. Examples of the changes in this code include requiring a grading permit when land disturbing activity on a site exceeds 5000 square feet rather than one acre, requiring a grading permit whenever groundwater is being extracted and broadening the definition of potentially hazardous location to include any site on EPA or ecology list form this investigation or cleanup of contamination . This is technical in nature and I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, colleagues. 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: Else?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold as. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes. Hostetter, I. Peterson Yes. Want. Yes. Council President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the first please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item ten into the record? And the short title is fine. Jan Item ten Council Bill 120083 An ordinance relating to Seattle's construction codes amending section 7.13.1, 3.7 and 16131.1.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land disturbing activity; updating the Grading Code to align with updates to other codes; and amending Sections 22.170.020, 22.170.050, 22.170.060, 22.170.070, 22.170.080, 22.170.110, and 22.170.190 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 120085
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will Clark, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item 11 into the record? Agenda Item 11 Council Bill.
Speaker 4: 120085.
Speaker 0: An ordinance relating to boiler and Steam Engine Operations meaning chapters.
Speaker 4: 6.420 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss Greer, the chair of this committee. And I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through this legislation.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Deputy Clerk When this is the last of the three bills, S.B. 120085, which is relating to boiler and steam engine operations. This is the final of our technical code changes and updates. The Steam Engineer and Boiler Operator Licensing Code, which was last updated in 2006. The changes include updating the code to reflect the process that has moved online since the last update and adds exemptions for individuals installing boilers on manufacturer instructions and requiring applicants for a license to attest to their training and experience and require that any fees be paid in a month in advance of licensing. We urge a yay vote on this highly technical bill. If we had been here yesterday, if we had not had a holiday on Monday, we would still be in the month of May, which was building safety month. I would have been able to say This is the end, concludes the end of our Building Safety Month by updating our codes. Instead, I hope that everyone enjoyed May Building Safety Month. Thank you. Counts President Obama. I urge vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Are there any additional comments on this bill? Hearing on a little clip, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mesquita, I. Peterson, I. Sawant Yes. Council President Gonzales. I am not in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record? Agenda Item 12.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to boiler and steam engine operations; amending Chapter 6.420 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120000
|
Speaker 0: The Report of the Community and Economic Development Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 120000. An Ordinance relating to the Organization of the Office for Civil Rights amending Section 3.14.910 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the end of the director's term and remove an outdated subsection requiring a racial equity toolkit. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Like so much Councilman Morales, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you, colleagues. So this is a bill that would, as the clerk mentioned, extend the term of the Office of Civil Rights Director from December 2021 to December 2022. And just by way of a little bit of background to try to give you some context here, in 2017, councilmembers heard a variety of concerns from stakeholders that the Office of Civil Rights Structure and authority within the executive branch could possibly limit its ability for the department to fulfill its mission. And so the council at that time passed an ordinance that provided that the next Office of Civil Rights Director would be confirmed by council with just cause removal protections and a limited term that would end in 2021. So the reason for this extension is kind of a twofold. The first, some of that work is still continuing, and so there is an interest in that transition that would be implemented by that legislation, having a consistent director, stable director leadership position for the next year until that work is complete. And the second reason is that extending the term is one of the measures that could provide greater independence. And by which I mean, it would allow for the directorship to have staggered terms with the appointing authority. So that's part of the two of the reasons why this extension for one year is being requested. The intent here is not to continue to extend the directorship, but to just extend for this one year. I also want to take a minute just to express my strong support for the implementation of Racial Equity Toolkit recommendations that came out of this work. As a former human rights commissioner, I participated in the extensive process that culminated in that report. And it did include input from community members, from workers, from other human rights commissioners at the time. So I'm eager for that work to get completed. And I do want to thank Councilmember Herbold for bringing forth the original slide in 2017 to examine how we can strengthen the Office of Civil Rights. And as I mentioned, this was passed out of committee with a recommendation that it do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Morales, are there any comments from council members on this bill? House members, what is your hand up? Oh, that might be a holdover. It looks like it was a holdover. So, yes. Councilman Morales, thank you for recognizing myself as the author of the slide that led to the work of recommendations from led by OCR and delivered to the Council. I think in late 2019 I was also the sponsor of the legislation that we are amending today and just mentioning that, just to let my colleagues know that as the sponsor of that legislation that created a term and created a requirement for a just cause reason for termination that I do in fact support this legislation. That there are no further comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: So why aren't? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales As there are, I think.
Speaker 1: PETERSON Yes.
Speaker 3: Council president pro tempore vote yes. Seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 2: 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? Item number two. Will the clerk please read item number two into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the organization of the Office for Civil Rights; amending Section 3.14.910 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the end of the Director’s term and remove an outdated subsection requiring a racial equity toolkit.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120065
|
Speaker 0: The Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item three Council Bill 120065 An ordinance relating to Emergency Communications amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget. Transferring positions from the Seattle Police Department to the Community Safety and Communication Center and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed with a divided report with councilmembers Herbold and Lewis in favor. Councilmember Gonzalez opposed and councilmembers Morales and Sewell abstaining.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. As chair of committee, I will address this item. This legislation itself moves both the PEOC and the 901 dispatch out of the police department and into the new Safety and Communications Center. As mentioned this morning, I am bringing an amendment to this bill which was posted with the agenda. And so what I will do first is I will move to amend Council Bill City Council Bill 12 0065 as presented on Amendment one of the agenda. And after I have a second, I will describe that amendment. Thank you. At this time. I'm calling for a second. There's a second. Thank you so much. So the amendment itself alters the bill as introduced and as heard in committee. Again, the bill, as heard in committee, moves both the post and the 911 dispatch out of the Seattle Police Department and moves both into the new community safety and communications venue. This amendment will ensure that we are only moving the 911 dispatch out of the police department and into the Community Safety and Communication Center. And we are maintaining the peals in speedy until a later date. I believe we're looking at bringing this up again sometime before September. And so with that can I will move Amendment one and if I could get a second to Amendment 1/2. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment One. Are there any comments or questions about this action? I am. Okay, Councilman Mosqueda.
Speaker 0: Oh, thank you, Madam President. Madam President, pro tem, I appreciate you doing this. And I just wanted to note the importance of you taking these steps today and look forward to the future conversations. But I think that this is a smart move for now, and I know there will be more conversations out, but I just wanted to thank you for the approach that you're taking with this topic in today's discussion and look forward to continuing to engage with you and various members of our city family and members of the public, as well as we all remain committed to that, to the goals that we talked about last year. And those details working out those details is really going to matter in the next few months here. So thanks for all of your work here and look forward to engaging in the next steps.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Any other comments on the amendment? Councilman Morales. Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I do want to thank you as well for this approach. I am hoping to have additional conversations with folks. I think, you know, last week Councilmember Lewis indicated some real discomfort with trying to walk a line between or really get between two different unions in the city. And our I think it's really important that we have a clear understanding from the different perspectives of our city employees. You know, why they think one is preferred over the other. I have not been able to have those conversations yet. And so I appreciate the opportunity to move forward with the 911 call response and to get my questions answered. A little more time to get my questions answered about the the parking enforcement side of this equation. So thank you for pulling that piece out.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, pro tem, I made my comments this morning during a briefing, but I think for for the record, for the afternoon meeting, I should just briefly mention as well, similar to the sentiment Councilmember Morales expressed, that I think it is always hard for us as a as a progressive, pro-labor council when two members of our broader Labor family have different views on a policy, although I would say a common interest. Right. I mean, there's unanimity that this we want to move this work function out of speed. There is some dispute on exactly where we're going to send them. And I do think that this would benefit from some additional time where we can use our relationships and in our appreciation of service for both Protec and for the parking enforcement bill. To better understand a way to resolve this and equitably and in a way that doesn't divide the labor movement. So I do appreciate this approach. And and I think that this time between now and the fall will be productive and resolving this in a good way. So thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, I want to just take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts of those to engage with this council, both back in in September through November and sort of the development of of their worker led mission for how they can play a role in reimagining public safety in in the city. And as and as well their their continued engagement even today as we consider this legislation and look forward to ongoing conversations moving forward to see if we can reach some agreement on on these really important policy issues. With that not seeing any further questions, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One.
Speaker 3: So on. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales As was Sarah Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Council president, pro tem. Honorable. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amendment amended bill is now before the council. Are there any further questions or comments? Councilmember want.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Pro-Tem Herbold. I will be voting yes on this bill, but I just wanted to make some comments about where I feel the things are. This bill moves the positions from the Seattle Police Department's employment roles to the employment roles of the new Community Safety and Communication Center. In the past, Seattle's political establishment have pretended that this is the demand of the Justice for George Floyd movement and conflating completed it with the real demand to defund the police. In reality, and this is overwhelmingly an accounting mechanism. As I said, I'm I support this, but I think we have to be accurate in characterizing what it is with parking enforcement. There is zero change in the function performed by the city staff who are engaged in it with the 911 911 call center. Some community members hope that this is the first step to creating a community safety structure where police are not always dispatched when there's situations like mental health emergencies. However, that continues to be an aspiration for the future, and this bill that the council is voting on today only changes the accounting lines. So as I said, I will continue to support this bill, but I do not agree with the attempts, ongoing attention conflated with defunding the police. In fact, there is a danger actually when it is described as something akin to the demands that the Black Lives Matter movement brought forward last year. The right wing pretends that police do not have the money to fight crime when in reality these accounting being changes. Although nothing about the number of police officers in Seattle and the amount of policing in Seattle, the only changes in the name of the department signing the paychecks for these some departments. I'm concerned that the mayor may try to increase the police budget for 2022, claiming that she is only returning it to its normal level when in reality that would be a massive expansion of the police budget because these accounting breaks have moved major expenses of formerly move them off the SBT box. I will vote yes on this legislation, but I urge Black Lives Matter activists to remain vigilant to stop the political establishment from misrepresenting what is done by these accounting transfers.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Swan. I'm not quite sure if Councilmember Lewis, you have your hand up again.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. Pro tem. I did just want to come in and say, while I appreciate Councilmember Swan's characterization, that, you know, that this is going to change how these employees are paid, there are more significant structural changes that come with the transfer that we're doing under this provision. I mean, the 911 dispatchers will now be under civilian command and control in a new department that has an interim director in the new communications civilian department. I do want to take advantage of this opportunity to maybe just foreshadow Madam President pro tem, the work that our offices have been doing in collaboration with providers, with the Defender Association and with other jurisdictions and cities through the the Sprint team process that you discussed during your comments at council briefing this morning that those conversations have new life breathed into them in terms of the realm of possibilities by this transfer of the dispatchers being under civilian command and control and no longer being under the control of a sworn police captain, which was the previous arrangement that we are ending with this vote today. So I just want to indicate that while it is the case that a lot of it is a technical and accounting and administrative change, there are some real considerable changes in terms of who the dispatch is accountable to and what the incentives of that bureaucracy are and what the policy remedies can be on the future of how we do dispatch by the change we are making today. That does represent a very structural shift in our ability to re calibrate and re hook up our dispatch apparatus to things that are not police response systems. And we are taking that first step today and look forward to continuing that work over the course of this year.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Any other comments on the bill or. We request the. I'm calling it the roll. I'm not seeing any requests for comment or questions. So with that, with a part, please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 3: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. S mosquera.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: PETERSON Yes.
Speaker 3: Council president, pro tem HERBOLD. Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Thank you so much. Item number 13, we've moved up from the amended agenda so that we can hear item number 13 directly following the related item that we just voted on . Item number three. Clerk Will you please read the item 13 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to emergency communications; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; transferring positions from the Seattle Police Department to the Community Safety and Communications Center; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120078
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 120078 An ordinance relating to Emergency Communications Amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, modifying a proviso and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 12 0078. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the item. I will real quickly explain what it is and open the floor in case there are additional comments. As mentioned previously, part of the Council's action during the fall budget deliberations were to include a proviso in the legislation that directed the executive to move nine one dispatch and the PICOS into the new Community Safety and Communications Center. The proviso was a date by which we expected the move to occur and the impact of not authorizing the move by that time was is that simply that the folks in those those two units would would not be paid? Now, given that we don't have agreement around the moving of the PEOC from Speed to the Community Safety and Communications Center by the deadline that we imposed for the Executive, we now don't ourselves have an ability to to move that forward just now without additional conversation. It's really important that we extend the proviso until September in order for the unit to be paid. So with that, are there any additional comments or questions? About this item. I am not seeing any. So with that little part, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: So on. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: MORALES. Yes. To.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Council president, pro tem Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Seven in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you so much. Moving on to the next committee report, Transportation and Utilities Committee item number four, will the clerk please read item number four into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to emergency communications; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; modifying a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120053
|
Speaker 0: High Council Bill Agenda Item six Council Bill 120053 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 Surveillance Impact Report and 2020 Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of Forward Looking Infrared. Real Time Video. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that on Council Bill 12 0052, I recognize that I did not mention that the bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask that the clerk either fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Thank you so much. So as it relates to Council Bill 12 0053, Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized to address the item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. President Burton Herbold, colleagues. The next three items on this afternoon's agenda are surveillance impact reports that our committee amended and approved unanimously. This is pursuant to the very thorough underlying surveillance ordinance revised in 2018. That ordinance makes sure we review technologies that have the ability to surveil so that we protect civil liberties while enabling technology tools for more efficient government services. Colleagues, as you may recall, we are working our way through several groups of surveillance impact reports as required by that surveillance ordinance. And we recently amended and adopted the so called group to Surveillance Impact reports for some of the existing technologies already in use by Seattle City Light Fire Department and the Police Department. Today we vote on the so called Group three surveillance impact reports, which are three existing technologies from us. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your thorough amendments, which our committee approved unanimously last week. So these three council bills are in good condition for our vote this afternoon. I also want to thank the professionals at Seattle Information Technology Department, as well as our several staff analysts, Lisa Kay, my legislative aide, Kara Valliere, as well as the Volunteers of the Surveillance Working Group for their many, many months of work on these reports. Again, these are three technologies going to vote on them separately. The first one counts 4120053 covers, what's called forward looking infrared, real time video for King County sheriff's helicopters. And the as with previous surveillance in back reports, the committee adopted my amendment on requiring a report on equity metrics for these technologies. Councilmember Herbold also had a number of amendments to further define policies and reporting from speed and use of these technologies. The committee unanimously recommended approval of all the amendments and the three surveillance impact reports, and the first vote today will be on Council 4120053. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any questions or comments around around the passage of this bill related to the or word or looking infrared real time video? Not seeing any real raised hands or virtual raised hands. So we'll move on to the roll call with the clerk, please.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, Representative Herbold. I raised.
Speaker 3: My hand.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I didn't see it there.
Speaker 4: No, no problem at all.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Also, members on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I will be voting against approving this surveillance impact report authorizing the Seattle Police Department to continue to use. Forward looking infrared real time video. This is an infrared video camera that that is mounted on an airplane or helicopter and it can zoom in to show details on the ground in terrifying detail. It is technology that was developed by contractors beginning in the 1950s on behalf of the U.S. military. The Surveillance Impact Report analyzed the hypothetical ways that a technology could be used productively or could be used to infringe on civil liberties. And that hypothetical analysis is important. But in this case, we have clear experience showing how this technology is actually used. Defense attorney Naseem Bhutia fought for and eventually received the public records that exposed how the Washington State Patrol used this infrared video technology to continuously monitor and spy on the Black Lives Matter movement in Seattle last summer . The Capitol Hill Seattle blog published a video and images that seem unearthed in an April 6th article titled, quote, Remember that expletive plane flying over Capitol Hill during last summer's protest? Here's what it was up to, end quote. And I really recommend that members of the public review this important piece of journalism. The blog also showed the hours long flight path of the plane, seemingly hundreds of circuits around and around. Those of us protesting below in the first days of the Justice for George Floyd protests last June. Many of us in the streets or living on Capitol Hill remember that. Remember that incessant sound of a plane overhead day after day, just a few hundred feet above us. We now know that it was a Washington State patrol plane taking pictures with its special high resolution thermal camera and coordinating with Seattle police on the ground to compress the story, repress the Black Lives Matter movement. Compare that to what is written in this surveillance and bad report. Quote, A speedy policy mitigates against the potential for inappropriate use. A speedy policy 6.60 collection of information for law enforcement purposes defines the way information will be gathered and recorded in a manner that does not unreasonably infringe upon individual rights, liberties and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington, including freedom of speech, press, association and assembly, liberty of conscience, and the exercise of religion, end quote. The report further states that, quote, Additionally, officers must take care when photographing demonstrations or other lawful political activities if demonstrators are not acting unlawfully or at least cannot photograph them. Further, a speedy policy 5.1 for all forbids bias based policing and outlines processes for reporting and documenting any suspected bias based on behavior as well as accountability measures. And for. These assertions in this report are unfortunately the exact opposite of what actually happens in reality. The irony would be funny if it were not so dangerous. I want to be clear that there are socially responsible users of our looking for ad real time video. It is useful, for example, for tracking wildfires and for finding people lost in the wilderness. But in real life, that is not how the Seattle Police Department uses this technology. The speed does not drag forest fires or search wilderness areas for missing people. In real life, the Seattle police use this technology to spy on almost exclusively peaceful protests, people exercising their First Amendment rights. It is also sometimes used to drag prince fleeing suspects, but it has a mass negative impact on progressive protests. So on balance, the effect is negative. The police found protesters marching in the streets, milling around, gathering, talking with one another, leading the rally, things we do every day and exercising our free speech rights because of the high resolution thermal imaging. The camera captures a lot of detail in one video, which is linked on the Capitol Hill Seattle blog article. The plane's camera hones in on one group of onlookers who are observing the protest and the police reaction from on top of a building roof. The police were looking for someone who allegedly threw a rock. An officer in the plane says, quote, There's a group of 6 to 8 people on that roof. We'll keep an eye on them. End quote. And even though he admits there were, quote, no object scene at this point, unquote, he continues to train his recording camera on them. The plane camera indeed continues to spy on these peaceful onlookers. And a few seconds later, the plane camera operator says he thinks the rock throw rock thrower, quote, was that other person that was running on that building up there on that other side. That's what I think. And quote, another officer recollected quote, Oh, that's the rooftop of the Seattle PD. End quote. And around and around the airplane circles. This is exactly the type of indiscriminate surveillance of political protest that the Seattle surveillance ordinance claims to be addressing. If council members will not object to this surveillance, then what will they object to or do they see these votes as nothing more than a rubber stamp? It is shameful, but not a surprise that the Seattle Police Department and other police agencies saw their role in the wake of the murder of the George flight to be a militarized repression of the Black Lives Matter movement, including chemical weapons, flashbang grenades and blast balls guided into a peaceful protest by forward looking infrared real time video. It is outrageous that council members who spoke passionately about opposing that militarized police response are now considering giving permission to the city to continue using the data from this fight. Acknowledging owned by the King County Sheriff's Office against ordinary people who are merely exercising their First Amendment protest. Rights. Finally, I want to quote from some of the public comment that is included as an appendix to the surveillance and fact report. The question posed is, quote, What concerns, if any, do you have about the use of this technology and what? Here are some of the quotes. I mean, there are many quotes that I would invite council members to read, but here are just a few that my office picked from the public comment responses that this will be used to target black people and protesters. It's expensive, and that money is better used to feed and clothe people in our city. This is a creepy tool to put in the hands of people who have already proven they can't be trusted with the tools they use. They shouldn't be a surveillance state. Our police should not be able to monitor us from the air with technology that can see us. I am concerned that this technology is or will be used against protesters exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. And that will have a chilling effect on those rights and create safety issues for protesters. Thermal imaging will be abused to surveil, track, direct and disrupt legal protest movements. This technology will not be used to keep anyone safe. Rather, it will be used to surveil members of the public, specifically protesters, in order to arrest, attack and harm them, as media has already used tools at their disposal to brutalize protesters. Why does the Seattle Police Department feel they need feel the need to use military surveillance equipment on its domestic population? And the last comment I'll read is, no matter what you say in response to public comment, we know you're just using this to help oppressed citizens and protesters. Come on. So in closing, I will vote no on this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Swann. Any other comments? From Council members on this item. Councilmember Abbas. Haider, you come on camera to get some say?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I do have a few questions. I'm sorry to do that in full council. I know President Pro Tem that's not the desired place to do this. But obviously I'm concerned about the report that Councilmember Salonen just referenced. And I will also note that my team and I did ask central staff quite a few questions about this technology, because that is a concern of mine as well. And I do remember some of the reports and incidents. I know we don't typically have central staff on this call. So for the sake of maybe the sponsor and councilmember who raised the questions, I'll just point out that when I asked about the detailed images that this device, I believe, which is I believe currently you will project what I understood from the answers is that the way this camera works, those people don't show up. It's actually just red blobs and there's no defining images. So I'm really concerned about the state technology that was used. I'm obviously in alignment with what the concerns were that were used from that state technology, especially as it relates to last year's surveillance of protesters and the consequences of that and want to continue to fight against that type of technology. I do want to have a better understanding, though, about this specific technology and if it's slightly different, if it truly is just blobs versus defining or definitive images, because I would be very concerned and I continue to just sort of be skeptical about this technology in general . But obviously in opposition to anything that would be defining for the purposes of future arrests or targeting of folks. So I wanted to get that out there because I thought I had done some research on this and had heard that it was no defining images and simply red big blobs.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Peterson Councilmember Mosquito, you are correct. Your research with central staff is sound. And that is, you know, the reference to an airplane was not the same technology as the King County sheriff's technology that we're voting on today. It's a different technology where it's just thermal imaging where you don't it doesn't show the details. That's what we're voting on today. So central step into the.
Speaker 0: Sorry for having not been in the benefit of the committee. May I ask a follow up question?
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Is there any sort of signboards that are or could be put on the use of the technology so that it's not used in situations like hovering over expressions of First Amendment rights? I mean, I was understanding that this was more for a search function, and I'm not sure what the extent of that search function is, but that still is very different than a hovering over First Amendment right demonstration. So is there any sort of sideboards that we have currently that we could point to to how it can be used?
Speaker 2: So that's why this amendment that was passed in committee, we recognize that, you know, one of the things that they are required to include in these policies is a definition of the purpose in use, including circumstances where officers may request assistance from the county for these these forward looking infrared real time video content. So one of the amendments that passed in committee was was a recognition that that was something that was was missing and that we need to to receive is a is a is the definition of the purpose in use, even given that this is this is technology that is already being used. The council the committee thought it was really important to to get those sideboards in.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for letting me use some time during full council asked those questions. I also understand Councilmember Herbold, I believe along comes Member Peterson. You offered a series of amendments to address a number of questions that I know I had, and I was told by central staff that some of those have been addressed. But I really appreciate the reminder on where those can be used. And I will continue to express concern about the state technology that was just referenced as well, and anything that would be honing in on anybody's ability to have identifying information. And perhaps I'll do a follow up with the Chair of Public Safety, just to make sure that we're continuing to monitor to make sure that this isn't being used inappropriately, even though we try to put some sideboards on a speedy before we know that there's been some ignoring of those rules and want to make sure that that's not the case with this so that it truly remains not identifiable and not used for First Amendment expression surveillance.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I just want to also just very quickly want to highlight the additional amendments in case there are questions that councilmembers might have amendments included recognizing that we need to receive from a speedy policies that specifically define the timeline for deletion of images to protect the privacy of individuals not connected to any investigation. Policies that specifically describe how they're going to ensure that this technology is not used in a way to disproportionately surveil communities. And then lastly, an amendment that requires an annual report of the use of this technology and helicopter deployment. These are all areas that have been flagged for the committee by the the Technology Working Group. And council members like you who have your hand up, is that is that a hold over? You want to speak again?
Speaker 4: I would like to speak again just to respond.
Speaker 0: You have the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I think it is important for council members who are asking these questions to look at the video themselves and see how defining the images are there before you zoom in. But once you zoom in there, that's stunning how much clarity there is. And if council members maintain that this is a different technology, as Governor Paterson has said, then you should hold off on this bill and show the video to the council and the members of the public and the committee meeting that is announced well in advance so that members of the public can judge for themselves whether this is whether or not this is a violation of their rights. And just to clarify the amendment of in committee. Obviously, I'm not a member of the committee, but the amendment that was mentioned from Councilor Herbold, what it does is, I mean, essentially it says that I approve this bill now and say that the problem, you know, that there's really nothing essentially to protect civil liberties. And that is a problem. We have to you know, we acknowledge that the problem exists, but it doesn't stop approval of the legislation. I don't understand how we as a legislative body can do that if we know that there is a problem and that and we know how this technology can be used because we have seen how it can be used. We have seen the absolutely abysmal track record of a police department that, as I quoted in briefing just a week or two ago, that in a study of 500 different police departments comes very, very close to the end in terms of its accountability and racial bias and so on and so forth, how it is that can justify, you know, giving this police department, this technology, I mean, to be very accurate or to be very specific. The Seattle Police Department ranked 477th out of 500 police departments that were studied. So it's not like it's some problems that this department is very much the epitome of things not working well in a police department. And so if councilmembers are concerned about a potential violation of civil rights by the SPD, then you should vote no on this bill today and let the committee hold hearings on the forward looking into real time video technology so that we can have transparency and public accountability. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Want any additional comments? I am not seeing any. So with that, will the clerk please call the passage for the passage of the roll call on the passage of the bill. 12 0053.
Speaker 3: So, aunt? No.
Speaker 5: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes. Mascara. I Peterson II Council President pro tem honorable yes. Six in favor one oppose.
Speaker 2: 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? Thank you. Now, item seven. Will the clerk please read item seven into the record?
Speaker 0: Agenda item seven Council Bill 120054 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 Surveillance Impact Report and 2020 Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of situational awareness cameras without recording.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 surveillance impact report and 2020 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Forward Looking Infrared Real-Time Video.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120054
|
Speaker 0: Agenda item seven Council Bill 120054 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 Surveillance Impact Report and 2020 Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of situational awareness cameras without recording. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much again, Claire Pearson. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Colleagues. This is Counselor 1200542 surveillance impact report covering an existing technology called Situational Cameras. Without recording, they do not record. These awareness cameras are used during crisis events, just a hostage situation. And after adopting the amendments, our committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments from councilmembers on this item?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Again, I feel like this is an area where I am relying on reports from the committee and also doing my research with central staff and stakeholders. I really appreciate that there is a central staff memo that's been circulated on these items and would ask for that to potentially be recirculated to the full council, especially as it relates to concerns that are being raised around surveillance of First Amendment rights. You know, for example, in the previous bill, my understanding was that it was not a King County helicopter. And the thermal images do not show that level of detail that was described. I just want to make sure that I fully understand that I was reading that correctly. That and that the verbal report back along with the central staff memo is is shared. That would be very helpful on this for having not been in committee. Mike, I would like to ask either the chair or the sponsor of the amendments, if you might want to just summarize a few of the amendments that you did incorporate as well to help put some sideboards on it for the benefit of full council. That would be really appreciated.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Councilor Mosquito Comes Petition. Do you want to lead the way on on your amendment or you feel free to describe mine too, if you like?
Speaker 1: Actually, my amendments were the ones already approved by the existing previous technologies, and these that's just the equity metrics that are being used to report back to us on those. But I think it's it's more important for me to mention as part of this underlying surveillance ordinance, one of the requirements with all speed technologies, that is that the Office of Inspector General continues to monitor and report on these for us. So it's not done today. It's something we will continue to monitor for the council. And regarding Councilor Herbals amendments which do put their sideboards on the technology, look to Councilor Herbold to describe those which the committee unanimously approved.
Speaker 2: Or thank you. Again, this is an item that the technology workgroup identified as a priority gap in in the legislation. And it doesn't. The the bill, as it was originally drafted, did not specifically ensure that the purpose in use aligned with the limitations. And so in this case we wanted to make sure that there are policies that prohibit downloading or streaming images. The policy is again address retaining recorded images, but did not include the policies for retaining, downloaded or streaming images. So the this amendment requests that SPG enhance those policies to make sure that those those conditions are included. Any other comments or questions here? Seeing none with a clerk. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: The want? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. As. Musgrave, i. Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Council president Pro-Tem Herbold. Yes. Seven in favor. None of those.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Well, the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving on to item number eight on the agenda will be read item eight into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 surveillance impact report and 2020 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Situational Awareness Cameras Without Recording.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120055
|
Speaker 0: Agenda item eight Council Bill 120055 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 Surveillance Impact Report in 2020. Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of Video Recording Systems. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Councilor Petersen. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Colleagues, this is the last of these Council 120055 as your surveillance impact report covering an existing camera system used only at speed facilities. After adopting amendments, our committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments or questions from council members on the presentation and passage of this bill? And I must get up.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I am again sorry to ask some questions and I'm sure you dealt with committee but council member Petersen as chair of the committee, perhaps this is for you or the President pro tem as chair of public safety. Did I understand correctly that this is an existing technology that we're now approving? How come SPV had approval to use it prior to today's authorization?
Speaker 2: That is the nature of the beast. Councilmember Petersen.
Speaker 1: Sure, sure. This surveillance ordinance that was originally adopted in 2017 and then refined by Council President Gonzalez in 2018 and others, this is the process where it goes first, goes through the surveillance working group, the volunteer surveillance working group. The department puts together report. It's reviewed by the Information Technology Department just to scope out exactly what the technology does and what the concerns, whether it is surveillance has surveillance capabilities, what concerns might be what the litigants are to those concerns. And it works its way through this process to get to us. And then, like I said, the Office of the Inspector General continues to monitor this going forward.
Speaker 2: But the thing that is at that is the case for all of the technology that all of the departments currently use at the time of the passage of the surveillance ordinance. So that's what we when we talk about the retrospective technologies, we're talking about surveillance technologies that were purchased before the passage of the surveillance ordinance. Our expectation is that correct me if I'm wrong, Councilmember Peterson, is that there are no future purchases of surveillance technology moving forward because we want to the expectation is that we will have three or four kinds of policies as a requirement to permit the purchase. But we don't have that opportunity with things that were already purchased.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: And as a.
Speaker 0: Follow up to that, maybe just to prompt or to confirm my my research as well, just because the department is using it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to authorize that. You've gone through the rigorous process in committee of evaluating the various questions and making sure that it conforms or that you have added the appropriate sideboards to make it align with the Council's the council's priorities. And thus it's not not just as a symptom of it being currently used and thus being authorized, but you have gone through this process with the robust input from the the committee whose name I'm forgetting right now to make sure that those questions have been answered. And then where there are additional side boards, you've worked on amendments and the Council also has the option to not authorize if we so deemed.
Speaker 3: Not.
Speaker 0: Necessary. Correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they were very thorough discussions at committee. We had at least two committee meetings on this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Thank you, Councilmember Ms.. For your questions. Are there additional questions or comments on this item? Right. Seen done. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Morales is. Must get to. I. PETERSON.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Council President Pro Tem Herbold. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: 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? Moving on, will the clerk please read item nine into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 surveillance impact report and 2020 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Video Recording Systems.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120061
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item nine Council Bill 120061 An ordinance granting permission to North West Kidney Center to continue to operate and maintain a pedestrian tunnel under an across Broadway, north of Cherry Street. Repealing Section eight of Ordinance 123367 and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Your colleagues, we have four items on our agenda today which simply renew time limited term permits that allow the continued use of a SkyBridge and three small tunnels. Each renewal is for 15 years with the ability to renew for another 15. This Council Bill 12 0061 renews the permit for a pedestrian tunnel between Northwest Kidney Center and Swedish Hospital. Our committee unanimously recommended approval.
Speaker 2: It is so much. Looking to see whether or not there are any. Council members with questions or comments on this item. Seeing none. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Some want? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales as. Musgrave, I.
Speaker 1: Peterson All right.
Speaker 3: Council president pro tem her vote? Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Moving on with the clerk he is read item ten into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting permission to Northwest Kidney Center to continue to operate and maintain a pedestrian tunnel under and across Broadway, north of Cherry Street; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 123367; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120074
|
Speaker 0: Gender item ten Council Bill 120074 An ordinance granting Grange Insurance Association permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian skybridge over and across the alley between Second Avenue and Third Avenue, north of Cedar Street, repealing Section eight of Ordinance 123723 and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are again recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Colleagues, this second item is a renewal of the permit for an existing SkyBridge, and it's described as described in the title of this council bill. It's self-explanatory. Our committee unanimously recommended approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from council members on this item? Seeing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes. Let's get to.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Peterson II Council President Pro Tem.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 3: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item 11 Will the clerk please read item 11 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting Grange Insurance Association permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian skybridge over and across the alley between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue, north of Cedar Street; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 123723; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120075
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120075 An Ordinance granting Riggio Plaza 600. Permission to continue maintaining and operating a vehicular and pedestrian tunnel under the alley between Sixth Avenue and Seventh Avenue, north of Stuart Street. Repealing Section seven of Ordinance 119508 and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are again recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This third item is renewal of the permit for a small existing vehicular and pedestrian tunnel downtown, as described in the title of the council bill. The committee unanimously recommended approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Were there any questions or comments on this item? Seeing none with a court. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: So on. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis. Yes. Morales.
Speaker 0: Skinner I.
Speaker 3: Peterson High Council President, Pro Tem Herbold. Yes. Seven and seven, unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Or please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. Item number. Well, for the part, please read item 12 into the record.
Speaker 0: Agenda item 12 Council Bill 120076 An Ordinance granting i ici rc dp Seattle Hotel LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian tunnel under an across Seneca street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, repealing section eight of Ordinance 123539 and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting BGO Plaza 600 JV LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a vehicular and pedestrian tunnel under the alley between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue, north of Stewart Street; repealing Section 7 of Ordinance 119508; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120076
|
Speaker 0: Agenda item 12 Council Bill 120076 An Ordinance granting i ici rc dp Seattle Hotel LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian tunnel under an across Seneca street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, repealing section eight of Ordinance 123539 and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized to give the committee report.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Colleagues, this is the fourth and final item. It's a renewal of permit for an existing pedestrian tunnel as described in the title of the council bill. Our committee unanimously recommended approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any comments or questions on this item? Not seeing any. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 3: MORALES This was set up.
Speaker 0: By.
Speaker 3: Peterson.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 3: Council president pro tem vote yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Moving forward to item 14 on the agenda, can you please read item 14 into the record?
Speaker 0: President Pro-Tem, did we get your signature on the last council?
Speaker 2: Bill? You got me. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Thank you. So yes, moving forward to item 14, please read item 14 into the record.
Speaker 0: Agenda item 14. Resolution 32006. A resolution requesting the Federal Aviation Authority to transfer excess property around the air route surveillance radar facility at Discovery Park to the city of Seattle for Seattle Parks and Recreation Purposes.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting IC/RCDP Seattle Hotel, LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian tunnel under and across Seneca Street, between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 123539; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_Res 32006
|
Speaker 0: Agenda item 14. Resolution 32006. A resolution requesting the Federal Aviation Authority to transfer excess property around the air route surveillance radar facility at Discovery Park to the city of Seattle for Seattle Parks and Recreation Purposes.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. I move to adopt resolution 32006 at second I. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution 32006 member Lewis. As the sponsor of this item, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Pro-Tem, as I mentioned during morning briefing, this is a project that started at the request of friends at Discovery Park, which is a citizen based organization in the Magnolia community. And beyond that advocates for Discovery Park and for enhancing the recreation opportunities at the park. Phil Goebel Sang, who is the president of Friends of Discovery Park, distributed a letter to the council and Parker Dawson on my staff distributed that letter just for about an suspenders to all the council offices this morning and I expressing the interest of friends of Discovery Park in this the acquisition of this parcel of property. In keeping with actions that other communities around the country have taken for some of the excess land around FAA towers that have been integrated for public uses and the enjoyment of the general public primarily into into parks and greenways. The area of Discovery Park where this current parcel sits will be well known to lots of frequent park goers. It occupies a space on top of a prominent vista near the field in the footprint of the old base where a lot of the old army buildings are located. With the removal of this fencing and the access of the parcel, it'll offer great views to general members of the public and will offer additional recreation activities and possibilities for the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation to explore. And it should be noted that this resolution is the culmination of an extensive process of consulting with neighborhood organizations, with the Department of Parks and Recreation, and with the chair of the relevant committee, Councilmember Juarez, who was helpful in crafting the tone and scope of this resolution. It should also be noted that the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation has confirmed that maintenance of this additional acquisition of land, should it be granted from the Federal Aviation Administration, would comment no increase to ongoing maintenance costs and could be absorbed within existing expenses. And I look forward to continuing to work with our congressional delegation, namely Senator Patty Murray and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, both of whom I have been in contact with my office through the pendency of creating this resolution over the past several months. I want to thank Parker Dodson for doing a lot of great work with the stakeholders to move this forward and look forward to eventually having this additional public space for visitors of Discovery Park to enjoy. So with that, I would urge the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, there any comments or questions for the sponsor of this resolution? I am not seeing any excited or what is being characterized as practically the most impactful change to Discovery Park in decades. So thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for moving this work forward. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 3: So on. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: MORALES Yes. Mosquito. I. Peterson, I. Council president pro tem her vote? Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. In moving through to the final items on the agenda items 15 through 19. Will the clerk please read items 15 through 19 into the record?
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION requesting the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to transfer excess property around the Air Route Surveillance Radar facility at Discovery Park to The City of Seattle for Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) purposes.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05172021_CB 120068
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item three Council Bill 120068 An ordinance relating to street and sidewalk.
Speaker 5: Use amending ordinance 125706 and the street use permit fee schedule.
Speaker 1: Authorized.
Speaker 5: By section 15.0 4.074 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 1: The committee recommends a bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. Strauss again, as chair of committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report on the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. We are here discussing the council. My council bill with council president gonzalez is co-sponsored to extend the free sidewalk, curb, space vending and cafe permits for another year to help businesses recover from the economic recession brought on by the COVID 19 pandemic. We started this program as a pilot, and we want to get it to a permanent feature, and that requires the bill before us, which is that interim step that takes what worked well, releases what didn't work well in the pilot, and then makes all of that permanent so that we can have pergolas permanently here in the city . This legislation creates that pathway to permanency, as that could have spent their time this last year doing the needed outreach and reevaluation of what's working and what's not. But instead, they spent their time approving permits, which I applaud, because because of their great work, we now have more businesses with these street permits than before. When the pandemic hit, our businesses were thrown into turmoil, first forced to shut down and struggled to survive. We've lost so many businesses in this last year that I'm relieved to be able to extend to our businesses a lifeline that they can use their outdoor spaces to remain open and capitalize on the good weather to attract customers as we look forward to a full reopening at the end of June. Last year, the Seattle Department of Transportation started new programs to allow temporary uses of our right away. And I want to see us use these rites of ways in creative ways, pedestrian street, pedestrianized streets for people of all ages and abilities to use in the Street and Sidewalk Cafe program gives our businesses the space to use their entrepreneurial spirit to be creative in these outdoor spaces. It's not just for restaurants. Retail and other businesses can also benefit from utilizing these outdoor spaces. Recovery will be a long road ahead, and we need to continue to support our small businesses in their recovery. As we look towards the permanent program, we will need to address how much these permits cost. And we also need to hear feedback from all business types to lessen any negative impacts and ensure that sidewalks continue to be accessible and easy to navigate for all ages and abilities. Businesses need certainty, and this bill provides that. We need them to know whatever they build today will be able to last through the next winter, through the bad weather, the rain and the cold. This summer before us is actually our first summer with this sidewalk cafe, curb curb permits and cafe streets. And I'm very excited to see how how businesses use their entrepreneurial drive to make our streets more vibrant. In Ballard, we had a great partnership with the farmers market to utilize curb space permits for for when the farmers market came in. So there's so and this is some of that outreach that it needs to do to to make these regulations permanent is understand how can we share this space. It is public space, after all. And we should be helping support our businesses through the pandemic, and we should make sure that it's shareable for everyone. I'm proud of that. How our city has responded to this pandemic and we have more work to do. We here at City Council passed the Small Business Stabilization Grants that helped many small businesses in dire moments. And by allowing businesses to operate in our streets, we provide them a pathway to economic recovery. And we should make this pathway a permanent feature of our city. In Ballard, we're going to have a design charrette for Ballard Avenue. Ballard Avenue is unique in and of itself because it cuts off at the Ballard Bridge and at market. It's not a through street. And what we want to do is create a replicable program so that every neighborhood hood in the city can have a a street dedicated to their small businesses. Through this last year of uncertainty, we've continued to plot a path toward equitable recovery with the certainty businesses need to be successful. I just want to take a moment to thank all of the people that have helped me, because, again, in this situation, the city of Seattle provided the permits and got out of the way. Small businesses did. They're the ones that came up with the designs for the Pergolas. They're the ones that activated the public space. The small businesses using their entrepreneurial drive created more vibrant communities all across the city. So before I go on and any longer, if Councilmember Juarez was here, she would be telling me to say my thank you, finally, please, and let's keep going. So I need to thank Elliott Hambrick and Sabrina Beaulieu from the mayor's office, Elise Nelson and her entire team from Public Use, Shauna Larson and Director Zimbabwe. Amanda Pleasant Brown in my office, Calvin Chao from central staff Mike Stewart and Devin Reynolds from the Ballard Alliance for. Amazing. Doug far of the Seattle Farmers Market Association for demonstrating how we can share the space on a zero hour. For keeping our focus on all ages and abilities and every single business owner who has used this permit to put forward entrepreneurial spirits, to put their premier spirits to work, making our city more vibrant. Just to clarify for the four colleagues, these permits are permanent and available as before the pandemic and after the pandemic. What this bill before us does is two things. One, it extends the free aspect of these permits for another year so that businesses can recover. The second thing it does is it requests a report from Scott by December 15th, 2021, explaining what aspects of the current program should remain, which need to change, and plots a pathway forward for us to be able to take up final legislation before this current legislation ends on Memorial Day 2022. So takes again two things ensures that these permits are free for another year, and then secondly, plots the pathway forward to permanency with a deadline of December 15th, 2021, to be implemented by May of 2022. Council President Pro Tem. That is the committee report.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Are there any questions or comments ever, Peterson?
Speaker 0: Thank you, President Pro Tem Herbold, and thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for advancing this legislation. Just to I think you clarified it pretty well, but we would be voting on whether to continue the free permits. Right now, it's just through May 20, 22. So it's will be we'll be doing another vote next year on this, correct? Good question there. We do have to charge for these permits eventually. So I just need to be clear here, because the public space program in the state is a fee recovery based program. So they have been operating in the red so as to give a lifeline to the small businesses. We need to make sure that small businesses have an additional year of free permits so that they can recover correctly. I am interested in following your budget chair, Ms.. Skater, to follow up to see if we have money from the American Rescue Plan available to backfill because they have been operating at a loss to ensure our small businesses get the support they need. So what we will be voting on next year will be the parameters of a permanent permit. And it's not. May very well call me tomorrow and say then you're not going to be voting on that because these permits already exist. And so stop may just be tweaking their their current programs.
Speaker 1: Thank you both, Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 5: I thank you, President Pro Tem Herbold, and thank you, Chair Strauss. I'm always excited to join your meetings and to be a champion of good legislation like this. I just wanted to provide a little bit of context as well because I am perhaps equally excited or not maybe as excited as the chair, but I want to show my enthusiasm for this approach. During this pandemic, I know that it's been really important for us to all recognize that COVID has really turned upside down daily life and our patterns, and that current rules have made it really difficult in many situations, especially for small businesses, to be able to respond quickly to this upheaval and are not able to continue with business as usual. Coronavirus has laid bare our inequities in many ways, and by creating these temporary suspensions to our roles, we recognize that our local shops are doing everything they can to make it through this really difficult time. Businesses have anecdotally spoken in favor of these changes, saying that they believe that without this option they would not have been able to get through the pandemic. And indeed, research shows that this is true. In Brooklyn, for example, an underutilized parking area was turned into public space for public events, increasing visibility to small businesses there, which has been a 172% increase in retail sales. It's good for patrons, it's good for the business owners, and it's good for the health of our local communities as well. Further, a Boston study showed that creating a seating area outside of a curb lane can potentially increase sales at a friend's at a front, facing business by 14%. I recognize that there's concern from small businesses in certain areas around the loss of parking. And I believe that through the intent of this legislation, which will allow more time to study permit changes, we can help mitigate those concerns while creating lasting positive impacts for businesses and do what the data has shown actually increase sales for small businesses as we decrease the need for cars and parking spaces around our city as well. I look forward to being able to vote yes for this and I really appreciate the sponsors work on this and have duly heard you on the desire to make sure that we are also looking at the cost needs for stock related to potential issues that are coming up with this ordinance. And we'll look forward to discussing those ARPA related conversations over the next six weeks here. Appreciate it. Councilmembers and looking forward to voting yes.
Speaker 1: Great. Any other comments or questions?
Speaker 0: Send us a final word. Thank you. Council President Pro tem. I have to say for the general public who is in my conversations with Councilmember Mosqueda, she brought me the idea because of her desire to make this a permanent program. So we want to uplift her. And I want to say to our colleagues, I could not have thought of this legislation without Council President Lorena Gonzalez. Her husband's perspective is well valued in my life, so wanting to take this moment to highlight that I couldn't have done it without council president. That. Those are my reports.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much sitting in closing. Well, the clerk, he's called the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Patterson. Yes, sir. Lawrence. Yes. Strauss. Yes. LEWIS Yes. Morales Yes. Musgrave I council president pro tem Herbold. Yes. Seven 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 on my behalf? Moving on to item number four, will the clerk please read item four into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use; amending Ordinance 125706 and the Street Use Permit Fee Schedule authorized by Section 15.04.074 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05172021_CB 120044
|
Speaker 1: The report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item for Council Bill 12004.
Speaker 5: For an ordinance relating to the Stormwater Code. Update Amending Chapters 22.800 22.801 22.803 22.805 and 22.07 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 1: The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much, Councilor Petersen, as chair of the committee. You are acknowledged in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 0: Thank you, President Pro Tem Herbold, colleagues. As I mentioned at our council briefing this.
Speaker 4: Morning at our Transportation and Utilities Committee meeting on May five.
Speaker 0: We unanimously approved this update to the city's stormwater code. This is Council Bill 120044. The update was crafted by our Seattle Public Utilities team after a long process and is required to comply with stronger environmental requirements from our state government. Due to the larger amount of information, we delayed its arrival to the full City Council for a week to provide additional review time for council members who are not on the committee.
Speaker 4: And here we are.
Speaker 0: So we're required by our State Government to have this code.
Speaker 4: Updated and in place by.
Speaker 0: July one, and the ordinance needs 30 days to take effect. So that makes today time sensitive. Our committee unanimously.
Speaker 4: Recommended approval today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And so much. Are there any comments or questions from council members? Seeing none with Clark. Please call the roll.
Speaker 2: Peterson. Yes. So, aunt. Yes? Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. As Mr.. Yes. Council president, pro tem Herbold. Yes. Seven and seven, unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature? Oh, see the bill on my behalf. Thank you. Moving on to other business, we have a letter that some excellent circulated this morning.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Stormwater Code Update; amending Chapters 22.800, 22.801, 22.803, 22.805, and 22.807 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05102021_CB 120039
|
Speaker 4: If part of the Finance and Housing Committee agenda item 26 Council Vote 120039 Amending Ordinance 126 237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 three 2026 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Skinny, you are the chair of this committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Madam President, I just want to confirm that you can hear me. Okay? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Item 26 Council colleagues. This is the first bill for our consideration from the Finance and Housing Committee for your discussion on the carry forward legislation. This bill allows the departments to continue programs from last year into 2021 with unspent dollars from 2020. This is not new authorizing authority. These are existing programs and services that the council had already approved. And this is not an extended amount. This is allowing dollars that would typically be sent back to the overall budget, if not otherwise appropriated for the exact same purposes from the previous year, to be used again, to carry forward the already authorized use. And this allows for us to carry those dollars forward into the 2021 appropriations for those discrete programs. The committee unanimously recommended passage of this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmembers Dana, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill will occur. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 120039.
Speaker 1: ROSQUETA. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Salon? Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes. Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. MORALES. Yes. Council President Gonzales. I am in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read the short title of item 27 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and 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_05102021_CB 120050
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 37 Council 120050 Blaine to set up Parks and Recreation authorized and Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute four on behalf of the City of Seattle. A Use Occupancy and maintenance agreement. The can we recommend civil pass.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Councilor. Whereas you are the Chair of the Committee and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This bill renews an agreement between the Southwest Youth and Family Services and the city to continue their great work. The new lease is for ten years to continue programing. Southwest Youth and Family Services have been providing critical social and educational services to underserved families in southwest Seattle for over 40 years. The Public Assets Native Communities Committee recommends the City Council pass this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments. Will the Court please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Mascara.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Peterson. Hi, Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. Morales. S Council. President Gonzalez. I am in favor of both.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk seize it? Fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read the short title of item 38 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute, for and on behalf of the City, a Use, Occupancy and Maintenance Agreement with Southwest Youth and Family Services to provide family support center programs consistent with Seattle Parks and Recreation purposes.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05102021_Res 32000
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 46 Resolution 328000 relating to the Seattle Public Utilities adopting the 2021 three 2026 Strategic Business Plan for Seattle Public Utilities. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Desmond Petersen, back to you to walk us through this report. You're on mute.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Counts the president over three separate meetings of our committee. We discussed the Strategic Business Plan and rate path for Seattle Public Utilities. Before us today is the corresponding council resolution, which was unanimously recommended by our committee. Keeping utility rates low is important because rates are regressive, with lower income households paying a larger percentage of their household income for utility bills. Fortunately, the average SPU rate increases are expected to be lower than what was originally promised back in 2017 for this time. It's important to note that Sdo's strategic plan and Rate Path have been endorsed by the rigorous customer review panel. There was also a thorough article in the Seattle Times about the Strategic Plan and Rate Path, which explores all the various cost drivers for these rates, including inflation, pass through rates imposed by King County for wastewater environmental protection projects required by our state and federal governments, labor costs and the utilities taxes charged by our general fund. The Council examines and votes on this strategic plan every three years. Our committee unanimously recommends approval of this important resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Well. Sarah. Hi, Peter. Son.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. MORALES Yes. Council President Gonzalez. All right. Eight in favor of.
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? Is there any other business to come before the Council? I have some business to come before other business to come before the council if there is no objection. I would like to be excused from the May 17th and May 24th City Council meetings. Hearing no objection. I am excused from the May 17th and May 24th City Council meetings. Councilmember Herbold is going to serve as the council president pro tem on both the 17th and the 24th, and she will preside over the council briefing and city council meetings on those dates. And my deep thanks to her for providing me a little bit of coverage as I get away. Okay. Any other further business coming for the council councilmember? Skate up, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Madam President, I would also like to be excused from full council and from the morning briefing on the morning of Monday, June 14th, please.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 0: Hey, if there is no objection, Councilmember Mosqueda will be excused from the June 14th City Council meetings.
Speaker 1: And I say no.
Speaker 4: I even gave her a heads up because of her.
Speaker 1: Everything? Yeah. It's all right.
Speaker 0: Hearing no actual objection, Councilmember Mosqueda will be excused from the June 14th City Council meetings. And there are any. Is there any other further business to come before the council? All right. Hearing on colleagues this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. All 46 items of business on the agenda.
Speaker 1: At.
Speaker 0: Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, May 17, 2021, at 2:00 PM. Again, that full council meeting will be presided over by Council President Pro Tem. Councilmember Lisa Herbold. And I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. Thank you so much. We are adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle Public Utilities; adopting a 2021-2026 Strategic Business Plan for Seattle Public Utilities; and endorsing a three-year rate path and a subsequent, three-year rate forecast to support the Strategic Business Plan Update.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05032021_CB 120037
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item two Council Bill 120037 An ordinance relating to the AIDS Memorial Pathway Project authorizing the Director of the Seattle Office of Arts and Culture on behalf of the City of Seattle to accept a license agreement for the installation and maintenance of artworks that are part of the City of Seattle's Municipal Art Collection on property owned by Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 120037. Is there a second I can. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilor Morales, this is your primary sponsored bill, so I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Colleagues, you'll recall last year we passed Council Bill 119739, which accepted a donation of $750,000 for from the Seattle Parks Foundation for this AIDS Memorial Pathway Project. We are now at the point of installation of this project. And so, as the clerk said, this is to establish an agreement to allow this project to be installed at the Capitol Hill light rail station. In the last few months, so the AIDS Memorial Parkway is a community driven, community funded project to use public art as a physical space to tell the story of the AIDS crisis and includes a civic call to action through engagement, reflection and remembrance. For those of you who have been through the Capitol Hill area in the last few months, a few of the installations are up already, including Stormy Weathers. In this way, we loved one another, which is inside community roots, housing station house. And this is a tribute to the missing narratives of women and black people who lost who we've lost to the AIDS crisis. And then just last month, crews installed one of three groups of statues called We're Already Here around Kyle Anderson Park. And these statues resemble protest signs that evoke the historic moments of public convergence. And that that project will also be the final piece of that installation will happen in the next couple of months. And the idea is to finish this project by June in time for pride so that the piece will be completed by then. And so this council bill, again, is just to confirm that there is an agreement to install the next piece at the light rail station. And I moved adoption.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales, for that description of this really important project. Are there any additional comments on this bill? All right. Looks like there are no additional comments on the bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: But Alice. Yes. Must get to. I. Peterson. I so want. Yeah. Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes. Purple goddess. I. And Council President Gonzalez I in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read items three through seven into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda items three through seven appointments 1860, 1861 and 1863 through 1865. The appointments of Rick are Lucy and Ebony Karenga as members. Seattle Arts Commission for terms to December 31st, 2022, and the reappointment of James Myles, Sarah Wilkie and Michael Me Williams as member Seattle Arts Commission four terms to December 31st, 2022.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the AIDS Memorial Pathway project; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Office of Arts & Culture, on behalf of The City of Seattle, to accept a license agreement for the installation and maintenance of artworks that are part of The City of Seattle’s Municipal Art Collection on property owned by Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, a regional transit authority of the State of Washington, and leaseholder MEPT Capitol Hill Station Joint Venture LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05032021_Res 32005
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item 11 Resolution 32005. A resolution urging the United States Congress to enact legislation creating a roadmap to citizenship and other legislative priorities to support immigrants and refugees.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to adopt a resolution 3 to 0 zero five. Is there a second? 1/2. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Resolution 32005. I am the sponsor of this item, so I will address it and then happy to open the floor for comments and colleagues because today is this really important resolution that I mentioned briefly during our council briefing this morning. My office has worked over the last several weeks with community with many community leaders, including those that want America to develop this resolution. It is in support of community organizing efforts. And Representative Pramila Jayapal, Roadmap to Freedom Resolution, which seeks to fix our broken immigration system. This resolution calls on Congress to do several things. First, to create a road map to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants across the country, including for those residing working here in Seattle to support family reunification by increasing the number of family visas available. We also, through this resolution, call on Congress to improve our standing in the eyes of the world by improving our asylum and refugee systems and grow the number of asylees and refugees we admit into legally admit to our country. The city calls on our federal government to also put an end to private immigration detention, just like our Washington state legislature recently did in this past session. We must reform these punitive detention and deportation practices, and we ask for a moratorium on deportation. And finally, we ask Congress to not leave out immigrants, especially those that are undocumented, of any pandemic recovery efforts because of their status. It is vital that Congress acts with urgency and uses every tool at their disposal, including budget reconciliation, to finally, once and for all, achieve comprehensive immigration reform. As a council member, I have heard so many stories over the last 15 months about how this pandemic has exacerbated and magnified every systemic inequity we have in our society. The barrier that immigration status has caused for so many during this pandemic has been devastating. Thousands of local families were left out of relief and assistance needed to survive this pandemic because of their immigration status. Many undocumented immigrants cannot access lifelines like unemployment insurance, health care insurance and other types of benefits that they have that they need in order to continue to survive. Local governments like Seattle have continued to step up as both the first and the last line of defense. I am proud of the work our city has done. I'm proud of the work this City Council has done to support our immigrant neighbors, including making sure that we were not excluding our undocumented immigrant and refugee neighbors from our very own Jumpstart Seattle payroll tax. But we simply do not have the resources to meet the scale of the need of our community members. We need our federal government to act once and for all and with urgency. And that must include fixing our broken immigration system and ensuring immigrant communities do not get left behind as we come out of this pandemic. After four years of a federal government that has continually targeted, targeted immigrants and refugees telling us we do not belong brutalizing our communities and neighborhoods with xenophobia, racism and family separation, it is time for reckoning and healing. And it is my deep hope that Congress will finally act and not delay any longer. Passing this resolution is absolutely necessary in order for our representative and Representative Jayapal to have all of the all of the resources, all of the tools and all of support of her local jurisdiction and constituents to be able to go to Washington , D.C. and advocate accordingly. So with that colleagues, I would encourage and appreciate your yes vote on this resolution. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the ball on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 2: Morales. Yes. Must get us high. Peterson. Yes. Sergeant? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Juarez, I and Counselor. President Gonzalez. I am in favor, Nipost.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. The motion carries, 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 colleagues, we do have one item of other business that I'm aware of. Council Member Herbold, I understand, would like to have her signature added to her own proclamation. So go ahead, Councilor Herbold. Thank you so much. I was unable to attend this morning's council briefing and missed my opportunity to sign on to the two proclamations recognizing May as older Americans month and better hearing month. I'd like to request that the clerk please affix my signature to both proclamations. Thank you. Thank you so much, councilmember. Horrible. The clerk here is at your request and will act accordingly. Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President I'm asking if I.
Speaker 0: Can be.
Speaker 1: Excused on.
Speaker 0: Monday.
Speaker 4: May 17th.
Speaker 0: And Monday, May 24th.
Speaker 1: Okay. If there's no objection because marijuana is will be excused on May 17th and May 24th. Hearing no objection. Councilmember Juarez will be excused on May 17th and May 24th. Is there any additional business, any further business come before the council? Councilmember Herbert, please. Thank you. I would like to be excused on May 10th. Okay. If there is no objection, Council Member Herbold will be excused on May 10th. Hearing no objection. Councilmember Herbold will be excused on May ten. Is there any for other further business to come before the council? All right. Hearing that and colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, May 10th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're joined by everyone.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION urging the United States Congress to enact legislation creating a roadmap to citizenship and other legislative priorities to support immigrants and refugees.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04262021_CB 120041
|
Speaker 0: The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 120041 An ordinance relating to the 2021 budget amending ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, changing appropriations to various departments, creating positions exempt from civil service, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I will provide this committee report on behalf of Councilmember Mosqueda. Council Bill 120041. Colleagues would appropriate nearly $18 million of federally granted corona virus relief funds, otherwise known as CRF, by increasing appropriations in several departments for programs that need additional funding to continue services through the end of 2021. These CRF funds were part of the Federal Cares Act that was adopted on March 27, 2020, and included about $131.5 million in direct funding to the city of Seattle. The $18 million of $80 million appropriated in this Council bill are the last remaining funds from the CARES Act grants to the city of Seattle. And these funds must be expended by the city before the end of 2021. These expenditures authorized in this legislation include child care provider stabilization grants, funding for emergency food access and grocery vouchers, renewed funding to maintain the Clean City Initiative and vaccine outreach. Efforts to reach underserved communities and ensure equitable access to the COVID 19 vaccine. The Finance and Housing Committee did debate this bill, and we voted on the passage of the bill. And the Finance and Housing Committee recommends that the full City Council pass this bill as. As as considered in our committee. Are there any additional comments? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the Court please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Boris by Louis. I met Alice. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Carville Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. I in favor not opposed.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it with a clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the clerk please read item two into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2021 Budget; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments; creating positions exempt from civil service; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04262021_CB 120043
|
Speaker 0: The report of the Transportation and Utilities Commission. Agenda Item two Council Bill 120043. An ordinance relating to.
Speaker 1: Cable television authorizing.
Speaker 0: The mayor or the mayor's designee to approve the transfer of control subject to conditions of Waive Division one LLC.
Speaker 1: Authorizing the mayor.
Speaker 0: Or mayor's designee to execute a cable franchise. Transfer of controlling interest consent agreement for the purpose of implementing and administering the transfer and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You were recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council president, colleagues, as I mentioned during our council briefing this morning, this is council 120043, which pertains to one of our city's cable franchise agreements, specifically the Ways Company. This legislation simply has the city consent to the transfer of controlling interest in the parent company of where the city has the cable franchise agreement with Waive Division one LLC and Waive will remain the franchise grantee with the Waive brand and operations continuing as is in Seattle for customers. Seattle Municipal Code Section 21.6 0.110 requires us to consider even partial transfers of parent company ownership for cable franchises, and the federal law has a timeline for this consent. With that deadline approaching soon. Our Seattle Information Technology Department completed a thorough review of the proposed transfer and engaged both financial and legal experts to assist with the analysis. They all recommend approval as part of the approval are having the city receive from the company a strong corporate guarantee and consent agreement, which requires continued performance and service to customers. Seattle City presented all of this to our Transportation and Utilities Committee, and our committee unanimously recommends approval today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments? Hearing no additional comments. Will the court please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Paris by Louis. I. Morales. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. I favor Nipost.
Speaker 1: 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 cable television; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to approve the transfer of control, subject to conditions, of WaveDivision I, LLC; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to execute a Cable Franchise Transfer of Controlling Interest Consent Agreement for the purpose of implementing and administering the transfer; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04262021_Res 32004
|
Speaker 0: Adoption of the result? Excuse me. Adoption of other resolutions.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item three.
Speaker 0: Resolution 32004. A resolution prioritizing people over the profits of pharmaceutical companies supporting the production of COVID 19.
Speaker 1: Vaccine around the world.
Speaker 0: Urging President Biden to end U.S. opposition to the waiver from certain provisions of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement for the.
Speaker 1: Prevention, Containment.
Speaker 0: And Treatment of COVID 19 at the World Trade Organization, WTO.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Colleagues, I will move to adopt resolutions 3 to 0 zero four. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution because members want to hand it over to you as sponsor of the resolution so that you can address it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This resolution urges President Biden to end the US opposition to the International Campaign Fund, an intellectual property rights waiver from the WTO for COVID 19 vaccines. It also adds the Seattle City Council as a signatory of a community letter to President Biden on that topic that has been signed by over 400 unions, community organizations and faith groups from Doctors Without Borders internationally to the Washington State Labor Council and the King County Labor Council. The rapid and widespread global dissemination of vaccinations at the center of every strategy by public health professionals to stop the spread of the virus. However, there are breathtaking inequities in the distribution of vaccinations around the world. According to the World Health Organization, nearly 90% of the vaccines have gone to well-off countries, while low income countries have received just 0.2 percent. This has meant that on average, one in four people in high income countries have received a coronavirus vaccine, compared with just one in more than 500 people in low income countries. The lack of accessible vaccines in the majority of countries around the world is creating an unimaginable human catastrophe on a scale not seen before. In India, where I grew up. Thousands are dying daily and the right wing Modi regime is suppressing the numbers. The reality is even more serious than the reported statistics. Crematorium workers report being instructed to list the cause of death as, quote unquote, sickness rather than COVID. Reuters is reporting, quote, gas and firewood furnaces at a crematorium in the western Indian state of Gujarat have been running so long without a break during the pandemic that metal parts have begun to melt and, quote, hospitals are completely, completely overrun. And there is a shortage of medical supplies like oxygen. It is dire. This human suffering is being caused by profit driven billionaires and big pharmaceutical companies with the blessing of the Biden administration, the European Union and other major controllers of the WTO policies. They are furiously blocking many countries like Brazil, India and South Africa from producing generic versions of the COVID 19 vaccine, all in the name of so-called intellectual property rights. If we don't fight to change this, starting with the necessary first step of removing the WTO patent restrictions. Public health experts say it will literally be years before people in the Global South get the vaccine. Over 100 countries have appealed to the WTO, which enforces these so-called intellectual property rights internationally to issue a waiver to allow COVID 19 vaccines to be produced around the world. But WTO representatives from richer countries, including the US and the UK, have opposed issuing the waiver. This this opposition was initially a policy of the Trump administration, who steadfastly defended the profits of Big Pharma over the lives of millions of people in the Global South. Unfortunately, even through ten day, 100 days of their administration, the Biden regime has continued that policy. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the COVID 19 vaccine must be seen as a global public good a people's vaccine. On February 26, a letter to President Biden, signed by over 400 organizations, urged the administration to lift the US blockade of the waiver. And and the letter said quote, You can also help restore America's moral and public health leadership in the world by siding with the majority to prioritize saving lives over protecting pharmaceutical corporation monopolies and profits. This new position would be widely noted, given US officials shameful attack on the waiver at the January WTO meeting and quote , An important Op-Ed appears in this morning's issue of The Washington Post. In strong support of removing the patent restrictions on the COVID vaccine, it's authored by Joseph Stiglitz, Co-recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, and Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. They say, quote, Unfortunately, the drug companies have consistently done what they can to preserve their monopoly control. Even today, as they battle the waiver and argue that existing compulsory licensing rights are sufficient, they lobby the US government to sanction countries to use that to. These corporations have also undermined this option by building, quote unquote, targets of intellectual property barriers. They fortified their monopolies by registering exclusive rights to industrial designs and undisclosed data such as trade secrets and test data. In addition to numerous patents and copyrights for each medicine, each element would require a license, and the WTO flexibilities might not even encompass all of them, end quote. This this update from Joseph Stiglitz and Lori Wallach captures exactly the kind of network of licenses that the WTO imposes to make it impossible for countries to do what is needed to save lives. All kinds of members have received important letters from the Washington Fair Trade Coalition and from the Association of Flight Attendants, and also from Hindus for Human Rights. Supporting this resolution from my office and urging the council to vote yesterday. The TRIPS waiver, which this resolution is calling for, is supported by, as I said, the Fair Trade Coalition, but also by Partners in Health. The American Medical Student Association. Doctors for America and National Nurses, United Health Gap. Public Citizen. Amnesty International. Oxfam Labor Unions and Faith Organizations and API. China. Indivisible Community Alliance for Global Justice. Global Exchange Code Pink Right to Health Action. Washington Federation of State Employees Bossi American Federation of Teachers, Washington and the Jewish Council of Greater Seattle and the Filipino Community of Seattle, among many, many others. This allusion is timely because a new round of WTO meetings are beginning, including a Trips council gathering planned for April 30th, which is four days from now, and a General Council meeting due in early May. Activists and organizers around the world are fighting for the waiver and are building momentum to prepare for those upcoming WTO meetings. And this resolution will join the Seattle City Council as one part of that effort if it passes today. My hope is that this resolution will inspire other cities to do the same, to make it clear to the Biden administration that we will not accept a continued policy of vaccine nationalism, and we can see how building movements can win victories. Just in the past couple of days, the Biden administration was finally forced to concede and send some vaccine materials and doses to India, which they previously report refused to do. And we should recognize that this is a victory, but it is only a first step, and it's not a substitute or an excuse for refusing to carry out the TRIPS waiver and allowing every country around the world to make the vaccines they need. On the one side, we have the health and safety of all of humanity, and on the other we have the endless greed for profits by Big Pharma and the billionaire class. I hope all council members decide to stand with human life and not billionaire profits. And and I know Councilmember Herbold has some amendments which I've already said I support them, so I invite you to describe them.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, sir. So what I am going to call now on, Councilmember Herbold, what I understand has an amendment that she circulated earlier today. So, Councilmember Herbal. Herbal, I'm going to recognize you to make your motion.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I move to amend resolution 3 to 0 zero four as presented on Amendment One, which was recently submitted.
Speaker 1: There a second.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Please feel free to address the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I was hoping that the language could just be incorporated in the resolution, but I ran out of time. It's just simply the changes are simply intended to elevate the fact that during a global pandemic are the destinies of of the people in our city are especially connected to the destinies of folks in other cities, particularly those cities who have less access to vaccine. And so the amendment adds recitals to emphasize the the, the importance of disseminating vax vaccination everywhere to develop herd immunity. Again, that is something that must be done in a way that can can help all of us. The amendment also recognizes that new COVID variants continue to develop throughout the world, and the importance of getting vaccines distributed worldwide can increase the likelihood of success in the battle against COVID 19, and emphasizes the importance of vaccinations to reopening both in developed and in the developed countries and in the global south. And then finally recognizing that so many of our residents here in Seattle have family members in other countries and including those countries without adequate access to vaccine. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any comments or questions on Councilmember Rebel's amendment? Hearing no questions or additional comments. Will the caucuses called a roll on the amendment to Resolution 32004, as described by and previously circulated by Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: I, Lewis? Yes. What? Alice? Yes.
Speaker 4: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. I is in favor and opposed.
Speaker 1: The motion passes and the amendment is adopted to resolution 32004. Are there any additional comments on Resolution 3 to 0 zero four as amended? Charles Moore Peterson, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, council president. I appreciate the good intentions of this resolution 32004 and the amendments that I just voted for. I believe we all share the goals to have the COVID vaccines widely available here and throughout the globe. I believe we agree on that goal. And I also believe our experienced congressional delegation, including Pramila Jayapal, Adam Smith, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are more than capable of providing advocacy and oversight on the issues impacting the nation and international relations. And that includes how best to curtail the pandemic as quickly as possible across the nation and abroad. Once again, I think we're reminded of the limitations of our own council rules, which do not currently allow council members to abstain, even on non-binding resolutions. I believe in abstention would be appropriate when we might agree on the overarching message of a resolution like this one, but may not have either the bandwidth to research the details as we deal with the multiple crises in our own city. Or we might not have the expertize in important underlying details. For example, I believe it's important to research these details, but because of the speed at which this came about, I'm not able to delve into the matters of pharmaceutical, intellectual property or World Trade Organization agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights and other issues. I also do not believe this particular issue is within the scope of our influence as a legislative body of a city, nor is it directly tied to our duties under the charter of the city. So with no ability to abstain on this resolution, I'll have to be voting no. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilor Petersen, are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended? Counselor. Excellent. As the sponsor, you get the last word to close out debate and then we are going to call the roll.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I just in response wanted to respond to Councilmember Peterson quickly and then make a few other comments. In closing, Councilmember Peterson said, we I believe we all share the goal that vaccine should be available for everyone globally. But if a councilmember is planning to vote no on this resolution or even one thing expressing the desire to abstain on this issue, then no, then we don't share that goal, because if you share the goal and vaccine should be available, then as an elected representative at any level, one should be not only willing to, but eager to fight for the rights of all working people. But in this situation, this is a question of a human catastrophe that is happening at an unprecedented and indeed at an industrial scale. And so I think that it is simply impossible and it is unconscionable to view this issue solely to the narrow lens of what the Seattle City Charter says. It has to be viewed through the lens of moral and political obligations of this moment. And I just wanted to add the point that, you know, this is very much related to Seattle City Council's responsibilities, because we know that because it's a pandemic, which means it's a global epidemic. Public health experts are warning us that the virus has the capability of spreading, multiplying and mutating in different parts of the world. And the only way, as Duncan Rehoboth said, for us to help keep everyone safe is to reach the degree of herd immunity that that epidemiological statisticians are recommending that we urgently reach, which is going to be impossible without billions of people having access to the vaccine, which in turn will be impossible without this necessary first step of the WTO trips waiver. So I don't see how you can stand for Seattle's working people and the Seattle community without also standing up for the access to vaccines globally. Because such a thing is, you know, they're just mutually exclusive in the case of a pandemic. And so, in other words, not ensuring that the whole world has access to the vaccine means playing Russian roulette with the lives of people in America and in Seattle. And the city council's resolution is going to be but one step, important step, but it's just one step forward. We will need other elected officials to also weigh in. And I'm hoping that this resolution passes. So we put that example forward. I also just wanted to add that Big Pharma and the elected officials in Congress and including many Cabinet appointees in the Biden administration, claim that intellectual property rights and the massive profits for Big Pharma are necessary to create an incentive to develop future vaccines and treatments. But we should be recognizing that this is a complete lie. The reality is that no clinical innovation would be possible without overwhelming amounts of public funding and without overwhelming amount of work by armies of dedicated researchers and scientists. And these are salaried employees. These are not billionaires. And yet, once clinical innovations are available, their profits all go to the billionaires, not to the ordinary people, billions around the world who have contributed to make this research possible. For instance, The New York Times reported that Caitlin Perrigo, one of the heroes in the development of the groundbreaking mining technology that has made COVID vaccines possible and, as you know, has been the backbone of this lifesaving vaccine, spent her career going from publicly funded lab to publicly funded lab, supported by government grants, never herself making more than $60,000 a year. This is not new. We know this has happened with AIDS medications. And also in 2007, when the intellectual property rights to the EpiPen were purchased by a pharmaceutical company, it increased the wholesale price six fold from $100 in 2009 to $609 in 2016. All of this logic was clearly demonstrated in an investing article on CNBC last Wednesday titled, quote, Goldman Sachs Assets in biotech research are both. Is curing patients a sustainable business model? End quote. In other words, Goldman Sachs, which is an absolutely notorious Wall Street corporation. They are having to acknowledge publicly that while having one shot cures two results, which is completely possible given our technical knowhow today in humanity. While one shot cures are extremely beneficial to humanity as a whole, not to not only saving lives, but preventing any amount of. That people face because of diseases. It is not good for the profits and and more importantly is the repeated and chronic profit making of Big Pharma. It shows the logic of capitalism itself is completely in conflict with the needs of humanity. And we should remember in 1999, the people of Seattle filled our street streets to protest the WTO meetings, inspiring an international movement against corporate globalization. This is what the movement was protesting against. International trade agreements like WTO are written by the capitalist elite from around the globe to defend their profits against working people across the globe. And that is why we need international solidarity. And I want to thank all the organizations who have helped with this resolution and strongly build support for it. But I especially I'm going to thank everybody, of course, who have lent their support for this. But I especially wanted to recognize the coalition of Seattle Indian Americans, the Washington Fair Trade Coalition and socialist alternative organizations who really build strong support for this resolution. And as I said, it will be a small but very crucial step in building momentum towards the April 30th Council meeting. I'll end with a message to our movement. I agree with the activists calling for a Seattle protest on April 30th. Let's end the status quo of billionaire driven, billionaire profit driven vaccine apartheid and vaccine nationalism and save millions of lives by winning vaccine, internationalism and a people's vaccine. And let's make sure that we build on that in the United States by winning Medicare for All.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. That does conclude debate on this particular item. So at this point, I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 0: Boris Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales Yes. Peter Son.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: Sir. I want yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. And Council President Gonzalez I seven in favor.
Speaker 1: One opposed the motion carries, the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business colleagues. Is there any further business to come before the Council? I'm sorry, Lewis, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I would ask the indulgence of the Council to be excused from both briefing and full council for the May 3rd meeting.
Speaker 1: Hey. Thank you so much. Colleagues, if there's no objection. Member Lewis will be excused from council related meetings on May 3rd. Hearing no objection. Councilmember Lewis will be excused from our full council meeting on May 3rd, as well as our council briefing. Any other further business to come before the council? Hey, hearing none, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, May 3rd, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION prioritizing people over the profits of pharmaceutical companies; supporting the production of COVID-19 vaccine around the world; urging President Biden to end U.S. opposition to the Waiver from Certain Provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID-19 at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120034
|
Speaker 4: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120034 An ordinance relating to city employment authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and protect 17 Strategic Adviser Legislative Bargaining Unit to be effective January 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Colleagues, this is Council Bill 120034. It authorizes the city to execute a collective bargaining agreement with Protect 17 Legislative Analyst's Unit, otherwise known as the Central Staff Analyst Bargaining Unit. This is a new collective bargaining agreement and the first ever for the Legislative Department of the city of Seattle. The Legislative Analyst's Unit is comprised of approximately 15 regularly appointed city employees who certify Protect 17 as their bargaining agent in July of 2020. This collective bargaining agreement is a three year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions from January 1st, 2018 through December 31st, 2021. It provides for wage adjustments of 4% in 2019, 3.6% in 2020, and 2.9% in 2021. The terms and conditions of this collective bargaining agreement were established consistent with the parameters approved by the Labor Relations Policy Committee and the related Seattle Municipal Code. I encourage my Council colleagues to support the passage of this Council Bill and in doing so, authorize the execution of this collective bargaining agreement with a legislative analyst bargaining unit represented by Project 17. I'm happy to hear any comments or take any questions. Hearing? None. Moved to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 zero three. Sorry.
Speaker 3: President Gonzalez. I was late.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's okay. Go ahead. Consumers one.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I am, of course, really happy to vote yes on this bill authorizing the execution of the union contract between Protect 17 and the city administration to represent the hardworking people in central staff. Unionizing is crucial for all workers. As an individual worker, you have little to no power to push for your rights. But when you get organized into a union, you have the power to shut your workplace down. And that is real power to bring your boss to the negotiating table as you fight for better pay and working conditions. Getting a first contract is historically one of the most difficult and important steps in successfully unionizing the workplace. So as a union member myself, I want to congratulate central staff and protect 17 on this step forward. Ultimately, a union is its members and unions are only as strong as their members are union activists in the labor movement . We have seen that the moment you sign a contract, you start to see things that that may go wrong with, that you need to start preparing for the next contract negotiations. Ultimately, it will be up to the union members to decide what to fight for in a contract. And just speaking as a council member who fights alongside social movements and the labor movement, I you know, I'm very aware of the work that simple staff do in order to put the interests of ordinary working people and marginalized communities forward. All the victories that we are won through the legislation from our office and from our movement, all of them have the central staff's imprint on it. And that is that is part of the historical and political record. And I wanted to thank them for all the work that they do. And I also understand that workload and work hours is that is something that needs to be taken up for them in the next round of contract negotiations, because I know that that is an important part of what central staff are trying to achieve, and it is certainly something that the union has the power to bargain. And I wanted to stand in solidarity with all the union members in the central staff. Just a recommendation finally I have for unions bargaining. This and other union contracts is to do everything in their power to remove no strike clauses. Most union contracts in the US do they have no strike clauses that prohibit strikes during the contract? That was not always the case and it's unfortunate because it abandons one of the most important forms of worker power in advance. Obviously that is not something that is concretely posed right now. But in general, as a general point, I think it's important in the labor movement to remove no strike losses or not accept no strike losses. And retaining the option of a strike is always important for the power of a union to resolve grievances and to fight for their members on other issues. I just wanted to make that general comment while congratulating central staff on winning their first contract. And I'm happy to vote. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your service, Alan. And colleagues, I apologize. I just realized that things were a little out of order on my script, so I should have moved. It moved the bill before speaking to it, and I failed to do that. So my apologies for that. So I'm going to now move to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 034. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you so much has been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill. I already addressed it a little out of order again. Apologies for doing that. And we just heard from Councilor Russell wants her comments, but I do want to offer yet another opportunity for anyone else who might have 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: Or both? Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales as. Mesquita I. Peterson. Salon? Yes. Council President Gonzales high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the child will sign it. Will. The court fees are fixed by signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the clerk please read item two into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and PROTEC17 Strategic Advisor-Legislative Bargaining Unit to be effective January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120035
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item two Council Bill 120035 An ordinance relating to the City Department amending terms and conditions of pertaining to the Emergency Bill Assistance Program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the COVID 19 emergency. And amending Section 21.4 9.04.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Move to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 035. Is there a second second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilman Piercing and sponsor of the bill. So I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through the legislation.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Also, president colleagues, as I mentioned at council briefing this morning, Council Bill 120035 and Council Bill 120036 are two straightforward refinements to key COVID relief measures from both City Lite and Seattle Public Utilities. Both council bills were posted on our introduction referral calendar a week ago, and they simply expand the utilities emergency assistance programs for struggling ratepayers for 2021. Our central staff analysts circulated a brief memo about both bills last week. In short, both bills are a helpful expansion of the emergency assistance programs during these difficult economic times. These ordinances are required even for these simple modifications just for 2021. I encourage my colleagues to support both bills today to benefit low income ratepayers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments. Will the corpses callable on the passage of the bill or both? Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Mosquito I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Yes. Council President Gonzales was I didn't favor not oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and then chair will sign it will please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item three into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending terms and conditions pertaining to the emergency bill assistance program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the COVID-19 emergency; and amending Section 21.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120036
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item three Council Bill 120036 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities Emergency Assistance Program temporarily expanding access to assistance and amending section to 1.76.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I need to pass Council Bill 120036. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilor Pearson, you're also the sponsor of this bill and hand it back over to you. Describe legislation.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president and colleagues. This is just the second bill and I just spoke to. The first bill was Seattle City Lights program. And this is the program, the emergency assistance program for Seattle Public Utilities. I recommend passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? As a member herbal, please.
Speaker 4: Keep this room faithfully. I want to thank both of the utilities for bringing these forward. It's so important to assist customers who are behind on their bills. Even though we have a no show policy. We know that overdue utility bills could be used to evict the tenant after the moratorium is lifted. So making it possible for people to get current on their bills now is really important for customers who have access access the program over the course of the year. I know many folks were told that they could only access the assistance once a year. We've confirmed with both Seattle Public Utilities and City Light that customers who have already received assistance this year will actually be contacted again to let them know that they can now utilize the assistance a second time and just really appreciate that extra attention not only to the need but to the the outreach to let folks know that the policies have changed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Herbold asked. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales a muslera. I. Peterson, I. Salon? Yes. Council President Gonzalez. I in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the crook please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item four into the record?
Speaker 4: The report of the Governance and Education Committee agenda item for Resolution 32002a Resolution Supporting Renewal of King County's Best Starts for Kids Levy. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities’ Emergency Assistance Program; temporarily expanding access to assistance; and amending Section 21.76.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120025
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 120025 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the Surveillance Impact Report for the Seattle Police Department's use of automated license plate reader technology. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Because, Mr. Peters, I'm not handed over to you to address this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. This is one of the five sort of existing surveillance technologies that are used, and my comments earlier apply to this as well in terms of the, the lengthy process that the each of the surveillance and bank reports go through to get to this stage, and that the inspector general, the Office of Inspector General , will be continuing to monitor the use of this technology. I want to thank committee members for amending this this ordinance in committee, which helped to address some of the concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any. I'm sorry. I understand that customer, a Herbold, has an amendment on this particular bill as well. So when he handed over to her to make her motion.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. I move to amend Council Bill 12 zero zero 25 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment one. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Herbold to walk us through Amendment One.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So this amendment requests that the Seattle Police Department report no later than the end of the third quarter of 2021 on the feasibility of retaining records of nine case specific automated license plate reader data for no more than 48 hours. This alters a previous amendment that I brought was passed in committee. That amendment asks SPV to consider retaining records for no more than seven days. Since that committee meeting, we were contacted by the ACLU, a member of the workgroup, and they pointed out that their recommendation was actually for no more than 48 hours. And so I'm altering my my my previous amendment. And this is consistent with the recommendation contained within the Workgroup Surveillance Impact Report. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any additional comments on this amendment? Harry. No additional comments on the amendment. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 1: Herbal? Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. I. MORALES Yes.
Speaker 0: Rosetta I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Silent? Yes. Council. President Gonzales. I vote favor none of those.
Speaker 0: The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Customer responses.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify to members of the public who are watching that my previous comments were meant for this item and the next item. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Okay. Any additional comments? Carry none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill?
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Mascara. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So want?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez high seven in favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and then sure will sign it with a piece affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the clerk read item 11 into the record.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120026 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Police Department's use of parking enforcement systems, including automated license plate reader technology. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the surveillance impact report for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Automated License Plate Reader technology.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120026
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120026 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Police Department's use of parking enforcement systems, including automated license plate reader technology. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Peterson, you are the chair of the committee. Someone handed back over to you to address this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. So this is the third of the five items here. And this is where parking enforcement team uses this technology to do part of their work. Councilmember Swan spoke to this as well. I want to thank the committee for the amendments that they made and to make it stronger and for the work by the departments. On answering all of our questions during committee. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 1: Bold. Yes. Whereas my. Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So want? No. Council President Gonzalez I seven in favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk read item 12 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Parking Enforcement Systems including Automated License Plate Reader technology.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120027
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 120027 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the Surveillance Impact Report for the Seattle Police Department's use of computer aided dispatch technology. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Casper Petersen, back to you to walk us through this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, counselor. President, colleagues, this is the fourth of the five bills and this deals with the computer aided dispatch technology and its basic use in terms of the 911 dispatch and very important to how the police department operates in dispatch as calls. So we did ask questions during committee and we got the answers we needed to move ahead and we did amended as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank. Thanks so much. Any additional comments on this bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill will occur. He's called the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Her bold s. Whereas i. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mascara. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Silent. Yes. Council President Gonzalez, I know you didn't favor not opposed.
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 on my behalf? Item 13 Will the clerk read item 13 into the recurring agenda?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the surveillance impact report for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Computer-Aided Dispatch technology.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120028
|
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 on my behalf? Item 13 Will the clerk read item 13 into the recurring agenda?
Speaker 4: Item 13 Council Bill 120028 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval and uses and accepting the Surveillance Impact Report for the Seattle Police Department's Use of the COP Logic Technology. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson, back to you to walk us through this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. So this is a technology used for online reporting. It's online reporting for citizens as well as for small business owners. But we did have a lot of questions about this technology, especially from the standpoint of the small business owners reporting. We had our questions answered. We also amended the bill three amendments that passed at committee. I want to thank Councilmember Morales for her amendment and particular regarding the having the Office of Inspector General provide more information as part of their review that continues beyond our passage of this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I'm not seeing any hands raised. I didn't want to. Just for the record, note that we did have a very robust conversation in committee about this particular technology. In particular, I know that there are individuals who are concerned with and I share the concerns about the underlying policy issues related to particular areas where this information may be used by received a lot of assurances and clear, concise responses from the department on and on where the lines are being drawn in terms of sharing information. And that could lead to two to prosecutions or usage in other other way. This is from this information that was also and the committee meeting was also really illustrative. And the fact that we we had a quite a bit of conversation around sort of how do you capture information that could lead to perhaps identifying patterns of disproportionate use of the program, but then wrestled with the idea that that we don't want more information to be captured. And that's the whole purpose of this surveillance in that report, is to limit the capturing of that information. So I think we still have some work to do in the policy areas related to some of these programs. But I, I feel comfortable with the surveillance and reports trying to thread the needle between what kind of information we're gathering and for what purpose. And I look forward to supporting this this bill based on that really robust conversation that we had an opportunity to having has more make. Any additional comments? Kerry none will declare peace called the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Or both? Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Scary, I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Council. President Gonzales, I. Eight in favor, not opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it with a quick fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Other business colleagues this morning have mentioned in council briefing that she was bringing forward a letter for our signature, relating it to the to King County.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the surveillance impact report for the Seattle Police Department’s use of the CopLogic technology.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03292021_CB 120015
|
Speaker 0: Motion carries in the appointments are confirmed. Well, the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record. Reporter The Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item six Constable 1200154 way into the city department amending rates, terms and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the city like departments for 2021 and 2022. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much, Casper Peterson. You are chair of the committee. I'm going to hand it over to you for the committee.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counsel, President, colleagues at our Transportation and Utilities Committee. On March 17, we unanimously accepted this Council bill 120015 to reaffirm electricity rates for Seattle City Light. Our city has become less affordable and utility bills are essentially regressive. So our goal is to keep costs down so we can keep rates low. Thankfully, during COVID, our city owned utilities both Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities have managed to keep rates steady to increase enrollment in our utility discount program and to waive late fees. With this legislation, I'm pleased that City Light continues to prevent a net increase to electric bills this year. Each customer's bill is composed of various electricity rates, pass through power rates and surcharges, and through a combination of actions. We can continue to prevent an increase in bills this year. In addition, Seattle City Light will be keeping their promise for next year 2022, by sticking with the original rate path agreed to back in 2018 and possibly achieving a smaller increase if passed, the rates from Bonneville Power Administration come in lower. I appreciate both Seattle Satellite and Seattle Public Utilities focusing on affordability for our city residents. I want to thank my vice chair, Dan Strouse, for helping to provide more time for us to consider this bill. Again, this bill was recommended unanimously by committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the Bill Strauss, please?
Speaker 2: I think it counts. President Thank you. Chair Peterson I want to also express my gratitude to the citywide team who took over two and a half hours to brief me on a long list of questions going into the strategic plan, understanding that while we are codifying the 2022 rates today, that those are they were already endorsed within the last strategic plan. So these have these were changes made long ago. And I just, again, want to thank City White for their amazing work, to be able to keep rates as low as possible and to actually not increase rates this last year. So thank you so much, council president. Thank you, Chair Peterson. Looking forward to voting yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any other comments on the bill? Looks like there's no additional comment. So will the critics call the roll on the passage of the bill? I.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's just a free for all at this point. Madam Clerk, we are unable to hear you. So perhaps you can come off of me, or somebody can come off a mute and let me.
Speaker 1: Try this again.
Speaker 4: I'll be the clerk. I'll just get her. I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold asks Suarez. Yep. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. President Gonzalez. I resign 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 on my behalf? Okay. I promise we're going to get through this screen and do it together. So will the clerk please read item seven through 11 into the agenda item seven through 11 appointments 1832 through 1836.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending rates, terms, and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2021 and 2022; amending Sections 21.49.030, 21.49.052, 21.49.055, 21.49.057, 21.49.058, and 21.49.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03222021_CB 120019
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item one will please read the short title of item one into the record. The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item one Constable 1200 19 and many audience 26 to 37, which adopted the 2021 budget , including the 2021 three 2026 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Consumer scanning. You are the chair of this committee, and I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through the report. Thank you very much, Madam President. Council colleagues, thank you for all of your input on this item. Just as a reminder, this is our resolution that outlines the principles and our broad spending categories for the anticipated additional federal aid that is coming from the American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA. As Senator Bernie Sanders said recently in an interview on Democracy Now! This is the most significant legislation for working people that has been passed in decades, saying what this legislation does. He commented on the fact that this legislation advances priorities in this country that we have ignored for far too long, noting that we have the highest rates of child poverty of any major country on Earth. And this largest legislation expands tax credits and lowers childhood poverty in America by up to 50%. This legislation says that in the richest country in the history of the world, people should not be going hungry. The legislation passed by Congress provides help so that when moratoriums on evictions end, people will get the assistance they need to be able to stay in their homes, whether a rental unit or your own home. And the federal act more than doubles funding for community health centers. These are among other priorities. It is with great anticipation that the City of Seattle is looking forward to working with all of the residents in Seattle to allocate the funding to address the immediate needs that have become worse due to COVID and also address the underlying inequities that were present prior to COVID. The crisis of the pandemic has only exacerbated it and made worse many of the situations that families were living in, in poverty, or whether they were vulnerable communities or families who are living paycheck to paycheck, and the disproportionate impact, especially on women and people of color as a result of the consequences of COVID. I'm really excited about this resolution. It is the first of a few pieces of legislation that I know the Council will pass soon related to the American Recovery Act plan. But this resolution provides the backbone, the frame that we will continue to go back to as we allocate funding to provide necessary services both in the near and the long term, to recover from this crisis. The priority investments in this resolution are informed by policies that many in the community have engaged in deep conversations with the Seattle City Council on over the last year. This builds on previously passed legislation like the 2020 budget revisions like our Jumpstart Seattle COVID relief plan. The initial plan that we passed and the final one that was submitted as well, and it builds on the 2021 adopted budget all as key components as we look at items for immediate relief and flagging ongoing investments in the outyears. The resolution was developed with the following considerations in mind. First and foremost, data obscured. I'm so sorry, but I just realized that you're speaking to item two and we are on item one, so I apologize. You're so excited about this resolution that we weren't excited about. But yes, right over the first bill, I.
Speaker 2: Thought it was me. I thought I was off. Thank you. I thought I was going.
Speaker 0: To cry all that away for Bill two and I apology. I apologize to Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yeah so I think.
Speaker 0: We're we're all.
Speaker 2: Equally excited.
Speaker 0: About council bill 120019. So I'm going to hand it back over to you to walk us through that one at first and if you'd like to defer to Councilmember Lewis, also happy to do that. Well, Councilmember Lewis, I appreciate your leadership on this. I will be very brief. Item number one, colleagues, is ordinance 120011. This does require a three fourths votes of Seattle City Council. So I'm equally as excited about this piece of legislation. I will note that it provides the 12 million appropriated needed for the non congregant shelter services, including hotel rooms, tiny house villages or enhanced shelter options for individuals experiencing homelessness and an increased risk for contracting COVID. Greatly appreciate the leadership of Councilmember Lewis and the Council President and the negotiations on this bill. And it comes to us after both receiving clarity and after a year of being in compliance and trying to be in compliance with CDC recommendations which require us to look at non congregate shelter options for all of those who are experiencing homelessness across our city. Councilmember Lewis, apologies for the delay and thank you again for your leadership. Councilmember Lewis, would you like to make comments on this bill as the prime sponsor?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for your leadership. And in moving the ball along on this, in bringing all of the parties to the table, including FEMA, the city budget office and the mayor's office, as well as the key council stakeholders. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for co-sponsoring this and moving it expediently through your committee last week on a expedited timeline. You know, a lot has been said about this over the last couple of weeks, as we've discussed this in the news as a community, not just as a city government, that we make sure that we are aggressively pursuing every possible resource to make a impact on the really, really difficult issue that all of us see on a very daily basis of chronic homelessness in our community. Knowing that there are lots of things we can be pursuing with this federal reimbursable resource to mitigate the impact of this. Emergency, get people inside into a private, hygienic place with four walls and a door that locks where they can live with dignity and where they can be protected from the very real and rampant COVID pandemic. We know from some of the conversations this morning and Councilmembers Muscat and Morales and I know from our our briefings in Board of Health last week that despite a lot of cause for optimism, there is still a rampant virus out there that folks experiencing homelessness are more vulnerable to without having a lot of the places that we take for granted to be able to shelter in place in a safe and hygienic way from the unique challenges of the pandemic . This resource specifically will help the city to address that, to provide the kind of non congregate shelter that is essential for people who are 65 and older, people with co-morbidities, people with enhanced vulnerability to the disaster can take advantage of. I do want to note that this is a resource that is on top of other resources this Council has appropriated and put forward to provide more non congregate shelter. It is additive to the 300 hotel rooms that the council provided funding for last fall. It is additive to the 120 additional tiny houses that the council provided, as well as the 125 enhanced shelter spaces. That is 545 total aggregate spaces. The executive is still in the process of setting up in collaboration with the Council, and we should get a pretty big update on all of those assets in the April meeting of the Council. But in the meantime, we can be leaning in with this additional resource to take advantage of the generous offer from FEMA to 100% reimburse for certain expenses that meet their criteria that we have spent a lot of time really drilling down into the specifics of. And this legislation addresses that. One last thing I do want to say on this, just to make sure we don't forget, I know council president had indicated an interest in being added as co-sponsor. I want to make sure that we do that before the full passage. And I don't know if this is the time to signify as prime sponsor that that is absolutely very warranted given the key leadership role council president played in bringing this together. But I just want to close my comments by recognizing that. And with that, I'll turn it back over.
Speaker 0: Thanks for that concern. Lois, really, really appreciate it. I went I would like to have my name added as I cosponsored to this really important bill and I appreciate your comments. Customer Lewis following up on that. So I'm hoping that the clerks are listening. I'm sure that they are so that they can make sure that the record reflects my co-sponsorship. And I will wait for one of them to tell me that I need to see specific, more specific words if I need to. And happy to do that. Okay with that.
Speaker 1: We've added you as a co-sponsor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Really appreciate it. Colleagues, any other comments or questions on on Council Bill 120019. I'm not seen any more comments on this. I am really excited to be able to vote in favor of this particular council bill and the things that we think it makes a lot of sense based on what the Prime sponsor and and Chair Mosqueda just just mentioned. And I'm glad that we were able to find some much needed clarity on the policy position related to this bill from the federal level that really allowed us to move this particular legislation forward. And of course, there is no 100% guarantee of 100% reimbursement. But I think that any opportunity we can to get reimbursement, even if it's partial, is critically important to continue to protect those who cannot shelter in place from the devastating, deadly impacts of COVID 19. We know that it is going to take us a while to catch up to the demand and the need as it relates to vaccination. And we also know that when we're talking about hard to reach community members like those who do not currently have housing or are unsheltered, it's going to be even more challenging to deploy vaccinations into the community. And it's going to take us, unfortunately, a little bit longer because of the transitory nature of the population. So this hoteling strategy and other strategies that allow us to focus on non congregate shelter for those individuals who will continue to be at significant risk to COVID 19 is is going to be critically important for the city moving forward. So I appreciate and appreciate the the good sense here in advancing this bill. All right. I'm not seeing any additional comments on this bill, so I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 120019.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Hi, Peterson.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Item two Will the clerk please read item two into the record? Agenda item two Resolution 31999.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; and adding or modifying provisos; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03222021_CB 120008
|
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? Will the clerk please read item three into the record? Every part of the Transportation and Utilities Committee and I have three counts above 120008 relating to the City Department authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to release a portion of an existing transport transmission corridor easement to the City of Kirkland and accepting the payment of fair market value for the partial release of easement. Can we recommend the bill pass? Thank you so much, Madam Clair CASMIR Peterson, you are chair of the committee, and I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you to provide the the report on this bill.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 120008 facilitates the completion of part of the Regional Rail Trail Project by having Seattle City Light grant a small easement to the city of Kirkland. The City of Seattle is retaining sufficient rights for ongoing satellite access for maintenance of the power line. Our committee held the public hearing March 3rd and then recommended unanimously our committee on March 17. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Really appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on this bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Hi.
Speaker 4: Peterson Hi.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Strouse Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez All right.
Speaker 5: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez High 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 on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item four into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to release a portion of an existing transmission corridor easement to the City of Kirkland; and accepting the payment of fair market value for the partial release of easement.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03222021_CB 120017
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 0: Council 1 to 0 zero 17 relating to grant funds from non city sources. The committee recommends the bill passed. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. This one is yours as well. So I'll hand it back over to you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President Colleagues Council 120017, which is co-sponsored by Councilmember Herbold, accepts a grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council for the West Seattle Bridge. Many thanks to Council President Gonzales and Councilmember Arias as well as to our city government staff members who enabled us to secure this grant to help pay for the restoration work for this bridge that is so important to the city, the region and the state. We look forward to the high bridge reopening which is scheduled for the middle of next year. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And not a moment too soon, I tell you. All right. I imagine that there are additional comments on this bill. So are there any other comments? Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. What a. Send my.
Speaker 0: Thanks.
Speaker 2: Councilor Juarez. You're on my list, so I hope it's okay. I want to thank the IOC Executive Board Members Council President Gonzalez, Councilmembers Lewis Strauss and Mayor Durkan for their work at the Executive.
Speaker 0: Committee.
Speaker 2: And to the Our City Transportation Policy Advisory Board Members.
Speaker 0: And Alternate.
Speaker 2: Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember Suarez and Petersen.
Speaker 2: For their work on the Transportation Advisory Board for making the recommendations in the first place to move this funding to the Executive Board for their final action. Really support. Appreciate the support and the commitment of all of the city's elected officials to obtaining funding for this critical work and a recognition that this is a regional asset. To date, $124 million has been secured for the overall project, in addition to the 100 million approved by the council. The total of grant secured so far is 15.9 million. With 9 million of the funds coming from the Transportation Benefit District. Last week we all signed a letter to your US DOT Secretary Buttigieg in support of an Infrastructure for Rebuilding America grant for around $2 million or $20 million. And that we're also the city of Seattle seeking 25 million in funding from the state during the current legislative session. So. Feeling feeling good about the funding piece. And yes, this this this bridge can't open soon enough for a lot of folks.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill?
Speaker 2: Yes, I have one comment. Council President.
Speaker 0: Councilor.
Speaker 2: Warren thanked. I want to thank everybody for everything all the time, but more importantly, I want to thank how long it took us to get this money and not name names because it's been going on for about six months. Finally got across the finish line for people to recognize. At least Seattle needs their bridge fixed. A lot of people go over that bridge. It isn't just Seattle's bridge. It's everybody's bridge. And let's see, who did I forget? Yeah, everybody. I want to thank everybody. So thank you.
Speaker 0: I just want to make sure you got everybody.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Let it be known that we are very grateful group of council members from here and to every other corner of the state of Washington. We are incredibly grateful. So thank you so much to everyone. If there are no other comments, I'm going to ask the class to call the roll. Hearing no other comments while the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. I. Peterson I so want. Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 2: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 5: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item five into the record? Agenda Item five Council Bill 120002 Relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports or city lights.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations for the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2021-2026 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03222021_CB 120002
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item five into the record? Agenda Item five Council Bill 120002 Relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports or city lights. Use of current diversion technologies. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Councilmember Peterson, you are the chair of this committee, and I'm going to hand it back over.
Speaker 2: To you to.
Speaker 0: Give us this report.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council president and colleagues, bear with me. Some of these remarks will sound very similar to what I said at council briefing, but for the viewing public, I wanted to set the table again for this. The surveillance ordinance adopted in 2017 and refined in 2018 created for Seattle, a strong process to review technology that I'll use to increase the efficiency of government operations and services could have surveillance capabilities. And thank you to the council, President Gonzales and others who crafted the surveillance ordinance. It puts in place a thorough review process that requires the departments using the technology to justify and provide policies for use of the technology with a focus on protecting privacy and civil liberties. This is followed up with a review by a volunteer surveillance working group and by our Information Technology Department. Our committee received an overview of the Surveillance Technology Impact Report approval process back in January, and three ordinances were put forward for nine of the 26 existing technologies back on February 22nd on the introduction referral calendar. We heard from all the relevant city departments and central staff at our committee on both March 3rd and March 17. I want to thank the staff from the departments using this technology, the staff from our information technology department, the volunteers on this surveillance working group, our central staff analyst Lisa Kay, and my legislative aide to provide for their work on these group to existing technologies. The committee unanimously recommended the impact reports for both Seattle City Light and the Seattle Fire Department Technologies. And these are the two bills before us this afternoon Kalispell 120002 of which is for City Light and 1200083 the next item for the fire department. As I mentioned this morning, during our morning briefing, Councilmember Herbold published a friendly amendment on today's agenda to have the fire department explore the feasibility of an additional computer security feature based on the fire department's responses during our committee. And that's an amendment to the next bill. But this bill before us right now is just for City Light to improve their existing technologies. I'm happy to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. And this bill, of course, is just related to Seattle City, LA. And does not have any amendments being proposed to it. And I'm happy to hear any comments or questions from any of our colleagues. Hearing none. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales Yes, macheda I. Peterson All right. So what? Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis. Yes President Gonzalez high nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Item six Will the clerk please read item six into the record? Agenda item 6120003 Relating to surveillance technology implementation, optimizing approval of uses and accepting the Surveillance Impact Report for the Seattle Fire Department's Use of
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports for Seattle City Light’s use of Current Diversion Technologies.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03222021_CB 120003
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Item six Will the clerk please read item six into the record? Agenda item 6120003 Relating to surveillance technology implementation, optimizing approval of uses and accepting the Surveillance Impact Report for the Seattle Fire Department's Use of Computer Aided Dispatch. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. Customer repeater, so many. And this one back to you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council president and colleagues, as I mentioned before, this is Council Bill 120003, which is for the fire department. Their technology specifically, they're 911 computer aided dispatch and thanks. Thank you to Councilmember Herbold, who I think will be speaking to her amendment shortly. It's a friendly amendment. It was based on Q&A during our committee with the fire department. And this technology is is pretty basic. And it's something they already use and it's just something that falls within the definition of potential surveillance. But it's again, it's just their name on computer aided dispatch. So happy to answer questions and support Councilmember Herbert's amendment.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to make her motion for consideration and discussion of Amendment One.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I move to amend Council Bill 12 0003 as presented on Amendment.
Speaker 0: One on the agenda. Is there a second?
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment One. Councilmember Herbold, I'm going to hand it back over to you to walk us through the amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Chair Peterson did a nice job of.
Speaker 0: Explaining.
Speaker 2: What this amendment.
Speaker 0: Would do in a way.
Speaker 2: That's a heck of a lot more simple than I did this morning. It is really just that simple is simple. As Chair Peterson described it, it would.
Speaker 0: Ask.
Speaker 2: The fire department to look into whether or not an additional layer of security could be included as as part of access being granted to an account to, you know, again, to enhance the.
Speaker 0: Security and prevent somebody.
Speaker 2: From logging in, even if they have access to a password. So I don't I don't need to go into all the minutia about two factor authentication or token based authentication unless people want me to. But thank you.
Speaker 0: I think we're I think we're good on the lesson for today. But I appreciate your offer. Are there any additional comments on Amendment One? Now's your time to ask that two factor authentication or whatever it is. All right. Looks like nobody's taking taken the bait. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes, Mr. Peterson. All right. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 2: Suarez, I.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Motion carries the amendment is adopted and we now have an amended bill before the Council. Are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Morales.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Mosqueda, I.
Speaker 5: Peterson Hi.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez I nine in favor. None oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any further business to come before the council? Hearing than colleagues. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, March 29th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. Did you have something to say or were you waving Councilmember Hesburgh? Whereas I was just waiting. Okay, we're adjourned.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the surveillance impact report for the Seattle Fire Department’s use of Computer Aided Dispatch.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03152021_CB 120011
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item eight Counts Bill 120011 relating to appropriations for the Human Services Department approving a spending plan and may be ordinance 126 237, which adopted the 2021 budget legend, proviso and Red Line confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. You are the chair of this committee, and I'm going to go and hand it back over to you and provide us the report on this.
Speaker 3: Fantastic. Thank you so much. First, just a little bit of process background. Members of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee probably remember that Human Services Director how and how and her name presented a deep overview on this work at the January 26th Committee meeting. And following that presentation, I'll responded more fully to questions that were developed in a memo from committee members and shared on February 18th, Human Services Department released the four proposals related to this funding on March 1st, and this request for proposals is available on the Human Services Department Funding Opportunity Web page. And on March 4th, my office sent out to committee members the central staff memo describing the legislation and the memo from how with more details about the work leading up to and creating RFP public safety. And the Services Committee members voted the legislation out of committee unanimously last week. And just to talk a little bit about what the legislation is all about. Last year during the budget process, we responded calls from community to invest in alternatives to policing and made an effort to to forward funding that we had dedicated during the summer rebalancing process. So as we now observe one year anniversary since the death of Breonna Taylor at the hands of police, it's clear that these calls must be heeded and that this work is as urgent now as it was last year. City Council answered the call by creating 16 million to invest in community led organizations that are creating community safety on the ground every day in Seattle. And last year, the Human Services Department moved quickly to award 4 million of the $16 million to the Seattle Community Safety Initiative and says these are funds that are working to build community safety hubs and wraparound services in three Seattle neighborhoods under the leadership of community passageways. We then collectively urging the executive to expedite its portion of announcement. Our community has been waiting to receive this investment since Council first voted to approve it last summer. Legislation before the Council today lifts a proviso on the funds, which requires the Council an ordinance, a spend plan organized within the intercept model submitted by the Human Services Department of Safety and Human Services Committee members. Her station from the Human Services Department on that plan last week and unanimously voted the legislation out of committee. The new investment will bring together a court four organizations dedicated to reimagining how safety can be achieved in Seattle and the resources they need to lead the way in creating safety in our city. This is exactly the kind of investment recommended in a recent report. The 40 members of the National Commission for the Criminal Justice System that increased violence and offenses as the country. It will move the city's community safety strategy towards a public health centered harm reduction model of restorative justice and crime prevention while ameliorating harm caused by the criminal legal system. The.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, 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 Council Bill 120011.
Speaker 5: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. As Macheda. I. Peterson?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Council member. So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss. Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. President Gonzalez I in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the terrible sign it will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read items nine through 12 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Human Services Department; approving a spending plan; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03152021_CB 120001
|
Speaker 1: Hey part of the land use the Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 120001 relating to land use regulations of home occupations adopting interim regulations to a home occupation businesses to operate with fewer limitations during the COVID 19 Civil Emergency. Amending the Code Section 23.40 2.0 and adopting a work plan. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended with the DIVIDED report with Councilmember Strauss, MACHEDA Morrison, Lewis in favor and Councilmember Peterson opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam. Claire. Councilmember Strauss, you are the chair of the committee, and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. And thank you both. You council president and Councilmember Mesquita for your co-sponsorship of this legislation in the past year. Small businesses have been hurt badly by COVID 19, the pandemic era restrictions, and our economic recession to business. Too many businesses have been forced to shut their doors for good, and this past year has also shown us how creative and nimble business owners, entrepreneurs and innovators can be when they're faced with these challenges. And we know that the land use code was not written for life in a pandemic, and when you use code has not kept up with our changing environment, especially when we're doing more than ever from our Homes Council President Gonzalez, Councilmember Mesquita and I all introduced bringing business home to provide small business owners and entrepreneur entrepreneurs with the flexibility they need for these challenging times. Bringing business home will make it easier to open or operate a home based business for the next year. Time limited year. By easing some of the onerous code restrictions on these small businesses, home based businesses are still regulated by other levels of government and public entities such as Department of Health, Liquor Control, Board, City, Seattle, Department of Finance, the State. There are many, many, many layers of government still regulating businesses, and specifically for businesses that occupy either in food or in beverage or in health care. This does not change any of those regulatory or licensure oversights as well as there would still be many requirements of home based businesses, including they must be operated by a resident of the home, that the business will be clearly accessory. So secondary to the main use of the home is residents that the commercial deliveries are limited to one per day and on weekdays early. And I can tell you some of my neighbors get more on Amazon then than that. Just again, that's an aside. Lastly, it's also very important to understand that home occupancy businesses still must abide by the noise, odor, white or smoke impacts that are currently written in the code that they cannot be noticeable beyond the property by now. Also, you've heard the story of Yonder Cider and Greenwood, which was forced to close after they were found in violation of current code again when Yonder brought their situation to my attention with colleagues as well, I'm sure what opened my eyes is that we have many different businesses, home occupancy businesses operating in the community that are not operating to the letter of the code and could be shut down if they were cited again. Once a citation is in the queue, it cannot be undone even by the person that submitted that citation. And that again is why we need to create this level playing field and why we need to provide this time limited flexibility as an exception to the norm. This bill is more than just about yonder. It's about the opportunity to start and grow a business that can soon fill a vacant storefront down the block, or by giving a struggling small business the chance to move home for the moment to weather the storm and then come back in full bloom on . In our business districts, some of the most successful businesses in the world were founded in garages. I heard about one at committee last week. That sounds very delicious. Now it is time for the city to make life easier for these entrepreneurs. Rather than shutting down the small businesses that make up the fabric of our community, we must make our neighborhoods. Our land use code should not be a barrier to making our neighborhoods more vibrant and having a strong economy. Thank you, Council President and thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for partnering with me on this effort and for everyone who has helped get this bill along, including V, Wynn and Noah on and Quito. Freeman of course. Thank you, people. Council President That is my report, colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. I know that we have one amendment to consider on this bill. That amendment is from Council Member Herbold. My my suggestion. I know I have remarks. I'm I'm almost certain that Councilmember Mosqueda has some remarks also as our partner on this legislative effort. And so my suggestion is that we address the amendment first and then we can open it up to to comments on the bill as amended from those who would like to to speak on the bill is an amendment. If that sounds agreeable to folks, I propose that that is how we should move forward. Okay. I'm not hearing any objection to that. So let's go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to allow her to move her. Yes. Oh, I can hear you now.
Speaker 5: Okay. Oh, it's council member Ward. Thank you so much. I'm at a different location, on a different phone, trying to do three different things. It's a tailored health ward. So I just wanted you to know that on the last item that we voted on regarding the Pike Place Market Preservation, that I had voted yes, but I didn't do the statistics. So I hope the clerk to note that I voted yes on that and and I am here for the Council Bill 120001. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Unfortunately, Councilmember where is the record? Can't reflect that unless we take up a motion for reconsideration, which means we've got to go back in time on the agenda start.
Speaker 5: Nope, nope.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: I appreciate you, but you know I'm here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate your. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. Okay. So Councilmember Herbold and I hand it over to you to make your motion on Amendment one to council Bill 120001.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Council Bill 12 0001 as presented on Amendment One, which was recently distributed.
Speaker 0: Second rate. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Sorry. I'm having my own technological issues over here with words disappearing off the screen. Give me just a minute. There we go. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment one. Councilmember Herbold, back to you in order to address the underlying amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. This is a single amendment that has two components. The amendment requires, first, that a home occupation not have a drive in business component. And secondly, it requires that home occupations that are permitted, but that are related to automotive sales and service. Not cause a substantial increase in on street parking or vehicle traffic. As discussed this morning, this amendment would not prohibit automotive sales or services it would prohibit, as is now the case, a substantial increase in vehicle traffic or parking. The amend would also prohibit a drive in or drive thru type of business. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Because remember, herbals. Are there any additional comments on Amendment One? I know we also had a discussion about this in the council briefing, so there may not be any questions this afternoon, but that doesn't mean that we didn't have a conversation about it. Cause more stress, please.
Speaker 2: I think he counts prison. Thank you, Councilmember. Well, just to note that I did connect with staff in the interim. Having that conversation and briefing was very helpful. This is a very narrow amendment, much like the bill being a very narrow change. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Councilmember Verbal.
Speaker 0: Great. I also had a time I had an opportunity to take a closer look at at this amendment and had a conversation with with my staff as well. See, it is very technical and narrow to that particular type of business. So appreciate that the proposal here will be supporting it. Colleagues, any other comments on Amendment One? Hearing that will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 3: Lewis I.
Speaker 1: Morales Mike Skinner, i. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Whereas.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez I nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much for that. Now I'm going to make a call for any additional comments. And I see that Councilmember Peterson has his hand up and then we will hear from Councilmember Mosqueda. Plus, Mr. Peterson, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. During the two committee meetings, I was able to articulate my strong track record of supporting small businesses, as well as my concerns about this bill. I also posted my concerns with the bill on my city council websites. My constituents can see a detailed rationale for my no vote. The benefits and concerns the bill have recently been reported in the media as well, so I don't want to go through them here, but I really do want to thank the committee chair and original sponsor, Councilmember Strauss, for providing the time to raise and discuss the concerns in this committee. That was really helpful, I think, for everybody. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next is Councilmember Mosqueda and then Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Thank you, council president. I really appreciate the council. The council's consideration of this and this bill today as amended. Happy to be a co-sponsor. Thank you very much, councilmember strauss and council president. I know you've been working on this for a while and very excited to be part of the team as we get this over the finish line. To me, this is really about what's good for the economic resiliency of Seattle. And as you think about how many people have lost their job, their employment prior to the pandemic and folks who are being innovative and creative. I talked to Ventures just last week to hear more about how, you know, some of our smallest businesses are faring during this time. And what I heard is that many entrepreneurs are doing everything they can to try to be innovative and change their business strategies so that they can survive. And allowing for this type of code change is really critical right now as people think about either opening a business for the first time or modifying the type of businesses that they had originally engaged in and doing it in a way that actually reaches people where they're at right now. People are staying home. They're staying in their neighborhoods, they're staying in their local communities, and they're walking more and making it more accessible for people to be able to purchase goods and services in their neighborhood, allow for those entrepreneurs to be able to open the front of their shops or their garages and be able to sell to the pedestrians and the bikers. And, you know, potentially the folks who are going through the neighborhood as they get out and start to enjoy spring and hopefully are vaccinated and actually get a chance to walk around our neighborhoods more. This is an economic stimulus bill. I think it's important to reiterate what we talked about last week as well. This is not just about helping those entrepreneurs who need additional assistance and cut helping to cut through the red tape. This is also about how we create more dollars in the pockets of residents across the city who are then able to spend that money in existing local businesses. This is not going to be a detriment to existing small businesses. In fact, this has a multiplier effect that is beneficial every time we allow for there to be more finances, for more financial stability for residents in the city, it pays forward. People spend that money in local shops and in local restaurants and vendors. So this is truly one small way, a very important way for us to help our smallest employers and future entrepreneurs in this city and whether that's the next Microsoft or the next tasty taco or what have you. And so what that bread councilmember was, I think it's really important that we're making these changes today, because I don't think anyone could argue that having to do appointment only and not more than two people working for the vendor and not having signage on the street, that is not a good way to start a business. So we're making it easier for folks to do that. And we're also addressing the traffic concerns, I think, appropriately in this bill. I want to thank again the council president, staff and customer Strauss's staff and my staff. Andrew Houston did a lot of work on research on this bill, so thank you very much for the ongoing work and part of that research. As we thought about the ways that we clear curbside to make more opportunities for folks to be able to see small businesses was to think about how this isn't just about access to parking in front of businesses. This is about how do we make it a more walkable, thriving and vibrant neighborhood. So looking forward to what we can do to learn from this experience in the long run. I think this is an important interim measure and I think that there's a lot to be gained from this as we think about creating resiliency in the out years. Look forward to working with all of you, and I'm looking forward to passing this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, former Mouseketeer. And next up is council member Morales.
Speaker 3: You council president? I am really excited about this bill. So I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for the work that you've been doing to bring this forward. I think it really speaks to the fact that we need to fundamentally change the way we offer opportunity to our neighbors. We know that micro-businesses play an important role in generating income for some families. In my previous life, I provided technical assistance to food based businesses who were trying to get started, trying to expand. And very often these are shops that are owned by just family members. There aren't a lot of employees. It is, you know, mom and pop, maybe one or two of the kids. And it is very important revenue that they are bringing in for their families. Through that process, I learned how hard it is for these family.
Speaker 2: Businesses.
Speaker 3: To expand into brick and mortar. Commercial space is often too big for some of these very small startups or too expensive, or the tenant improvements that would be required are cost prohibitive. So we have a lot of work to do to make it easier for those who don't have easy access to capital to get their foot in the door, into entrepreneurship, into supporting their families, and really expanding the kinds of goods and services that we're able to offer in our community. And I think this is a really important first step to make sure that that happens. So I look forward to what we can learn through this process. And I want to thank the sponsor and cosponsor for starting this conversation for us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Morales, are there any additional comments on the bill? Okay. I'd like to make some some comments on the bill as well. I am really enthusiastic about being able to support this legislative efforts in partnership with Councilmember Strauss and also with the support and Councilmember Mosqueda, I do want to thank Noah on and the Nguyen from my office. Noah, from your office. Councilmember Strauss For all the hard work that they've done on this legislation, both in terms of reaching out to impacted small business owners, but also the good policy work that they've done on behalf of our offices. And big thanks to Cato Freeman as well for all of his good, good work in this space as well. And I believe that this bill is going to be just one of many strategies that will help us with our economic recovery from COVID 19. We know that we need flexibility and innovation, and this is local government meeting innovation happening on the ground by our entrepreneurs who want to try out ideas and provide needed income for their households. This bill will help lower barriers like access to capital or commercial affordability that keep many women and bipoc entrepreneurs in particular from starting a business. The Bringing Business Home bill will strengthen neighborhoods and get us closer to complete neighborhoods with amenities for Seattle residents and families. At a time when it's not just important to support our local small business to ensure they'll still be with us on the other side of the pandemic. It's also important to create flexibility and options that will help entrepreneurs during this period of time. This bill will help lower barriers like access to capital that keep many, especially bipoc entrepreneurs and women, from starting a business with many out of work during a pandemic. This change can help Seattle residents start a small business to add much needed income to their household. This will only help us to get that much closer to economic recovery while adding vibrancy and amenities to our neighborhoods. In addition, this bill helps us get to better connected neighborhoods, which means we don't need to go far when when services and amenities are within a 10 to 15 minute walk or bike ride. This bill means that it will be easier for people to start their dream of being a small business owner and help us get back to a city of vibrant small businesses all across the city. It will support innovation and provide a pathway for people to build their business clientele and grow capital in hand for their business. We want every single business to grow out of their garage and into a storefront. You need a lot of money to do that. And this bill allows businesses to build at home first before they can take the next big step. And lastly, the reality is that our neighborhoods are the center of our universe as this pandemic continues. And while we recover, this bill will allow us to continue to limit our travel outside of our homes to say, stay safer under pandemic protocols, by increasing amenities right in our back yard. So I am really excited about this bill, and I know that there has been some conversation about the need to ensure that this is not too broad of a legislative fix. I don't think it's too broad of a legislative fix. As Councilmember Straus likes to correctly remind us, this is a narrow bill to address a narrow issue within the structure and the context of the land. So I did want to take an opportunity to read two testimonials into the record from impacted small business owners. The first is from Caitlin Brant. We've heard of Caitlin a lot these days. She is the founder of Yonder Cider and she is a big supporter of Council Bill 120001, which we are calling the Bringing Business Home Bill. And she wrote to us just this afternoon, quote, In August 2020, I launched Yonder Bar our retail to go only space in my garage. We launched in the time of COVID, and when launching a full tasting room with a 5 to 7 year commercial lease was not possible for us. Launching in my garage, allowed for the incubation of our business, helped us to determine its viability and eventually lead to the signing of a commercial lease just last month. I hope this bill allows this opportunity for so many other hopeful small business owners. In the past week alone. I have received calls, emails and messages from more than a dozen people who, like me, have dreamed of opening their business only to be faced with hurdle after hurdle. I believe this bill will open opportunities for small businesses across the city now and into the future. And in my opinion, this bill doesn't take away from people signing commercial leases. It makes them possible. Furthermore, since the comments at the last Land Use Committee, I have gone into my local community to talk to business owners on Greenwood Avenue, from those who I talked to. They welcome businesses like Yonder Bar because what they see is more traffic coming to their neighborhood. To the neighborhood, more potential exposure to their business and more connected by communities that benefits everyone. Many of these businesses also carry our products now and see growing sales with the existence and exposure of yonder bar. Launching on our garage made our big dreams possible and we hope this bill will allow the same for others. That's testimony from Caitlin, who is the founder and president of Yonder Cider. And I want to thank her for for her support and for really important comments on this legislation. A second constituent wrote to our office the following about this bill. I'm about a friend or a voter in District two and the owner of Emerald City Flowers. I started Emerald City Flowers during the pandemic as a part time job to bring joy to people during this difficult time with the pandemic and gain additional income. I'm writing in support of the Home Occupation Bill. During the pandemic, many businesses had to close their storefronts. People were laid off from their jobs. Had their hours reduced. Hiring freezes and freezes on salary increases. However, cost of living remains high. In Seattle, small business owners and residents need to have more avenues to gain income, and this legislation can help make that possible. Current land use laws around operating a business without your home are too restrictive, including having customer schedule appointment times, which doesn't work well for many business models selling goods and services. During this time, many people are at home thinking about how they want to spend their time and what they want to do. For some, that is starting a new business or venture. Our local economy and small business owners have been devastated by the COVID 19 pandemic. By suspending some of these restrictive conditions, it will enable more small businesses to operate and thrive. Seattle is a city of innovation. Many successful businesses were started out of someone's garage. Passing this legislation will help existing and new small businesses as as well as aid the economic recovery of the COVID 19 pandemic with a more vibrant small business ecosystem. So I will conclude my comments there. I think those are two really great testimonials from the north to the south end of our city, and look forward to being able to continue to support this legislative effort. That being said, I want to I want to give Councilmember Strauss the last word before we I call the roll on is still.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Thank you. Colleagues, just want to again and thank you for reading those words that were brought in for public comment today. Council President. This is about incubating innovations and businesses to fill our vacant storefronts. As you just heard in the case of yonder, they would they used their money that they have raised from opening in the garage to fill a vacant storefront. That is the trajectory that we are talking about in their neighboring business association. If any neighborhood association also expressed their support to me for this legislation. This is about being silly. This bill is about being solution oriented and creating outcomes for everyday Seattleites. If you want to take a look at the last two committee meetings for some great questions, good conversation and more information on how narrow this bill is and what other government regulations and licensors are required be on the land use code. There are hours of discussions there. Again, the land use code, not zoning, is what we are partially amending for a time limited period to. To provide flexibility for our small business entrepreneurs. Again, want to thank everyone who worked on this, including Andrew and Councilmember Musk and his office and to Caitlin for bringing this issue to our attention that impacts so many home occupancy businesses throughout Seattle. I have a Ballard patch glass full of water and I would say let's raise our glasses to making big dreams possible for our local entrepreneurs. Thank you, Council President. Thank you, colleagues.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Councilmember Strauss, for those comments. We're now closed out debate and I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the amended.
Speaker 1: This.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mosquito I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. By President Gonzalez. I Edson favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes as amended and I will sign it. Will the piece of fixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the quick please read items 14 and 15 into the.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use regulation of home occupations; adopting interim regulations to allow home occupation businesses to operate with fewer limitations during the COVID-19 civil emergency, amending Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.42.050, and adopting a work plan.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03152021_Res 31997
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item 18 Resolution 31997. Setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Eric Garner. Hearing Examiner Case Number CW f-0295 and from the final findings recommendations report at the hearing examiner on the final assessment role for Local Improvement District 6751.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to adopt resolution 31997. Is there a second circuit? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Suarez, you are the sponsor of the resolution. I'm going to hand it over to you to address it.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. Okay. City Council rules for quasi judicial proceedings require that council set the time and place for a hearing of an appeal of individuals. Final assessment for a local improvement district, otherwise known as the Live within 15 days of the filing of a valid appeal. This resolution schedules an additional excuse me valid appeal filed with the clerk for the April six committee meeting. I recommend Council pass a resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Juarez, are there any additional comments on the resolution hearing on will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales. As Councilmember Mosqueda, I. Councilmember Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member. So. Ah.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold. Yes. Council member. Juarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: And President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Motion carries the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the corpses affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business? Is there any further business to come before the Council? All right, colleagues, hearing on this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, March 22nd, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Rick Bohrer, Hearing Examiner Case Number CWF-0295, and from the final findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03082021_Res 31988
|
Speaker 2: Gentile under 21 Resolution 3198, granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain and operate a private parking area on East Howe Street, east of Fairview Avenue East as proposed by VSO, P one LLC, as part of developing a public plaza in an open right of way in the Eastlake neighborhood, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I'm going to hand this back over to Councilmember Peterson to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: Council president. Resolution 31988 grants conceptual approval to create a small public park and plaza. And this partnership among the neighborhood, local business and the city government better identifies a handful of parking spaces in that section of the Eastlake neighborhood of District four, which I represent. I visited the site recently and we had a thorough presentation in our committee. The project is something the neighborhood has been working on with the Department of Neighborhoods and start for several years and I'm glad to see it finally moving forward. This legislation was recommended unanimously by the committee. You.
Speaker 0: Are there any additional comments on a resolution? Harry. Now, will the court please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 2: SUAREZ Hi.
Speaker 3: LEWIS Hi.
Speaker 2: Morales Hi. Macheda I.
Speaker 3: Peterson Hi.
Speaker 2: So what. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Moving out of Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, will the clerk please read item 22 325 into the.
Speaker 2: Every part of the sustainability and interest rates committee agenda items 22 325 appointments 1814 through 1817 Re Appointments of Diana Braccio and Regina Owens as Members Settlement Tours Commission for Term two February 20, 2023 Re Appointments of Calvin R Jones and Mack Scotty Rae MacGregor as members Seattle Renters Right and Renters Commission for term December 20, 2022
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, and operate a private parking area on East Howe Street, east of Fairview Avenue East; as proposed by BSOP 1, LLC, as part of developing a public plaza in unopened right-of-way in the Eastlake neighborhood.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03012021_CB 119975
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item five Council Bill 119 and 975 relating to land use and zoning. Establishing regulations for development of permanent supportive housing. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide our committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, President Pro Tem Strauss. I know you're a strict moderator, so I'll try to keep my comments brief from coming from the Land Use Committee. So, you know, I think we've discussed this at length over the last couple of months. We've had three committee sessions to mark up this bill, to talk about it, and to thoroughly vetted with the public and stakeholders. You know, I think it's important as homelessness is the defining issue that we're facing as a city and in a lot of ways the defining issue of urban policy nationally, that we be able to go to the public and say that we are doing everything that we can to stretch the value of taxpayer dollars, to make life easier for the builders that are out there making the permanent supportive housing and to structure policy in a way that is bespoke to the unique needs and unique challenges that people in the permanent supportive housing field have faced over the years in an area that we Seattleites have really been a pioneer in cultivating through employment, housing, downtown Mercy Service Center Chief Seattle Club and others. And with this bill, we go one step closer. We can go and tell the people of Seattle, you know, we took a hard look at what are the processes, where is the red tape that we can cut, what are the things that could be streamlined? And that experience has told us we can we can move past, you know, by passing new laws and changing regulations. And with this legislation, we can carve off almost $50,000 per unit in cost to build permanent supportive housing. We can make sure that those buildings are going up faster and with tighter timelines to make sure that they're coming online to help take pressure off of our shelter system and get more of our neighbors inside. And today we can take that step. And I look forward to voting this through. I do want to thank Jacob Thorpe and Parker Dawson on my staff for their work and really putting this together with a bunch of stakeholders over the past couple of months. I want to thank those stakeholders over at Plymouth Housing, Sara Rankin over at the University of Washington. I really want to thank the third door coalition folks. Matt Galvin, you know Chad over there. Oh, Gaucho. You know, it really shows what we can do when we come together and focus on solving a problem rather than pointing fingers at each other about about what the, you know, what isn't getting done. So here's something we got done by working together. We can build on that to have more victories in the future and just really look forward to getting this passed. And I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Colleagues, any questions, comments? Concerns. We will all sit on the Select Committee of Homelessness, Investments and Strategies. So it does look like we have some some hands. Councilmember Herbold and then Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. We all know that permanent supportive housing is well established as the most effective and the most cost effective solution to chronic homelessness. People who live outside live stably for long stretches of their lives outside, who struggle with disabilities and are unable to afford rent. Out of that cohort of folks, 95% of people stay housed in permanent supportive housing regardless of their mental health or substance abuse disorder or their disability. Research conducted at Seattle University School of Law found that permanent supportive housing is associated with better outcomes related to quality of life emergency services, physical and psychiatric hospitalizations and substance abuse. Better outcomes for residents also save money, making permanent supportive, supportive housing again the most cost effective long term solution to chronic homelessness. Permanent supportive housing is also cheaper for the public than the alternative one year of permanent supportive housing cost, the same as only three days in a hospital or three months in jail. I've consistently called for doubling the city's investment in permanent supportive housing. And last year, I among, I think, every member of the City Council joined the launch of the Third Door Coalition and signed on to support their plan to build 6500 units of permanent supportive housing in King County in the next five years. I really appreciate the goal of this legislation to make it less expensive and hopefully, hopefully to build permanent supportive housing more quickly in Seattle. And thank you to Councilmember Lewis for his leadership in working with folks together to solve this problem.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Muffet.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Pro tem. I, too, want to thank Councilmember Lewis for bringing forward this legislation, as well as his work to engage both proponents and skeptics to ensure that this policy was both holistic and truly address the difficulties of affordable health that affordable housing providers have had to deal with when creating permanent supportive housing for our most impacted unhoused neighbors. Council colleagues. This legislation is critical to addressing our ongoing housing crisis and currently and as currently even affordable housing projects started today could take anywhere from 4 to 6 years to design. So creating permanent housing, building that housing and making sure that it's designed well makes makes it important for us to do everything that we can to expeditiously create permanent supportive housing across our city. I am happy to be in full support of this legislation today, and I believe that it will shorten that timeline, bring much needed housing online, much faster for those who are impacted by the lack of access to affordable housing throughout our community. We must also be looking at near-term solutions to help shelter those who are in need most, whether through tiny homes or apartment acquisitions or the ongoing efforts that we continue to talk about for the immediate non-covid shelter options. We must do everything that we can to ensure that there is a pipeline out of those shelters and building more permanent supportive housing is the exit plan to open up more beds so that folks who are living outside have a place to go in our shelters. We must have a permanent supportive housing. And during this bill today passes a clear message that we are moving forward, aggressively addressing the regulatory barriers to building permanently affordable housing, while also identifying funding and all opportunities to expand our shelter capacity as soon as possible. Thank you very much, council members, and thank you very much customer list for your leadership on this.
Speaker 0: Well said. Council of Real Estate and Chutzpah, Peterson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'd like to also thank Councilmember Lewis as chair of our Committee on Homelessness Strategies and Investments for his leadership in crafting this bill. 119975 to speed the production of permanent supportive housing. I very much appreciate we had ample time to review and consider the legislation and offer our modest amendments to it. We are fortunate to have the voter approved Seattle housing levy and our Office of Housing, which funds the construction of approximately 2400 units of low income housing each year. But only 10% to 20% of those units are for the permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals suffering from behavioral health challenges and other issues. I'm grateful to my colleagues for adopting three of my amendments at the committee last week, and these amendments will encourage broadband, internet and low income housing, require at least one community meeting for new projects, and ensure that vital human services are made available to residents of the new projects that skip these projects and skip the design review process. I'm fully supportive of this and will vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Colleagues. Any other questions or comments? Concerns. Seeing none. I'll share my thoughts of, again, gratitude. And thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for your leadership on this bill. It is rare that I get a land use bill out of my jurisdiction, and I did so only because I knew that you would do the job that you did and move this forward in a very thoughtful manner. So thank you for your leadership on that. Councilmember Lewis, I will pass it back to you for last words and then I'll call for the vote.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. I'm glad that no unforeseen consequences were realized from putting this through the Select Committee on Homelessness. So I appreciate your indulgence in letting it go from the purview of the Land Use Committee. Just to close this out and I appreciate the the recognition from many colleagues on on what we put together here. And and Councilmember Peterson, your amendments that improved the bill and Councilmember Herbert's long standing commitments to this issue throughout her career, and then particularly Councilmember Mesquita, that, you know, we can do all that, the cutting of red tape that we want to, but without resources to back this up. You know, cheaper, permanent supportive housing is still going to be out of reach unless there are resources to actually build and acquire it. And the investments made through Jumpstart are going to be stretch that much further due to this bill and these regulations. So I appreciate your leadership and making sure that there are resources on the other end of the of the hurdle here to realize a lot of these investments. So with that, I don't have any additional comments and look forward to voting to pass this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis and Clerks, will you please call the roll?
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Macheda I.
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. President Pro Tem Strauss Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Moving on to item six, adoption of other resolutions. Will the clerk please read the abbreviated title of the short title into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; establishing regulations for development of permanent supportive housing; adding a new Section 23.42.057 to, and amending Sections 23.41.004, 23.45.510, 23.47A.004, 23.47A.005, 23.47A.013, 23.48.005, 23.48.020, 23.48.605, 23.54.015, and 23.84A.032 of, the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03012021_Res 31995
|
Speaker 1: And Item seven Resolution 31995 adopting the statements of legislative intent for.
Speaker 2: The 2021 adopted.
Speaker 1: Budget and 2021 to 2026.
Speaker 2: Adopted capital improvement program.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Moved to adopt resolution 31995. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember mosquitoes sponsor of this item were recognized in order to address it.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Pro Tem Council colleagues. This is the resolution that formally adopts all of the statements of legislative intent, pass through the 2021 adopted budget, as well as the 2021 through 2026 adopted capital improvement program. I want to thank all three from central staff for being present with us this morning to walk us through the detail of this acceptance of resolution and appreciate all of the questions and comments that she has already addressed. Look forward to getting this passed and continuing to see the detailed reports that are statements of legislative intent requests in many cases. Thank you all for all of your work during the budget process to put those slides forward. And we take that with the same level of urgency and importance as any line item funding approval. Look forward to having more conversations on as we receive each of those reports as well throughout the year.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito. Colleagues, any other questions, comments? Concerns. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Just want to underscore piece of information that I think most of us have been notified by Council Central as it relates specifically to some of the Seattle Police Department responses to our statements of legislative and central staff will be providing quarterly updates in the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Regarding the monthly requests regarding overtime use, staffing and Seattle Police Department financial reporting and of course, the quarterly nine one response report requests. I just highlight that because although many of these are monthly reports, we will be addressing them on a quarterly basis in committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember old colleagues, any further comments, questions, concerns or support? I maybe that's the last. Word to use in that phrase. Signal. Clark, will the Clark please call the role in the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Bold? Yes. Lois.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. President Pro Tem Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item eight. Will the clerk please read the short title of item eight into the record?
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION adopting the Statements of Legislative Intent for the 2021 Adopted Budget and 2021-2026 Adopted Capital Improvement Program.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03012021_Res 31996
|
Speaker 2: And then an eight resolution.
Speaker 1: 31996, setting the time and place for hearings on the.
Speaker 2: Appeals of certain.
Speaker 1: Appellants.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I move to adopt resolution 31996. Is there a second second? It has been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Juarez is the sponsor of this item and I understand Councilmember Peterson will address it on her behalf. Councilmember Peterson, I know none of us, even if we are all distilled and combined, stand up to the strength of councilmember words. And we know that you will represent her well today. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. You are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. President Pro Tem Straus. Councilmember Juarez, who's chair of the council's Public Assets and Native Communities Committee, asked me to read her remarks on Resolution 31996 because I'm vice chair of that committee. Resolution 31996 is simply the scheduling of the hearings of some additional appeals of the hearing examiners report regarding the local improvement district. Number 6751, also known as the Waterfront Land Count City Council rules for quasi judicial proceedings require that the council set the time and place for the hearing of an appeal of an individual's final assessment for a local improvement district within 15 days of the filing of a valid appeal. Adoption of the proposed Resolution 31996 today, March 1st, would meet the quasi judicial rules deadline for scheduling valid appeals that have been filed through February 16, 2021. For additional context, we have about 70 appeals filed with the city clerk, so we're going to hear the first 35 or so appeals tomorrow at the March 2nd committee meeting and the second batch of appeals at the April six public assets in Native Communities meeting. The resolution scheduled for this resolution is scheduling for the April six committee meeting. Councilmember Juarez recommends that the Council pass this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Governor Peterson. Well done, colleagues. Any comments, questions, concerns or support? Hearing and seeing none with a clerk. Please call the role on the adoption of this resolution.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Paterson?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. President Pro Tem Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries the resolution. Adoption is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any other further business to come before the committee? Before the council. Excuse me. Anything for the good of the order. Well, I'll take this moment to thank Councilmember Juarez for starting such a and Eric McConaghy for stewarding such an excellent process forward with the waterfront. This has been a work of many, many years coming forward to fruition. Seeing as there are no other comments, questions, concerns or support for any item there. This does conclude the items of today's business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, March eight, 2021, at 2 p.m., where we will have Council President Bach leading the meeting. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for hearings on the appeals of certain appellants, Hearing Examiner Case Numbers CWF-0089, CWF-0176, CWF-0215, CWF-0318, CWF-0375, CWF-0392, CWF-0410, CWF-0411, CWF-0412, CWF-0413, CWF-0414, CWF-0416, CWF-0418, CWF-0420, CWF-0422, CWF-0423, CWF-0425, CWF-0426, CWF-0427, CWF-0429, CWF-0430, CWF-0431, CWF-0432, CWF-0433, CWF-0434, CWF-0435, CWF-0436, CWF-0437, CWF-0438, CWF-0439, CWF-0440, and CWF-0441, and from the final findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02222021_Res 31986
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item ten into the record? Agenda Item ten. Resolution 31986. Relating to the City White Department and excuse me, acknowledging and approving a 2020 Integrated Resource Plan Progress report as conforming with the public policy objectives of the City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington. And approving the progress report for the biennium September 2018 through August 2020. Committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. This resolution is also from your committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you for the committee report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. House President, colleagues. Resolution 31986 is the Integrated Resource Plan Progress Report from Seattle City Light, as required by state law. The requirement for a resource plan helps to ensure that our municipally owned utility continues to deliver clean and reliable electric power to our residents and businesses. We had a presentation and public hearing on the progress report at our February 3rd committee meeting and then at our February 17 committee meeting, we unanimously recommended adoption of this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing now, will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution so far?
Speaker 1: Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mosqueda. I. Peterson.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I am favored unopposed.
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? Well, the clerk please read item 11 into the record. Option of other resolutions. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31993 Endorsing the creation by the State of Washington of the Rainier Valley Creative District.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; acknowledging and approving the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan Progress Report as conforming with the public policy objectives of The City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington; and approving the Progress Report for the biennium September 2018 through August 2020.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02222021_Res 31993
|
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? Well, the clerk please read item 11 into the record. Option of other resolutions. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31993 Endorsing the creation by the State of Washington of the Rainier Valley Creative District. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to adopt resolution 31993. Is there a second? And then moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Morales, you are the sponsor of this resolution and are recognized in order to address this.
Speaker 2: I thank you. Council President, colleagues, as I mentioned this morning, this resolution supports the application to establish a Rainbow Valley creative district. As we heard in public comment, a community led group has been leading the charge excuse me, over the past several months to submit an application to the Washington State Arts Commission for the creation of this district creative arts district designation. This kind of state certification endorses the creative activities in a community, recognizes the potential for growth, and can help promote the community's creative identity. You know, create a jobs in the creative sector, attract artists and startups to a community. So really can provide an opportunity for economic development and for the growth of the artists and performers in our community. Sorry. Turning that off after a community has certified, they're eligible for grant opportunities, technical assistance, training and can get some support from the state in tracking the progress of their communities. Creative Economy. So this is an important opportunity for our artists and creative folks in the South End. I want to thank the Planning Committee, which was headed by a 48 day, as she mentioned in her comments. Includes also community organizations such as one awarded South Seattle, Emerald Seed Arts, Seattle World Percussion Society Arena Beach Action Coalition. Rainier Beach Merchants Communities Rise Queen Care Inter African Connection, Lexington Hall, West Tap Connection and others. So I want to thank them for their advocacy and really for bringing this forward to our office. I'm really proud to sponsor this resolution, to support them and their mission to build out an active arts and culture coalition advocates for Rainier Valley's artistic and cultural community by fostering collaboration, boosting collective visibility, and addressing inequity. Inequity. There are, I think, eight creative district communities in Washington. There is no Seattle representation. So this would be the first. And it really supports the vision of a rainier valley that is a thriving creative hub. Distinguished hosts of important multicultural events that can celebrate the rich heritage and diversity of the community can really serve as a center of economic opportunity for artists and residents. And I would like to urge my colleagues to support this resolution that urges the Washington State Arts Commission to invest in the important cultural legacy of South Seattle and support the leadership of the valued community members who have its application forward. Designate the Rainier Valley as a theater district in the state of Washington.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales, for the resolution and for those remarks. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I am in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: Emotion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any further business to come before the Council? Hearing on colleagues. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is set for Monday, March 1st, 2021, at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful and safe afternoon. We're adjourned. I have something. Madam President, I just want to say happy birthday, Madam President. From this weekend, we hope you had an excellent weekend. And they have very happy birthday to you. Thank you. Happy birthday. Thanks, everybody. Take care.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION endorsing the creation by the State of Washington of the Rainier Valley Creative District.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02162021_Res 31989
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item two Resolution 31989 Affirming support.
Speaker 0: For Progressive Business Taxes to fund.
Speaker 2: Essential community needs. Urging the.
Speaker 0: Washington State Legislature.
Speaker 2: To enact statewide taxes on big business.
Speaker 0: And the rich without any preemption or other band limitation or phasing out of.
Speaker 2: Seattle's ability.
Speaker 0: To raise revenues.
Speaker 2: For local business.
Speaker 0: Taxes or other progressive revenue sources. And requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations communicate this resolution to Washington State lawmakers. Thank you, Madam President. As sponsor, you are recognized in order to move the resolution or Council's consideration.
Speaker 1: I move. Resolution. So you get the. Number I more resolution 31989 for a vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that. That's my response. Is there a second to the motion to adopt resolution 31989?
Speaker 1: Can I get a courtesy secondsSo I can speak to the item.
Speaker 0: Hearing no seconds. The resolution is not seconded and we will proceed with item three on the agenda. Item three Will the card please read the short title of item three into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION affirming support for progressive big business taxes to fund essential community needs; urging the Washington State Legislature to enact statewide taxes on big business and the rich without any “preemption” or other ban, limitation, or phasing out of Seattle’s ability to raise revenue through local big business taxes or other progressive revenue sources, and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations communicate this resolution to Washington State Lawmakers.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02162021_Res 31990
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item four.
Speaker 0: Resolution 31990.
Speaker 2: Setting the time and place.
Speaker 0: For hearings on appeals of certain appellants hearings. Downer Case Numbers CW f00670015.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 0: 02314.
Speaker 2: The final.
Speaker 0: Findings and recommendations.
Speaker 2: Reports of the.
Speaker 0: Hearings are on the final.
Speaker 2: Assessment role for Local Improvement.
Speaker 0: District number 6751. Thank you. And move to adopt resolution 31990. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Was I going to hand it over to you to walk us through this resolution?
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. This resolution sets the time and place. As I was sharing with you this morning for a hearing for three appeals before the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee on Tuesday, April six, 2021. The appeals are to the hearing examiner's findings and recommendation report on the waterfront lead or the local improvement district. Number 6751. This is to meet requirement in the quasi judicial rules council must take action this week via the resolution. This is a mandatory and procedural matter and we recommend council confirm resolution 31990. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for that description, colleagues. Are there any other comments on the resolution? Hearing no additional comments on the resolution. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 2: Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Sir.
Speaker 1: Yes. Strauss. Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbold. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: She's working on it. She's working to try to.
Speaker 2: And I'll come back. Councilmember Juarez.
Speaker 4: I'll vote yes for council over her belt. Yes for me too.
Speaker 2: Council member Luis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Mosqueda. Hi. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council President Gonzalez. I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Most anticipated vote.
Speaker 1: Of the.
Speaker 0: Day. Thank you so much. Motion carries the resolution as adopted in the chair will sign it. Well, Kirk, please. To fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item five into the record?
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for hearings on the appeals of certain appellants, Hearing Examiner Case Numbers CWF-0067, CWF-0015, and CWF-0231, from the final findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02082021_CB 119989
|
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Item two Will the clerk please read the short title of item to Into the Record report part the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item to cancel 119988 relating to the Your Voice Your Choice program authorizes the director of the Seattle Department Transportation to acquire accept your record on behalf of the City of Seattle and easement for street purposes from Seattle School District Number one. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Customer piercing and handed over to you to walk us through this committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counsel. President, colleagues. The goal of this legislation is to improve safety for cars, pedestrians and bikes on the east side of Hazelwood School. Specifically, this is a small easement from the Seattle school district to our Seattle Department of Transportation to enable street safety improvements at Pinehurst Way, Northeast and Northeast 117th Street in District five. Community members applied for street safety improvements at this intersection through the Your Voice, Your Choice program. The bill passed unanimously through our committee last Wednesday. Thank you.
Speaker 0: 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? Oh, shit. Hi.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Council member, Herbold.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez I.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item three Will the clerk please read item three into the record? Chen died in three appointments 1788 appointment desk authorities member Lovie Tim of Seattle Oversight Committee for Term two December 31st, 2023.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Your Voice, Your Choice program; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, an easement for street purposes from Seattle School District No. 1, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, situated in a portion of the Tract described as “Reserve” in the Plat of S.P. Dixon’s Green Lake Acre Tracts; designating the easement for street purposes; placing the real property rights under the jurisdiction of SDOT; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02012021_CB 119982
|
Speaker 0: The Report of the Committee Economic Development Committee Agenda Item to Constable 119982 relating to the Seattle Commission for People.
Speaker 1: With Disabilities.
Speaker 0: Changing the name to the Seattle Disability Commission and requesting that the revised, revised decision is for code accordingly. The committee recommends that they'll pass. Excellent. Thank you, Madam Clerk, because Morales, you are the chair of this committee and I'm going to go ahead and hand the virtual mike over to you so you can walk us through this legislation.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council president. It's pretty simple, really. Amelia sort of caught it. Captured it all. The members of the disability commission have voted unanimously to change the name from the previous people with disabilities. My understanding is that this really reflects a preference for neither a person first orientation. In other words, people with disabilities farmer who is blind nor for an identity first orientation or a disabled person, but rather a preference for the commission identifying as the subject matter experts, hence the disability commission. As I said, this was voted on unanimously by the members of the Commission themselves, and so we are recommending passage of the bill. And am I supposed to move something up?
Speaker 0: Nope. Nope. We're doing. We're doing just fine. Sorry. I was looking for the mute button there. My apologies for the awkward pause. Okay, colleagues, are there any additional comments on the spill? Or questions for Councilman Morales. Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes. Suarez, I.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign. It will please a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Items three and four. Will the clerk please read items three and four into the record? Agenda items three and four appointments 16, 18 and 1627 appointments of Rebecca Bryant and Avril Charney as members.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities; changing the name to the Seattle Disability Commission; and requesting that the Code Reviser revise the Seattle Municipal Code accordingly.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02012021_CB 119992
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Thank you. Moving on now to the report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee. Will the clerk please read the short title of item 31 into the Record Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 31 Council 119992 relating to sales construction codes adopting the Seattle Boiler.
Speaker 1: Code Building Code Electrical Code, existing building code, fuel gas.
Speaker 0: Code, mechanical code, planning code and residential code by reference. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm going to go ahead and had this over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the chair of this of the committee. Please tell us more stress.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Colleagues, this legislation adopts construction codes, including a new boiler code building code, electrical code, fuel gas code, mechanical code, plumbing code and residential code. As Amelia just noted, this this item in particular does not include the energy code updates, which we will consider in the next agenda item. Construction codes are updated every three years, following a process of updating national and state level codes. This update comes to comes at the end of the 2018 construction codes cycle. The changes in this legislation adopt and align with the new state codes and adopt some Seattle specific provisions that go further than the state codes. These codes were developed by Department of Construction Inspection and their Technical Code Development Team in consultation with the Construction Code Advisory Board. They were also informed by extensive stakeholder outreach. Code updates are largely technical in nature, but a few highlights of these new codes include establishing standards for cross limited timber structures up to 18 storeys in height , creating standards for gender neutral toilets. New standards are new standards for tsunami loads in areas that are at risk of tsunami inundation and updating seismic design standards based on modeling. Thank you. Council President. That is the report from the committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss colleagues. Did you want to open it up for any additional comments? Are there any additional comments on the bill? Council members want, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And I know items 31 and 32 are. Connected on the building energy grid update. So I will speak to both. I'm happy to vote in favor of these two bills to update Seattle's energy codes for new large buildings to prohibit fossil fuel heaters and boilers. Really appreciate everybody who testified today and before in public comment. Carpet developers have proven again and again that capitalism's private market has no interest in stopping climate change. As was mentioned, the latest greenhouse gas emissions report from the Office of Sustainability and the Environment found that rather than reducing emissions, Seattle increased emissions from buildings by 8.1%. This is alarming. We know indisputably that we have to end greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid a global climate catastrophe, endangering every person on the planet, not just slow down emissions and certainly not accelerate emissions like corporate developers have done. You would think that since climate change is destroying the planet for everyone, even corporate executives would care about addressing it. But this is the inexorable logic of capitalism. Whatever corporation pursues short term profits most ruthlessly at the cost of ordinary people, humanity and the planet, and is the most successful in shifting its costs to the workers and the environment. Those are the corporations with a Darwinian advantage at the expense of all of society. So I very much support this legislation prohibiting those developers from building new fossil fuel burning boilers and heaters in the largest new buildings in Seattle. This is a step forward, and it is a testament to the organization's legacy. 50 Sierra Club Climate Solutions and Puget Sound Sage and other organizations which have been campaigning against natural gas hookups for years, including the native activist community. It is a substantive step forward, although it is obviously limited. It does not address preexisting buildings, new construction of smaller buildings. And since the dark times on movement one funding to retrofit older buildings, it would not make sense to at the same time continue building new fossil fuel burning infrastructure. And most importantly, it does not address how electricity generated in Washington state. Seattle City Lake generates emission free hydropower, largely because of the power plants built during the New Deal almost 100 years ago. So the buildings in Seattle will use clean energy for their electricity, but that is not the end of the story because the light trades electricity back and forth with every other utility in the region. Any word that is not used in Seattle is sold to other places on the West Coast. That means that if Seattle uses more electricity with its own energy, you will have more of a market to sell. Electricity outside Seattle and Puget Sound Energy burns, fracked natural gas to generate electricity. So in addition to these important bills, we need a full fledged green new deal with green jobs to build clean power plants across the state and across the country, like in the 1930s Green New Deal program. Just like we cannot rely on for profit developers to protect the climate when building in Seattle, we cannot trust for profit energy companies like PSC generate our electricity. This is another key reason why I am a socialist and I'm, as I said, I'm happy to vote yes on these legislation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Silent. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbert Place You know, I'm not a member of somebody else's committee, but I want to thank them for doing the work necessary to bring this legislation forward together with the work of his committee members. When I also give a shout out to former Councilmember Mike O'Brien for spearheading this work at the at the council level, consistent with the activism referenced by Councilmember Salant of organizations like 350 Board.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 0: A Green New Deal for Seattle. After we passed a resolution in August 2019 and an executive order working to advance many, many pieces of of of. Regulation that this is, I think, one important part moving forward but has been stated. There's a there's a lot to be done in order to reach the goal of significantly reducing carbon emissions to the existing pool of increasing energy efficiency. Of course, as as has been mentioned, we we will need to do more to address the existing buildings as well as to figure out how to. Incentivize efficiency of smaller buildings, including single family homes that use natural gas. Heating the Urbanists reports that fossil fuel gas from Puget Sound Energy produces 15% of the city's CO2 emissions in 2018. So I think, again, that really points to the work that we need to do together. I also want to highlight that the Council did fund positions in the 2021 budget to move forward the work of the Green New Deal Oversight Committee, look forward to their recommendations and want to again recognize that the advocacy necessary to fund those positions is is advocacy that's coming from the community to hold us accountable and make sure that we are charting a path forward. Thank you. Thank you for that. Colleagues. Any other any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the vote on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Macheda. I, Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sir. What?
Speaker 3: Yes. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. High nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill. Check the pill. Excuse me. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Item 32 Will the court please read the short titled item 32 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s construction codes; adopting the Seattle Boiler Code, Building Code, Electrical Code, Existing Building Code, Fuel Gas Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, and Residential Code by reference, amending certain chapters of those codes, and adopting new chapters for those codes; correcting references to those codes in the Seattle Municipal Code; making technical corrections; adding a new Chapter 22.101 to the Seattle Municipal Code; amending the title of Subtitle I of Title 22, Sections 5.73.020, 6.410.070, 6.420.030, 22.170.010, 22.170.050, 22.206.090, 22.206.130, 22.206.160, 22.208.020, 22.502.016, 22.801.030, 25.09.100, 25.09.110, 25.09.120, 25.09.220, and 25.09.520 of the Seattle Municipal Code; repealing Chapters 22.100 and 22.110 and Subtitles IA, III, IV, IVA, and IVB of Title 22 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing ordinances or sections of the following ordinances that adopted or amended older editions of construction codes: 117723, 118654, 119478, 121865, 125156, 125157, 125158, 125160, 125161, 125162, 125337, 125408, 125409, 125410,
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02012021_CB 119993
|
Speaker 0: Gin Diamond 32 Constable 119993 related to sales construction code adopting the Chateau Energy Code and chapters of the Washington Administrative Code by reference to committee recommend civil passes amended with Council member Strauss Macheda, Juarez and Lewis and Favre with an abstention from Councilmember Peterson. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, as members Strauss, I want to hand it back over to you to walk us through this committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council President, colleagues. This is the legislation that adopts the new energy code similar to the construction codes we just considered. This new code adopts state level standards and builds upon them in important ways. This legislation comes soon after the most recent greenhouse gas inventory shows that our city's emissions have been increasing, including an 8.3 increase in building emissions between 2016 and 2018. The changes in this legislation will eliminate most carbon emissions resulting from new development and will reduce Seattle's total building emissions by at least 12% by 2050. The main highlight of this new energy code is a prohibition on the use of fossil fuels and electric resistance for space and water heating in multi-family and hotel developments, as well as commercial developments for the space heating requirements. These water heating requirements would take effect in 2022 to allow time for the market to adapt. The space heating requirements will take effect on June 1st, 2021. After an amendment during our last committee meeting. Other changes in this legislation include restricting the building envelope, heat loss, setting higher standards to reduce energy loss through windows, requiring more efficient HVAC systems in multifamily and medical office buildings, and requiring a lot electrical receptacles in dwelling units to allow for future electric electric appliances. As discussed this morning, there was one amendment that passed changing the implementation date of space heating changes. And Councilmember Lewis brought an amendment that would expand the water heating requirements.
Speaker 2: To commercial buildings.
Speaker 3: This will need to be considered as a separate piece of legislation. While these changes reduce our reliance on natural gas, we now rely more heavily on heat pumps, which also use refrigerants that, if not maintained and inspected, also have a great impact on our climate. As we transition our society to address the climate crisis, there are people's lives that also must change and making these changes directly change the work of unionized pipe fitters. As I discussed this morning, as we transition to address the climate crisis, we must also ensure this transition is not at the expense of union jobs that provide family wage, paid family wages and apprenticeships rather than student debt. As we've already discussed, working with Councilmember Mosquito through the Board of Health to increase and ensure effective inspections of this and other pipes. My work with Councilmember Herbold on the fire code regarding decommissioned fire lines and my work in the future regarding additional structural safety in the next round of building codes. With this update, Seattle will now have one of the most forward thinking energy codes in the country, and we will be setting the example that the rest of the state can follow in the next update. I especially want to thank Micah Chappelle, Dwayne Johnson, our Delgado, Seattle Department of Construction Inspections for not only helping us understand this complex code. Also doing extensive, extensive outreach to stakeholders and making this extremely effective code. I also want to thank central staff and to all the stakeholders and advocates who participated in this process. And finally, I want to reiterate that as we transition our economy to confront the climate crisis, we must be aware that the way we transition will impact people's lives. And we have to ensure that as we transition to address climate crisis, we are also protecting those jobs. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Colleagues, I urge you support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for that summary. I see that Councilman Lewis would like to make some comments on here, so I am going to open this up for any additional comments. So again, colleagues, this is an opportunity to make comments on the bill. I would encourage you to use the raise your hand feature in Zoom if you are able to if not, just give me a wave or send me a quick message. So first up is Councilmember Lewis and then we'll hear from Councilmember Peterson and then Councilmember Mosquito CASMIR Lewis, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to reiterate the remarks that I made this morning. Now that we're here, considering the underlying bill and Councilmember Strauss alluded to them about my amendment that I had been pursuing in consultation with stakeholders around expanding this legislation to include certain commercial considerations as well. As I said in briefing this morning, for various reasons that was going to slow down the implementation of this legislation. As Councilmember Strauss indicated, we will be pursuing separate legislation to accomplish that goal in a way that won't slow down the rest of the things that are in this bill. I think that's a good path forward so we can get this this on the books quickly and start implementing it while we take our time developing the other commercial considerations without slowing the overall implementation down. So I just want to signal I'm fully committed to that for folks that are wondering why that that amendment did not go forward. Councilmember Strauss and I are working together on it and we will be introducing legislation to address that.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. And again, for those of you using the raise the hand feature, if you can lower your hand after you're done that, that would be helpful. Thank you. Next up is Councilmember Peterson and then Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Council President and thank you, Chair Strauss, for shepherding this. I support these updates to all of our building codes so that our building codes address the climate crisis regarding the Energy Code bill before us. Now, I just needed more time to research it because we heard from a diversity of views during public comment at committee . And so I just needed a few extra days to, to look into this and reconcile some of the concerns we were hearing from both labor and others who are actually building these buildings. And I feel it was really about the effective date that had moved around a bit. There was a previous stakeholder process and then there was additional input on that. And so I feel more comfortable now having that extra time. And so we'll be voting to support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. I appreciate you addressing that, because I was going to one of the questions I was going to ask is if there could be some comment about the abstention so I could get a better understanding of what the committee conversation was. So that is you answered my question before I even asked. So I appreciate that. Councilman Muscadet next is next. And then after that will be Councilmember Robles, Councilmember Mosquito. Thank you very much. Madam President, Council colleagues, first, I want to start by thanking the committee. You've really led a very transparent process in considering the piece of legislation in front of us. And the deliberations that you have engaged in with various stakeholders have been authentic in wanting to seek feedback and good ideas, ways for improvements and better understanding on the timeline. And I just want to applaud you for this work. I know it's been a year that you've been on council and the last year felt like five years. But this is a really historic piece of legislation today. And I want to just thank you for your leadership on this and helping to lead the council in this discussion . I also want to thank the council members who are part of the committee who supported the amendment that I had the chance to bring forward with support and in consultation with the good chair, Councilmember Strauss and I had a chance to talk about the the timing and the ability to move forward on space heaters and very thankful for the committee's work on that. In addition to the environmental justice folks that we heard from today, I talked with members of the building construction trades about the technology and the readiness of the technologies to be able to move forward with space heaters more expeditiously than January of 2022. And I think that we landed on a good date with June of 2021 to allow for us to have sufficient time for stakeholder feedback as we develop rules, and also for us to have a better understanding of any potential legislation that the state lawmakers are considering that could have an impact on rulemaking and implementation going forward. Obviously, this is really an exciting day as we consider these two pieces of legislation, but I think it's a great example as well of a deliberative process that has included weighing technology that's available with just transition for workers so that there is the ability to recognize that we have to strike a balance between labor partners and the right timing to respond and shift work from natural gas to refrigerant pipes and doing so in a way that ensures address transit transition for workers is really critical. So very happy to be working with all of you as we continue to center that balance in all of the discussions that we have. Recognizing that the buildings that we've built for today, they're going to last for generations, hopefully, hopefully much longer than that once the average. But if you look at the Pioneer Square buildings from downtown and across our city, we want the buildings that are going up today to truly help build a better and healthier future for our region and our world. So I think that we're doing an important part of that today. It's all part of the bigger puzzle that was discussed this morning. I also want to recognize some of the concerns that we've heard today and also in testimony over the last few weeks from some who have been calling in about concerns regarding the sprinkler requirements, recognizing that both local housing providers and the Master Builders Association are talking about townhomes and projects with less than four units. What I hope to do is to continue to build on some of the recommendations that we have seen and are hoping to see come forward in a major comprehensive plan. Update I fully support allowing more duplexes and triplexes, particularly for Flex six plus those on various sites. As we think about creating opportunities for folks who have mixed income housing options, multi-generational housing options, denser housing options across our city, I think that there's a lot of common ground there. And when we think about costs and trying to weigh the cost of potential changes that we're making today, what's clear, I think, in our conversations with various members of the community is that land is the most expensive thing. And when it comes to creating more housing in our city, we have to make sure that we're allowing for more homes to be built on the precious land within the city's boundaries. So let's continue to work together. Let's reduce the cost of building homes that we so desperately need. And let's move forward with some of those areas where I think there's a lot of alignment on the major comprehensive plan. UPDATE That's soon to come with that. Again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for your leadership on this. Looking forward to voting. Yes, and thanks again for the support on the balanced amendment that we were able to include last week. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. Next up is Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Just very, very quickly, I want to mention that since it has been mentioned a couple of times as it relates to the the sprinkler regulations for for townhomes, that change is.
Speaker 1: Specifically.
Speaker 0: Contained in the construction code bill before us. But because the fire department will be coming to my committee next week to talk about fire code changes, we are also going to have an opportunity to have a conversation about the the requirements for sprinklers in townhomes. So just wanting.
Speaker 3: To let folks know that that will be that that.
Speaker 0: Topic will be coming for discussion in my committee next week. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, colleagues. Any additional comments on the bill? It looks like there are no additional comments on the bill. I want to echo my thanks to you, Councilmember Strauss, the chair of our Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, for doing great work on this legislation and making sure that it is balanced as smoothly as it did. So thanks so much, Councilmember Strauss, for all of the hard work in your in your committee. And thanks to all of the committee members for. I'm sure what was robust engagement on the underlying policy issue. Councilmember Strauss. I do want to make sure that you have an opportunity to have the last word as the sponsor and chair of this committee before we call this matter to a roll call.
Speaker 3: Thank yeah, thank you. And thank you, colleagues, for all of your kind words. This was really a group effort. And again, the kudos should be directed to Mike Chappelle, Dwayne Johnson, Adele, Georgia, all the folks over at Stsci Central staff and my committee director, Noah. So thank you all.
Speaker 2: For your great work.
Speaker 3: This is a group effort and.
Speaker 2: I'm just one person. Thank you all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Stress. All right. With that being said, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda I.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Juarez, I.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez High nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. We have item 33 next. Will the clerk please read the short title of item 33 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s construction codes; adopting the Seattle Energy Code and chapters of the Washington Administrative Code by reference and amending certain chapters of the Code; amending Section 22.101.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; repealing Title 22, Subtitle VII of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing Sections 2 through 10 of Ordinance 125159 and Section 5 of Ordinance 125410.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02012021_CB 119987
|
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The motion carries and the application is granted. Item 34 Will the court please read the short title of item 34 into the record? Agenda item 34 accountable 119987. Approving the extension of a contract present to prevent ordinance 125433 and accepting an amended Probation Department agreement. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Strauss, who I understand has a substitute for us to consider. So I'm going to hand it over to him to make that motion.
Speaker 3: Council president colleagues, this is the corresponding council bill for the contract Arizona has just discussed. Before we consider the underlying council bill, I will move to substitute a new property use and development agreement, as is routine.
Speaker 2: For these contract reasons.
Speaker 3: And so therefore I move to amend Council Bill 119987 Exhibit A by substituting the executed amended property use and development agreement with the executed amended.
Speaker 2: Property use and Development Agreement.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that motion. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. It's been moved in. Second is are there any additional comments on the substitute? And Councilmember Strauss, I'll hand it back over to you in case you want to add anything else to this report.
Speaker 3: No further comments at this time. Thank you, colleagues.
Speaker 0: Any additional comments? Colleagues. Hearing and seeing none. Will the court please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute to exhibit A?
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Must get a.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 1: SUAREZ Hi.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries the.
Speaker 1: Oh, no.
Speaker 3: Council president. You went on mute on accident.
Speaker 0: Here. I was thinking I was on such an elegant roll. Okay, motion carries. The substitute is adopted and the amended bill is before the council. Are there any additional comments on the amended bill? Hearing no additional comments on the amended bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill?
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Macheda I.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: Sir. What? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Council member, Herbold.
Speaker 0: Is working on it. I see a nod and I see I see her searching for that mute button. All right, here we go.
Speaker 1: Revolt.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez i. Lewis?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? All right, folks, we're getting into the homestretch here. Next up is committee report of the Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies and Investments. Will the court please read item 35 into the record? The committee report on the Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies and Investments Agenda Item 35 Resolution 31987 Sponsoring the King County Regional Homelessness Authority's Application for membership to dissociation of Washington Cities Risk Management Service Agency.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE approving the extension of a contract rezone approved by Ordinance 125433 and accepting an amended Property Use and Development Agreement for a property located at 1106 34th Avenue. (Petition by Martin Leibowitz, C.F. 314461, SDCI Project 3036784-LU)
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01252021_CB 119980
|
Speaker 1: People are the Transportation and Utilities Committee tonight on one constable 119980 related to the city department.
Speaker 4: Authorizing the.
Speaker 1: Acceptance of the statutory authority deed for the Glacier View Ranch property in Skagit County, Washington, facing said land under the jurisdiction of the city department and ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, you are chair of the committee, and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. As with all of the legislation before us this afternoon from the Transportation and Utilities Committee, this council bill passed unanimously. This council bill authorizes the head of Seattle City satellite to accept a statutory warranty deed for the Glacier View Ranch property in Skagit County, Washington, for wildlife habitat mitigation purposes. Seattle City Light received a long term license from the Federal Government for the Skagit Hydroelectric Project in one of the settlement settlement agreements incorporated into that license. City Light agreed to purchase wildlife mitigation lands. The Glacier View Ranch is located on the Skagit River, a few miles upstream of Rockport. It contains a salmon stream and will be managed to conserve and improve habitat. Again, it was passed unanimously by our committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for that report. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill will Kripke's call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119980.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales as macheda. I. Ederson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sir. I want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. President Gonzalez. I h in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the car please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Items two and three. Will the clerk please read items two and three into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the acceptance of the Statutory Warranty Deed for the “Glacier View Ranch Property” in Skagit County, Washington; placing said land under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01252021_CB 119990
|
Speaker 1: Every part of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 119990 relate to employment in Seattle. Establishing Labor Standards Requirements for additional compensation for grocery employees working in Seattle. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk, for reading that into the record. Councilor Mosqueda, you are the Chair of the committee and also the Prime Sponsor of Council Bill 119990. And I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Madam President. Before I begin my remarks. Madam President, would it be appropriate for me to move the substitute first with your. Indulgence. I will try to wing it. I don't have that text right in front of me, but.
Speaker 0: We are amazing.
Speaker 4: Class.
Speaker 0: I'm also noticing that I do not actually have that in my script, so I apologize.
Speaker 1: Otherwise I would have.
Speaker 0: To facilitate that. Why don't we do this? Why don't you speak to the. The Bass bill and and the substitute version? And while you are doing that, I will ask that the clerks send you and I the appropriate procedural language so that we can get this in front of us procedurally. So I think it's a it's okay for you to speak to the substitute into the underlying bill, and that will then go through the motions, the procedural motions and substitute. And I just ask the clerk to send us that language while you're doing so.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Madam President. It takes a team effort here. Appreciate all of our colleagues for your indulgence with us. This has been a very remarkable last few weeks, as we have heard from Frontline's stories, from workers themselves in grocery stores, stocking shelves, people that are checking out our goods at the checkout than those who have been working 24, seven week in and week out. After the announcement of COVID, they have not had the chance to work from home, like many of us have. Those of us on the Zoom, the vast majority of us have been able to work from home and be able to follow the state. Stay healthy and stay home ordinance. This is what we need to do in order to help reduce the spread of COVID. But those individuals who are working at our grocery stores, who are stocking the shelves, who are making sure that we have enough toilet paper and paper towels and enough produce to take home to our families. They have been going in to work every single day and we appreciate them. In fact, employers initially appreciated them offering hazard pay, hero pay. They have in many cases stepped up at the beginning to call them the true heroes on the front line. But quickly, that hero pay went away, but the hazard hasn't gone away. In fact, as we heard from folks today in our public testimony, the hazard is only increasing. The more contagious and deadly strand of COVID is present in our community here in Seattle, in Washington State and across this country. We also know across this country we are struggling and we are doing everything we can to get the vaccine out as fast as possible. But we don't yet have it distributed widely into our community. And so those who are going into grocery stores, who have their masks below their nose or below their chin, who are reaching across grocery store workers to reach for that zucchini, are putting grocery store workers lives and health at risk. They put themselves in hazard way, a hazard way every day. They deserve hazard pay today. Colleagues, it's my honor to be able to work with all of you to bring forward another piece of legislation, as we have done over the last year, to truly try to protect those on the front line and recognize the incredible danger that our community is in, the incredible danger our frontline workers are in, who are helping to keep our communities safe, healthy and fed. And right now, that pay and protection needs to be offered to grocery store workers here in the city of Seattle. I'm incredibly honored to be able to do this with the support of our council colleagues from the Housing and Finance Committee who unanimously passed out Council Bill 119990. This is a piece of legislation, as we heard during committee briefing today from those who worked on the front lines to say that they signed up to work in grocery stores because they wanted to. Many of them love doing their job. Many of them still earning minimum wage, like going to work. They like helping people. But right now, in the middle of this pandemic, they're right next to customers shopping, coughing, unmasked. Standing next to them. And every day they're asking, am I bringing something home to my family? Have I cut something myself? You heard the public testimony of workers who have been trained, who have been trained to now come home and take off the clothes that they wore to work, just like we have had to teach and train farm workers to take off their clothing for fear that they are going to be contaminating pesticides and transmitting those pesticides to their family members. This is the type of situation that workers in the city of Seattle are currently dealing with, and they do not have hazard pay right now. It should be no surprise that grocery workers face extremely high risk of exposure to coronavirus. And along with it, the mental and psychological impacts that come with that potential exposure. In fact, as I noted last week and earlier this morning, one study of grocery workers in Boston found that 20% of those workers tested positive despite higher use of masks. That's about a five times higher rate of exposure to COVID and contracting COVID than those who aren't working on grocery store floors, for example, exposed to various customers daily. And as you heard from Sara Charron from U.S., UW 21 and others who testified today with the more recent advice telling people to get in and out of grocery stores within 15 minutes. There is no possible way that a grocery store worker who has a six hour shift can only be exposed in that environment for 15 minutes. It is a hazardous situation, and we also need those workers. We need to be able to rely on them for the supply of food to our communities to make sure that our most vulnerable who can't go online and grocery shop like I do, I pick up my queue of C grocery deliveries because I have the ability to go online. So many people don't have access to the Internet like that and some in our elderly community and those who are vulnerable health conditions, they're not able to go and buy online. And we need to make sure that everybody in those stores, from the workers themselves to the folks who are shopping, have the ability to and to be recognized for the incredibly hard work that they do, because those workers are providing the most urgent and needed resources, services and goods to our most vulnerable community members. I'm really excited about the opportunity to work with you and Counsel Council President Gonzales. I think I'll save some of my comments about the urgency of now. The why grocery stores now, and the importance of protecting these grocery workers in this moment. In part of my closing comments. But with that council colleagues, we are again showing what it means to both care for those on the frontline and those who they care for. This is about the health and well-being of grocery store workers, obviously, but it's about the population's health as well, because we need to make sure that our entire system is well functioning. And hazard pay is one element to make sure we're recognizing the way that these grocery store workers are part of our response in this moment as we all search for solutions to the pandemic. Without that solution yet in hand, we have to step up and honor the work that these grocery store workers do with hazard pay today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. And I sent you a quick message. I think the substitute you were referring to was a substitute for the committee considered on Friday, which we voted out of committee, and that was subject to suspension of the rule. So unless there's another substitute that we're not aware of since Friday, we don't need to do any more procedural votes in full council today.
Speaker 4: Excellent. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Just a little pardon to the viewing public for a little bit of a procedural snafu, but I think we were able to figure it out while Councilmember Mosquito was providing the committee's report. And we are good to go. The substituted version of the bill that the council consider that the committee considered on Friday is what is before the full council today for our consideration. So there are no other amendments or substitutions that I am aware of. So we're going to go ahead and continue debate on Council Bill 11990. Are there any additional comments on the bill as described by Council Member Mosquito? Councilmember Sawant and then Councilmember Morales. And then I think I what Councilmember Peterson and then Councilmember Peterson, because we're silent. And then we're Lewis. I try to remember all of this. Go ahead. Customers want.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'm proud to support and co-sponsor this legislation that will bring much needed relief to thousands of grocery workers in Seattle. Congratulations to members of UFC, CWA 21 and the labor movement who have organized, advocated for and put forward the demand for global hazard pay. As we've heard from the union, grocery workers don't have an option of working from home. They are inside the stores for many hours a day, every day around people who may have COVID. They've suffered high exposure rates to COVID. Many have gotten sick and many have died. The grocery workers deserve this extra pay, as do all frontline workers. Thank you to everyone who has written to my office and provided public testimony today. Unfortunately, we have seen in other industries and businesses that are less unionized or not unionized, like Amazon in the gig economy, workers who deserve similar COVID hazard pay being denied pay or being given some pay, not nearly enough, and then having it unilaterally taken away from them by billionaire bosses. It shows a difference of being organized in a union. I urge all frontline workers who are following this legislation to note that it takes organizing to win things like hazard pay. We never win as workers because of the kindness of the bosses or the political establishment. We want we win when we are organized. Most grocery workers in the Seattle area belong to UFC, so collectively they have a measure of power that is absent entirely when workers are struggling as individuals. That is why I urge all my fellow workers who are in jobs that are not unionized to form unions and fight for your rights collectively. It won't be easy. It is absolutely difficult. The history of the labor movement shows how organizing for a union in a workplace is against all odds, and it requires tremendous solidarity, courage and self-sacrifice. My council office and my organization, Socialist Alternative, stand at the ready to support you and work alongside you and your unions in your efforts so that we can win hazard pay and beyond for all workers struggling under the dual weight of COVID and the capitalist recession. I'm proud also to support the Amazon workers in Alabama, the Amazon work warehouse workers who have organized and now have their union election coming up over the massive resistance of the company. They face a very tough battle ahead and we must support them. In fact, we've already seen how shamefully the corporation is saying that they should have an in-person vote, knowing that this could depress turnout during COVID. I recognize that under this legislation that the Council will be voting on today, hazard pay will be evaluated again in a few months. I hope that when this happens, the pay will be made permanent. And I stand with all your CWA members in fighting for this, the companies and certainly afford it as you have CWA 21 leader Joel Mizrahi noted last week. Grocery chains have seen some of the largest profit windfalls in the pandemic, while workers have faced new hazards every day. Brother, brother. Joe Mizrahi notes that Costco's profit is up 19% to $3.4 billion. Profits at Kroger, which owns KFC and Fred Meyer, have doubled to 9.7 billion profits. And Albertsons, which owns Safeway, are now over $1,000,000,000, a 270% increase. Also, I would note that we need to keep strengthening union organizing even at smaller grocery companies like PCC, where we see that under the tremendous pressure that small businesses and cooperatives come under in this system of capitalism, they are increasingly facing pressures to get corporatized. We know PCC just hired a new CEO last month who is a former vice president of Kroger. So we have to continue getting organized to continue fighting back, building a fighting labor movement to win the gains that workers need, and congratulate the UFC members again for their work and the leadership in pushing this legislation and congratulate you , as you have said, elected leaders as well. Look forward to voting for it and look forward to joining with other front line workers who are organizing to make similar demands. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, customer swamp for those comments. Next in the queue is Councilmember Morales and then we will hear from Councilmember Peterson and then Councilmember Luis Morales.
Speaker 3: You.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned in briefing this morning, I will enthusiastically support this and have asked to co-sponsor this bill. I think it's really important that it acknowledges that those who are putting themselves on the front lines every day should be compensated for the work that they're doing. Our ability to feed our families relies on grocery workers showing up every day to stock shelves and set up produce displays and check us out. Now they're also sanitizing carts and reorganizing the bulk goods and more frequently cleaning surfaces. I mean, they really are in uncontrolled environments and interacting with the public for most, if not all, of their shift. So I want to thank the good folks at S.W. 21 for advocating for these workers and for ensuring that they're paid for the extra work they're doing while they keep our communities fed and help keep us healthy . So I look forward to supporting this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Nikki Council President Thank you again, Councilmember Moschino, for bringing this forward. After reviewing, after rapidly reviewing and researching this proposed ordinance to have larger grocery stores boost the pay of the frontline workers during the pandemic, I have decided to support it. I consulted with both labor and employers. I do want to acknowledge that I think this legislation moved fast. To hear the legislation at a Friday committee and then adopt it on a monday can make it difficult for some to review it thoroughly. At the same time, I recognize we are in the midst of a public health and economic emergency and therefore would not want to further delay the temporary pay boost these workers should be receiving for the hazards they are facing until both shots of the vaccine are administered to everyone. So I'll be voting yes today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Carl Zimmer Pearson, for those remarks. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Very excited to be voting for this legislation today and happy to be a co-sponsor. I just want to take a moment to lift up the great organizing work that UFC W has done to really get us to this point today. Like I said during briefing, I have seen the checkers at my local grocery store, proudly wearing the swag for this campaign, proudly calling in and sending emails. And that solidarity, that organizing makes a huge difference. We may be the policy makers, but it's that organizing that helps get this policy over the finish line. So I want to first just thank all of the the work you have, CW and our other brothers and sisters in the labor movement have done to bring us to this point. I also just want to recognize Councilmember Herbold and the work that we did last year on similar legislation for four workers in the app based economy . You know, I say we're app based workers and I say app based workers instead of gig workers because, you know, these aren't gigs, these are livelihoods and these aren't it's not a gig economy. It's the economy. I mean, it's how we deliver goods and services now in this technological age. And it's important that as technology changes, living standards keep up with that work. To that extent, it is a very logical policy to pursue that we extend the same hazard pay considerations to the folks that are working in our supermarkets on the front lines and providing this essential service day in, day out, interacting with members of the public and going home to their their families, having exposed themselves to potential hazards, and being in a position to have that additional support in recognition of their service and their sacrifice. So I am happy to vote for this today and I look forward to being able to get this release out there.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Just very quickly, I really appreciate the comments of all of my colleagues. And I appreciate I want to thank Councilmember Peterson for his weighing the the the need to act quickly as relates to this bill, while also recognizing that acting quickly is not always ideal. But in this case, when we are actually passing hazard pay, that is an act in emergency ordinance, it's it's necessary. I appreciate Councilmember mosquito's leadership in this in this area over the last several years and and also in responding to COVID related workforce impacts. Appreciate working with Councilmember Lewis on the hazard pay legislation for food based or app based food delivery drivers. I wish we could require hazard pay for all of our essential workers, and I'm really grateful to the work that essential workers are doing, putting themselves in harm's way, particularly as it relates as as as in as we are expressing with this legislation, making sure that families and individuals are able to to feed themselves and their families and just, you know, really, once again, back to the fact that this is an area of our economy that has seen windfall windfall profits during COVID because of the importance of this part of the market in and in the shift in consumer practices. An average of, I believe, nearly $17 billion in profits in the first quarters of this year as compared to last year, according to Brookings. This hazard pay recognizes the essential nature of this work. It helps retain employees to keep stores running safely and again, provides essential food chain workers with extra compensation that can allow them to afford childcare to deal with the physical and emotional health risks of a work, stay sheltered or find housing options that could limit risk to family members and more different from other kinds of businesses, many of which were previously closed by order of the governor. Grocery workers are the absolute essential workers whose companies have again profited handsomely from the shift to consumers. And during this very difficult time in our our.
Speaker 2: Our.
Speaker 1: Globe's dealing in our nation's economy, dealing with COVID 19. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill from any of my other colleagues? Also, I'll say a few words really quickly. I'm going to start off with a note of gratitude to, of course, the chair of our Finance and Housing Committee, Councilmember Mosqueda, for being the champion and the prime sponsor of this legislation. I know that you and your chief of staff, Sigal Perich, did a lot of work in a in preparation to advancing this legislation. So I hope that you will have an opportunity to talk about some of that advance preliminary work that predated the introduction and referral of the legislation and our debate in committee today to really show folks that there was some thoughtful deliberation behind behind the ordinance in crafting the policy that I think was critical to influencing the substitute bill that we considered and approved and recommended that the full council approved in the Finance and Housing Committee this last Friday. So thank you, Chair Mosqueda and to your team members for the hard work that I know that you all put into this legislation together with our council central staff policy analyst Trina Bull, who is no stranger to the work of labor standards, particularly in this era of the pandemic. So deeply appreciative for her work as well. I also want to express my deep appreciation and gratitude for the leadership and members of your CW Local 21 They have been screaming from the highest points of any tower they could find, talking about the the extremely dangerous conditions that their members and and other non represented folks experience every day going into their job that is at a grocery store. It is absolutely important to acknowledge that they have spent much time organizing workers in this space, that they have done a tremendous job in making sure that we, as policymakers are hearing directly from impacted workers from from from their members who've been exposed to COVID in grocery stores and have survived and are able to be in the fortunate circumstance of even sharing their story with us, because they made it through that through the infection is remarkable. I just really am deeply appreciative for their ongoing commitment to making sure that they're centering their members in and making sure that policymakers understand why the policy choices we are making are so critically important. That's why I'm really also appreciative that Councilmember Peterson is made. The remarks they made with regard to weighing the the the the need to pass this with a sense of urgency versus pursuing a longer deliberative process. We have in this last year considered many pieces of legislation very, very quickly in response to the COVID 19 pandemic, everything from direct cash assistance to modification of land use rules to to additional labor standards and practices related to other categories of workers. And so I think that this is still a period of time where we're experiencing a lot of need and a lot of urgency to act quickly to make sure that we are being flexible and nimble and in meeting the needs of a critical workforce in in our city. So really, really am appreciative of the opportunity to be able to consider this legislation and to be listed as a as a co-sponsor of it. I also know that we have spent a lot of time talking about the windfall corporate profits that have been made by many of the grocers in this period of time. And it is absolutely true that consumerism has has really shifted in a way that has funneled consumption of food towards every single grocery store that is available in the city. That's because our restaurants are closed for the most part. It's because our bars are closed for the most part. It's because the places that would ordinarily be frequented by people outside of the grocery context no longer exist in some instances. And so grocery stores are the place where almost everyone, if not everyone, in our community goes to. That means more volume and higher exposure. And in many of the studies that we have seen that talk about the risk of exposure, talk about the risk of exposure from the customer perspective, from the consumer perspective. And in one report that I recall seeing last year, it talked about how the risk of exposure to COVID by nearly being inside of a grocery store for a limited period of time was 80% higher than in any other setting, whether it be a restaurant, outdoor dining and an outdoor park. That is an astronomical risk from a consumer perspective. Now, imagine what that number would be if we were looking at the exposure to risk. The risk to exposure of COVID from the worker perspective, from the grocery worker, grocery store worker perspective, it would be astronomically large. It is astronomically large. So I think this is an absolute public health response. It is absolutely needed. And again, we're not in a position where we can just shut down our grocery stores. They are the only thing left in our communities where people can go and find food in the absence of a different kind of economic model that is safe and available to people. So we need to acknowledge that there is a hazard in working in this environment and that workers need to be compensated in order to feel that their work is respected and that their role in this response to COVID is is seen and dignified. And I am so proud to be able to stand with Councilmember Mosqueda, with all of you colleagues, and, more most importantly, with the members of Local 21 and all other grocery store workers in making sure that we take a strong stand here and say yes to hazard pay and making sure that we continue to advance these these policies, that will really make a huge a significant difference for people if they do find themselves in a unfortunate situation of being exposed or in just the basic mode of trying to figure out how to make ends meet while also trying to stay safe. So that being said, I'm going to go ahead and conclude my remarks and see if anyone else has any remarks. And if not, we are going to hand it over to the prime sponsor, Councilmember Mosqueda, for closing remarks. All right. Hearing on camera was going to. You have the last word. Take us home.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Madam President. Council colleagues, thanks again for your comments today, your incredible deliberation of this important topic. And as Councilmember Lewis and Herbold noted, the way in which you all have stepped up to provide much needed relief and support to frontline workers throughout this pandemic. This is one additional piece of the puzzle as we serve to protect the public and the broader public health and to make sure that those frontline workers are having their workplaces respected and that we are recognizing the hazard in which many of these frontline workers are facing every day. The hazard pay ordinance in front of us that we are about to pass will compensate grocery store employees for the risk of working on the frontlines in this global pandemic, to make sure that we're improving the financial availability, to be able to access resources, to stay safe and to stay healthy. It encourages them to continue their vital work in our supply food chain. And this, in exchange supports the welfare and the health of our greater community that is depending on grocery store workers for safe and reliable access to food and services. Making a choice between keeping a job and providing for a child, for example, should not be a situation that any worker is facing. Making a choice between going to work and putting yourself in harm's way should not be something that any family should have to experience. But this is the experience right now of grocery store workers in Seattle. I mentioned an example a few weeks ago as we began to deliberate this piece of legislation, which really underscored for me the urgency of why we need to act now and act in the city of Seattle. Over the holiday break, I was told about a story of a local grocery store worker. She has a child and she works here in a grocery store in Seattle. She made an impossible decision to be able to keep her job, which in order to keep her job, she needs childcare. But because she couldn't afford any of the childcare in her local area, she's been driving to Lakewood about 45 minutes away from here, dropping her child off and driving back to Seattle to do her shift at a local grocery store. Driving back to pick up her kiddo. And sleeping in their car because she does not have the resources that she needed to be able to both afford childcare and to pay rent. This is the situation that our frontline workers, our grocery store workers are being placed in. In addition to being in Hazard's way every day when I heard that story, there's so many issues that I know we have to address to address the underlying insecurity of that situation. But I knew that we could act. We could act and provide hazard pay to recognize the hazard that this employee is in every day. And hopefully that additional compensation will help to make sure that it's not just child care that is being paid, but also greater stability and access to housing. These are the situations in which we find our workers in Seattle facing and hazard pay as one additional component for how we're stepping up to helping to make sure that nobody's making these impossible decisions. Grocery store workers face serious risks of COVID infection, and the least we can do is provide them with the protective gear, access to vaccines and the city council action today, helping to make sure that they're able to access hazard pay. You heard the story from Maggie, who testified during last week's hearing and again this morning where worker after worker testified about the hazards that they are facing every day. One person said, I've come to work early. Every day. Crying already. Already shaking with anxiety over having to deal with unmasked customers and the worry of contracting COVID. One person said, I didn't sign up to sacrifice myself to keep my community fed during the worst public health crisis in a lifetime when I originally took this job. But that's exactly what I'm being asked to do and being asked to do this at the same pay I was making when the greatest risk last year before this COVID that I faced in this job was crossing the parking lot at the end of my shift. The tremendous risk that workers are facing, the hazard in which they encounter every day during COVID and as my colleagues have mentioned, the additional work that they are taking on to help clean our grocery stores and make sure that their sanitation sanitary services allowed at the checkout counter in each of our aisles and making sure that they're providing excellent customer service needs to be rewarded. Up and down the West Coast cities, jurisdictions are not only following suit. Some of them have already acted on the very type of legislation that we're considering today. The city of Berkeley has already passed their legislation offering $5 an hour minimum wage, additional enhancements for hazard pay. The city of Long Beach is offering $4 hazard pay. This current schedule is in front of us for the city of Los Angeles, which is taking this issue on tomorrow, on January 26, with a potential vote on February 9th, Los Angeles County potential vote on the 26th of January as well. Montebello this week on the 27th. And Oakland and San Jose expected to act the first week of February. And those cities, just like Seattle, are not doing this overnight. Appreciate the council president's comments. And I'll also reflect on the timeline here as well for the viewing public and for our colleagues and to reflect the incredible work that has gone into this legislation. We began hearing about the the wave of interest across the West Coast and in other parts of the country to enact hazard pay prior to the holiday break. And I began by asking questions about what the data shows to try to get stories and a better understanding from frontline workers themselves. We began the research with the Office of Labor Standards and our central staff immediately when we heard that there was the potential for potentially passing this in other cities and jurisdictions as well. Again, I want to thank Carina Ball and her incredible work who responded over the holiday break to say this will be the first thing I get to when I get back to the office. Working with United Food and Commercial Workers to have a better understanding from the qualitative stories that they had been receiving, in addition to the quantitative of quantitative analysis that had been provided. I mentioned the October 2020 Boston study that looked and found that grocery store workers in that study alone had encountered COVID rates five times higher that than the general public. These are the type of stories in the data and the analysis that went into the initial question about whether or not a policy should be pursued. Early in January, we began working with the Office of Labor Standards, also in conversations with the Mayor's office. And I want to thank the Mayor for their ongoing express support for this effort to take a look at what the strategy and policy discussions should be. And we crafted this this this draft bill initially with feedback, not just with the United Food and Commercial Workers and getting input from those who represent frontline workers, but also by making sure that we reached out to the grocers, having conversations with Holly Chisholm and also reaching out ultimately to the chamber to get feedback. Again, not necessarily signaling support, but wanting to make sure that we got feedback so that we better understood how these policies could be applied. That's the type of deliberative work that my office does. We made sure to do it in this case as well, and wanted to make sure that we acted with urgency as much as we also maintained our commitment to working with diverse stakeholders. This type of conversation can't happen overnight, and it's so important that we get the details right. So for everybody who's been providing feedback over the last 3 to 5 weeks, we appreciate your work with us, especially as you've recognized council colleagues that this is a matter of life or death. This is a matter of how we are respecting people in their workplace and also making sure that they feel like they have the support that they need to be able to stay in these places of employment to help us as a broader population, be able to make sure that we have access to food and essentials products at our grocery stores. And we've acted with urgency here today. I really appreciate all of the work that you all have done and the express support for my council colleagues for your co-sponsorship. Again, thank you to Samantha Gratz or Sharon and Jo Mizrahi and President Gunther for all of the work that they have done at U.S. W 21 and the hundreds of grocery store workers who provided us with stories. I believe we received 800 emails in support of this legislation over the last few weeks, so thank you all for writing in green. A bill from central staff just cannot see her presence enough for the deliberative work that she's done, along with several chiefs of staff in my office who is the mastermind behind how we make sure to reach out and get stakeholder input and really look at data driven solutions for crises in front of us. Thank you, Sinjar. Thanks again to Jasmine Murata and Janay Jahn from Office of Labor Standards and our communications team, as well as Amanda's office, especially Kylie . Rolf, really appreciate working with you and the mayor on this. And of course, thank you to the grocery store workers. We know that this is immediate relief, immediate recognition of the hazard that you are in and immediate appreciation expressed appreciation for the role that you are playing in helping to respond to the pandemic in front of us . A small but very important piece of legislation today. And council colleagues, I'm hoping for better days. That vaccine is on the horizon. But until then, thank you all for standing up and supporting the workers today by passing hazard pay legislation.
Speaker 0: De Guzman must get over those closing remarks. We're going to go ahead and consider it to be closed now on this bill, and we're going to go ahead and move to a roll call. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of council bill 119990.
Speaker 1: Hmm.
Speaker 0: Madam Quirk, you might be on mute.
Speaker 1: There might be some technical difficulties. So I'll jump in. Councilmember Lewis. Hi. Councilmember Morales As I have said, I must gather, yes. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Herbold. I can't hear you, Councilmember Herbold. We're having some technical difficulties. That's weird. I'm off of you.
Speaker 0: I can hear you now. Go say yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Council President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: A in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Congratulations once again, Councilmember Mosqueda, and congratulations to all of the members of your CWA Local 21 and all of all of the frontline grocery store workers who are hustling every day in our city to make ends meet and to make sure that we continue to have access to the food we need to continue to survive during the pandemic. I hope that this hazard pay goes goes a ways towards helping you survive this pandemic as well. Thank you for all of your h for all of the work. Okay, colleagues, that does bring us to the end of the agenda. Is there any further business to come before the council? Hearing no further business to come before the council. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, February 1st, 2021, at 2:00 PM. I hope that all of you have a wonderful afternoon. For those of you who might not be in West Seattle, I hope you are experiencing as much sunshine as we are here in West Seattle. And I feel like I need to call on Councilmember Peterson so that the viewing public has the benefit of seeing Bernie Sanders sitting behind him, which is going to be a highlight for me this week. I'm not going to lie. Colleagues, thank you so much for for hanging in there with us and for another long meeting. I want to thank you all for continuing your hard work in these trying times. With that being said, colleagues, we are adjourned the much by.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; establishing labor standards requirements for additional compensation for grocery employees working in Seattle; amending Sections 3.02.125 and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01112021_Res 31985
|
Speaker 0: Will the clerk please read item one into the record? Agenda Item one, Resolution 319 85, calling on federal government officials to immediately remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office by any means permitted by the U.S. Constitution, including impeachment, for violating his oath of office on January six, 2021, or for committing any other high crimes and misdemeanors . Thank you, Madam Clerk. I need to adopt resolution 31985. Is there a second? I. Thank you so much has been made and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Herbold. You are the lead sponsor on this resolution and are recognized in order to address the item. And then we can hear from Councilmember Peterson, who I understand is also a co-sponsor of the resolution. But Councilmember Herbold, first.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. As I mentioned this morning, this resolution was written in conjunction with local progress and is based on a draft article of impeachment from Representative Ilhan Omar. I've learned this morning that our sister city in local progress will Minneapolis will be taking a similar action on Wednesday, and I suspect other cities will follow this resolution. The content of it has, of course, been reviewed and approved by the Law Department and the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. This is an updated version that includes changes from Councilman Peterson. Thank you to Councilmember Peterson and your staff for providing valuable input. I want to uplift some of the the elements of the resolution. As mentioned, it mirrors the introduced resolution that accompanies the article of impeachment introduced in the House of Representatives, urging Donald Trump with incitement of insurrection in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States. It further states that Donald Trump suggested that the Georgia secretary of state should overturn verified Georgia state results of the presidential election, and he repeatedly made false claims that he won the election. This person has used the presidency to incite violence and orchestrate an attempted coup across our country. And against our country. This effort has injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced members of Congress, the vice president and staff, and interfered with the congressional duty to to inconsistent with the Constitution to certify election results. This person demonstrates with his words and his actions that he will remain a threat to the national security and democracy of our country and warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold any future office in the United States of America. I also want to condemn the possibility of any threat in Olympia and state legislatures across the country. As I think we all know, the FBI has warned of armed protests being planned at all 50 state capitals. And as mentioned this morning in council briefings, our thoughts and hopes are with our delegation and the rest of the legislature in fulfilling their obligations to the the the constituents of Washington state, and that they do so in in safety and security. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Peterson next as one of the other co-sponsors of this resolution and then colleagues, if anyone else would like to make comments, please do let me know by either raising your hands to the camera or using the raise the hand feature in, say, one customer . Peterson, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you council president and thank you councilmember herb all for your leadership on this. On January 20th, 2017, Donald J. Trump swore an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. On January six, 2021, the Associated Press reported. And we witnessed with our own eyes the shocking video of a violent mob loyal to President Trump storming the U.S. Capitol. Forcing lawmakers into hiding in a stunning attempt to overturn America's presidential election, undercut the nation's democracy, and keep Democrat Joe Biden from replacing Trump in the White House. This is as reported by the Associated Press. The rioters were egged on by Trump, who spent weeks forcefully attacking the integrity of the election and had urged his supporters to descend on Washington, D.C., to protest Congress's formal approval of Biden's victory. Five Americans are dead. President Trump has violated his oath of office. As someone who has had the honor to work inside those sacred halls of the Capitol building in our nation's capital. I'm eager to join the call for federal government officials to safeguard peace, security and democracy for our nation and its people by immediately removing President Donald Trump from office by any means permitted by the U.S. Constitution. And so one of the things we added to this was to basically expand it so that it could be through any means under the U.S. Constitution, in addition to the impeachment articles that are proceeding through the House of Representatives. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. And I do want to thank both you and Councilmember Herbold for getting together offline to coordinate efforts around the proclamation. Both of you had expressed independently interest in pursuing a resolution. And again, I want to thank you for.
Speaker 3: You guys.
Speaker 0: Making it a little easier for us on the council to just do some of that background work, to coordinate and give us one unified resolution to consider. So my my deep appreciation to both you and House members for those.
Speaker 3: Efforts.
Speaker 0: And to your staff, of course. Okay, colleagues, I haven't seen anybody raise their hand using the A Zoom feature, but I just just want to sort of do a quick scan. Again, I think I just saw councilmember sergeant who also wants to make comments. And again, if anyone else would like to make a comment on the resolution before I call the roll, please do let me know as soon as possible, because we're.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm glad to vote in favor of this resolution supporting the impeachment of Donald Trump. Donald Trump should have been impeached long ago. He should have been impeached for massive corporate tax cuts and handouts, including to his own companies at the expense of vital social services for elderly failing to represent working people, and instead representing the billionaire class beginning with himself. He should have been impeached for an utterly criminal approach to the COVID 19 pandemic, which has undoubtedly directly cost tens of thousands of lives. He should have been impeached for caging children. He should have been impeached for sexually assaulting so many women. And frankly, it is unfortunate that the establishment of the Democratic Party has done so little to fight his far right agenda over the past four years. Impeachment at this time would be symbolic. I fully support it because we need to make crystal clear that there is no support for this right wing violence. But impeachment in the last few days of the Trump presidency are not a substitute for a concerted resistance to his agenda over the last four years, or to building a left alternative to the right wing going forward with mass protests, labor mobilizations and political demands that would genuinely help working class people like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. There could have been grassroots organizing that could have destroyed Trump's legitimacy by promoting a genuine progressive alternative to the corporate establishment and also the right populism. But Trump took advantage of the vacuum on the left and again was able to falsely pretend to be that anti-establishment alternative. And on that basis, he won over 74 million votes in the last election and has widespread support, which should alarm anyone serious about fighting the right. Biden won over 81 million votes. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to have won more than 80 million votes. But Trump won over 74 million votes, which is more votes than any other presidential candidate has ever won. With the exception of Biden. We know that all of this will do lasting damage unless we build the left and social movements. Wednesday's far right mob in DC, in a violent attempt to overturn a democratic election result, should be understood as a wake up call for the left. Not surprisingly, media the media report there are now warnings of plans for more armed, far right pro-Trump protests at all 50 state capitals and in Washington, DC, in the days leading up to Joe Biden's inauguration, stoking fears of more bloodshed. The right will continue to scarily grow as long as there is no alternative to the status quo of corporate politics. But despite their differences, the two parties serve the interests of big business and put the burden of the COVID crisis and brutal recession on ordinary people in Seattle. Most immediately, our movement needs to make sure the City Council is accountable to the Black Lives Matter movement, to the working class and all those fighting the right buy and make sure that all council members work correctly today. Going to be voting yes on the Impeach Trump resolution should also make sure to pass the strongest possible ordinance on the ban on police use of the so called crowd control weapons. And I wanted to be clear that my office looks forward to working with any and all council members who want to make sure that the best and strongest possible ordinance is upheld. And nationally, the best and only way to stop the far right is to build the left and social movements. This is the only way we are going to pull millions of ordinary people away from the right wing's influence by building a powerful fightback for the interest of the working class and where actual fascists are in the street, they should be met by a massive show of force led by unions and the left. This week we heard the inspiring announcement of employees at Google forming the Alphabet Workers Union. This is a step in the direction of what is urgently needed the rebuilding of a militant American labor movement. We cannot expect Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi to provide any alternatives. That is why I have endorsed a grassroots Force the Vote campaign, which is demanding that the squad and other movement elected Democrats use a floor vote on Medicare for All as part of a larger strategy to build a fighting movement for socialized medicine. Representatives of working people cannot support a corporate tool like Nancy Pelosi continuing as Speaker of the House, while millions face misery as even the squad members have unfortunately done. While I agree Trump should be impeached, this cannot be our main focus. The Left has the responsibility to address the urgent needs of the working class, and that means, as a starting point, fighting tooth and nail for Medicare for All. Comprehensive COVID Relief. A Socialist Green New Deal. And preparing the ground to launch a new party. This is a critical juncture in history, and we cannot accept a false unity with the corrupt Democratic establishment. But instead, we need to build a powerful unity of millions of working people and the oppressed to fight for a different kind of society. The final point I would make is that we need to be clear about what needs to be condemned. I condemn Trump's violence and the right wing bigoted agenda that it serves. I condemn Trump's authoritarianism and his attempt to steal the election. A democratic election result. I condemn this con man for posing as a representative of working people while actually being an utterly reactionary representative of the rotten billionaire class. We do have to be careful about using words like, quote unquote sedition and quote unquote treason in a way that can backfire on working people. These words have been used by elected officials throughout the nation since Wednesday. These are words that are used overwhelmingly to attack movements of progressives and socialists and the labor movement. In 1919, the great American Socialist Eugene Debs was sentenced to a decade in prison for sedition and was a charge for speaking out against World War One courageously . That same year, Seattle's Socialist, another strong the last socialist elected in Seattle before me, was part of a movement against World War One. She publicly and courageously stood by the Wobblies or the Industrial Workers of the World and one of their staff members who was then jailed on sedition charges for opposing the war. Soon after that, Strong herself was recalled from office and the school board for her association with the Wobblies and those who were courageously opposing World War One. This act of 1940 was created in response to attacks by the far right, but was then used to attack the left and the labor movement. Thank you. And I will vote yes on this important resolution.
Speaker 0: Any additional comments about this resolution? Councilmember Lewis, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President, I. I wasn't planning on saying anything, but I want to share a couple of brief comments, because I do want to point out that because there's been some speculation in the media of if it's strategically worth it to impeach Trump or what the value of impeaching Trump at this late stages. And it's important to note that the Constitution provides that when someone's impeached, they're disqualified from holding that office in the future. President Trump is currently eligible, even having so nakedly violated the trust in his oath to run again and any point in the future in a presidential election or hold other federal offices. So this impeachment is more than symbolic. On this important future, it is critical to the future America we want to build. And I do want to share just an observation about some news that I had actually wanted to talk about briefly in briefing. But I have forgotten. But I think it is just important to point out that, you know, before we saw the worst of America on Wednesday, we saw the best of America on Tuesday, when the people of Georgia sent. The pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, the Ministry of Dr. King, Raphael Warnock, and the son of Jewish immigrants, Jon Ossoff, to the Senate, in violation and in condemnation or in condemnation of the divisive politics of President Trump and an explicit rejection of senators who had been running on a campaign of virulent racism and confrontation and the kind of divisiveness that Trump has attempted to cultivate and that the Democrats, for the first time in ten years, following on the disastrous results of President Trump just to comment on the news, have unified control of the federal government on policies and platforms in stark contrast to the vision of this country that President Trump has perpetrated. And I just want to lift up briefly in a in a limited to to the extent that I can hear that that was only due to incredible effort of normal people in communities and neighborhoods all over this country who were apolitical, who never voted, who were never involved, who were never active, who saw it as their duty to get involved, to organize and to push. And it's in no small effort the result of the organizing fair fight Georgia did for voter integrity and security, or Stacey Abrams as a community and movement leader in that state that we have seen these results. So I am I am optimistic that the spirit that was present on Tuesday is going to be a guiding force of American politics to come in the future instead of the division and treason that we saw on Wednesday. And this resolution gets us closer there by encouraging the Congress to reject and firmly reject this man and this man's politics and to bar him from ever holding this office in the future to bar him from drawing a pension for that office. And there are lots of other relevant considerations to taking this action. So I did just want to mention that and state that I will be very enthusiastically voting for this. And I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Peterson for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those comments. Colleagues, any additional comments on the resolution? I do want to give the sponsors of the resolution the last word. To the extent that they have anything else to add, Council Herbold or Casper Peterson. Okay. I am receiving visual cues that that that there are no additional comments that either of the sponsors would like to make. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez, I.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales s macheda.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez, I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign. It will please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Other business. Is there any further business to come before the Council? A hearing nun colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Tuesday, January 19th, 2021, at 2 p.m.. Of course, Monday is an observed holiday, so our full council meeting, instead of being on Monday in our council briefing, instead of being on Monday, will be on Tuesday, January 19th, 2021 at 2:00. So I want to thank you all for your hard work today and hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon and evening. We are adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION calling on federal government officials to immediately remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office by any means permitted by the U.S. Constitution, including impeachment, for violating his oath of office on January 6, 2021 or for committing any other high crimes and misdemeanors.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042021_CB 119974
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item one Constable 11997 4 billion to civilian and community oversight of the police, creating a subpoena process for the Office of Police Accountability and Office of Inspector General for Public Safety, while ensuring due process for individuals who are the subject of the subpoena and adding new sections. 3.20 9.1. 26.1 245. AVC Mr. Cote, the committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilor Herbold, you are chair of this committee and are recognized to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Really appreciate that and appreciate that. The ordinance title here is so complete. Doesn't leave me a whole lot to say. But as I mentioned in council briefings this morning, this new legislation adds sections to the municipal code and codifies and affirms the city's stance that the Office of Police Accountability and the Inspector General can seek subpoenas of those who may have witnessed or been involved in potential misconduct incidents. The legislation creates a process for the OPI and the body to directly issue the subpoena and enforce them by seeking a court order should the subject of the subpoena fail to comply. The new legislation specifically requires that individuals and third party record holders serve a subpoena or provided a written notice of their right to due process. This specific protection was not codified previously, and this addition is intended to increase civilian participation in open investigations and OIG audits and reviews. Subpoena authority for the Seattle Police Officers Guild and the Seattle Police Management Association is still subject to collective bargaining requirements, and the notice that is referenced in the bill itself recognizes as well that search warrant requirements need to be separately met for certain types of evidence. And I just want to mention and thank the efforts of the Office of Police Accountability, the Office of the Inspector General, the city attorney's office, the the mayor's office and the ACLU and the Community Police Commission in their their work in helping to develop this legislation. The 2017 accountability legislation sponsored by Council President Gonzalez did include subpoena authority. And this bill builds on that legislation in order to provide clarity on the procedures and due process protections. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for that report. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Okay. I'm not hearing any additional comments. I would just say thank you, Councilmember Herbold, and also thank you to Mayor Durkan for her partnership with with you and with many of the other accountability entities to advance this additional clarity. When we initially considered the the Police Accountability Ordinance in 2017. We knew that there needed to be details that would need to be sorted out in order to effectuate the intent behind the subpoena power. But I think that and I think that the details included in this legislation accomplish that original intent and really do implement much of what needs to be implemented in order to add additional transparency and and more teeth to to what we had envisioned and that in that part of the ordinance. So thank you for all of your hard work and thanks for all of the folks who have contributed to developing the legislation in in the past several months to allow us an opportunity to consider this bill. And I do intend to support it and really am appreciative of your efforts here. All right. He's hearing and seeing no other comments were going to go out and close out debates. And I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: STRAUSS Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes. Suarez By. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I ain't in favor 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? Okay. Moving along now to the report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee. Will the clerk please read the short title of item two into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to civilian and community oversight of the police; creating a subpoena process for the Office of Police Accountability and Office of Inspector General for Public Safety while ensuring due process for individuals who are the subject of the subpoena; and adding new Sections 3.29.126 and 3.29.245 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042021_CB 119976
|
Speaker 1: The report, the Transportation and Utilities Committee agenda item to cancel 119976 relating to the East Marginal Way Grade Separation Project at Madison Director of Department Transportation to acquire accept an record on behalf of the City of Seattle. Three Quitclaim Deeds and an Assignment and Assumption of Easement Agreement for the East Marshall Way Overpass from the Port of Seattle. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Even the short title of that bill is rather impressive. I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilmember Peterson, who is the chair of the committee, so that he may provide that report of the committee. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. Colleagues, on today's agenda, we've got 13 items from the Transportation Utilities Committee and this includes four council bills and nine mayoral appointments to the transportation related advisory boards. I discussed these items during our council briefing this morning. This first item, council bill 119976 authorizes state of Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City Light to accept easements from the Port of Seattle regarding a completed overpass at East Marginal Way, just south of Spokane Street. This council bill was recommended unanimously by the Transportation and Utilities Committee. Thank you.
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 clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD. Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 2: Does.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Age in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it will the clerk is affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item number three Will the clerk please read the short title of item three into the record?
Speaker 1: Agenda Item three Council 119955 Relating to Seattle Public Utilities relating to certain properties of the city button at the intersection of Interstate 45 and Seattle Public Utilities. Cedar River Pipeline's Right of Way Committee Recommend Civil Pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the East Marginal Way Grade Separation Project; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation (“SDOT”) to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, three quit claim deeds and an assignment and assumption of easement agreement for the East Marginal Way Overpass from the Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the “Port”); laying off the deeds as right-of-way; placing the real property conveyed by such deeds and easement under the jurisdiction of SDOT and designating for street purposes; authorizing the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Seattle Public Utilities (“SPU”) to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, a stormwater easement from the Port; placing the stormwater easement under the jurisdiction of SPU and designating for utility purposes; authorizing the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Seattle City Light (“SCL”) to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, an overhead and surface easement from the Port; placing
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042021_CB 119955
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item three Council 119955 Relating to Seattle Public Utilities relating to certain properties of the city button at the intersection of Interstate 45 and Seattle Public Utilities. Cedar River Pipeline's Right of Way Committee Recommend Civil Pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Consumer Peterson floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Council 119955. Swapped small pieces of land near the city of Renton, between the Seattle city, between Seattle Public Utilities and the Washington State Department of Transportation to accommodate freshwater pipeline that exists there. This bill also was recommended unanimously by the Transportation Committee.
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 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. S. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I h 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 on my behalf? Item number four. Will the Court please read the short title of item four into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; relating to certain properties in the city of Renton at the intersection of Interstate 405 and Seattle Public Utilities’ (SPU) Cedar River Pipelines right-of-way; declaring certain property rights surplus to the needs of SPU; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of SPU to execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed to the Washington State Department of Transportation and to accept a Quit Claim Deed and three easements from the State of Washington as consideration for the release of the surplus property rights, all as necessary for the relocation of SPU’s Cedar River water transmission pipelines in conjunction with the State’s construction of the I-405 Renton “S” Curves project; all located in the SE quarter of the NW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 17, Township 23, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042021_CB 119958
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item for Constable 119958 relating to the Cedar River watershed authorizing two years of ecological spending in accordance with the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, you are recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 119958 authorizes additional time to complete the necessary ecological thinning of trees to improve forest habitat and biodiversity in accordance with the Seattle or the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. Both the Michael Shute tribe and the Sierra Club supported this two year extension with letters to the council, and this was also unanimously approved by the Transportation and Utilities Committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill.
Speaker 2: Before.
Speaker 0: Hearing no additional comments on the bill, will the Court please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. S Peterson?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. President Gonzalez, I am in favor 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 number five Will the clerk please read the short title of item five into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Cedar River Watershed; authorizing two years of ecological thinning, in accordance with the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan, in Sections 8 and 9, Township 22, North, Range 8, East, W.M., Sections 3, 4, and 10, Township 21, North, Range 10, East, W.M., and Section 33, Township 22, North, Range 10, East, W.M.; declaring the logs resulting from ecological thinning to be surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of such logs pursuant to applicable City contracting and surplus property sale procedures; and directing deposit of the proceeds therefrom to the Water Fund for the purposes of the Habitat Conservation Plan implementation.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042021_CB 119963
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item five Council Bill 119963 relating to set of public utilities updating water regulations to conform to current standards, making technical corrections. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Customer Peterson This one is also yours. You're recognized for by the committee's report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 119963 as the title explains updates the water regulations. We actually heard this bill over two of our committee meetings to give extra time for consideration. The agenda item contains a PowerPoint presentation outlining the nine changes that are being made. The committee recommended this unanimously as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, are there any additional comments on the bill? Harry. No additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. President Gonzalez, I h 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 on my behalf?
Speaker 3: Items six.
Speaker 0: Through nine. Will the clerk please read items six through nine into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; updating water regulations to conform to current standards; making technical corrections; amending Sections 21.04.010, 21.04.020, 21.04.050, 21.04.060, 21.04.080, 21.04.150, 21.04.210, 21.04.300, 21.04.460, 21.04.530, 21.04.580, 21.08.010, and 21.12.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; repealing Section 21.04.590 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding new Sections 21.04.025, 21.04.061, and 21.04.062 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12222014_14-1017
|
Speaker 2: I will wait for technology to catch up. I'm sure it will be moved in second. We can go ahead to comments, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, presuming since it isn't coming up, this is the social impact on.
Speaker 2: 1017, I believe that is. Go ahead. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just want to be sure I am speaking to the adult. This is an ordinance that establishes a fund for us to put money in order to pay social impact bonds, which are tacked like technically not bonds. So it gets a little complicated here. I made some comments last week and I just want to add to those comments saying, in addition to my concerns about debt financing of social programs, I question the process of establishing a fund from which to repay debt. When the city council hasn't even approved using this mechanism, first let's have the substantive discussion, and this accounting measure can and should come later.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Thoughts? Any other questions or comments on 1017 from council members? Councilwoman, can.
Speaker 1: Each. Thank you, Mr. President. We did ask for some staff response to those concerns at last week's meeting, and no one was available. But I believe we do have a representative who can speak to it this week. So is it Brendan Hanlon if I may ask Brendan Hanlon to please share why it is we're establishing the fund structure now even though we are not doing any transactions yet.
Speaker 5: Great. So good morning. Good morning. Good evening. Brendan Hanlon from the Budgetary Management Office. I did have a chance to watch the proceedings last week. I am sorry that I wasn't here to answer questions at that point in time, but let me just go over some of the mechanics. In the 2015 budget we had at, we have allocated a transfer for social impact bonds out of the general fund into the special revenue fund. And the idea is, much like Councilwoman Fox described as this would be a fund by which the social impact bonds would be repaid from. So the mechanics is we will be contracting with nonprofits. There will be funders involved in this program to the extent to to the to the extent that outcomes are delivered by those nonprofits, there will be a repayment of the costs that they have incurred based on the outcomes that were delivered. So what we're doing here is setting aside funds. So that way, once those outcomes are achieved, either in totality or partially, we can repay from this fund. It's a way, it's an accounting mechanism to isolate these funds and properly track them as we go through this process.
Speaker 1: So given that explanation, I will be supporting this bill tonight and urge my colleagues to do the same. I really do think that it's a creative way to try to bring additional resources to some of the social challenges we have, particularly facing our homeless community. Any time we can increase resources for services or increase housing units, we know that we make a difference not just for those individuals, but also for the quality of life of our neighborhoods. Where this impact is really being felt. And so I think that we will, you know, have more vetting about the particular transactions, but as a budget mechanism, simply to create a place for the funds to be placed. While we have that conversation in a budget that we already approved, I think it's important to move this forward tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Just a quick question. And notwithstanding the comments that were just made by my colleague, Councilwoman Kenny Brennan, can you tell me when we will see the priorities that have been identified that these non-profits will be weighed against?
Speaker 5: So Sky might need to help me with the particular date of the committee meeting January 6th. We will be coming to Finance or Safety Committee, Safety Committee and presenting on the mechanics of this in a more detailed fashion than I certainly just went over. I believe we will also be identifying the the outcomes that would be addressed by a social impact bond at that point in time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments or questions on 1017 seen on Madam Secretary? Roll call.
Speaker 4: But no can eat ice monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Brooks Brown.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And now the results. 982992 nays 1017 has been placed on file consideration and does pass. Madam Secretary, can you tee at the last one what should be 950? Called out by Councilwoman Fox. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 7: Please put it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 2: Certainly can. Councilwoman Candace, can you please have 950 placed on final consideration and do pass?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing a "Social Impact Bond" fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund and the means for authorizing expenditures from such fund.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the creation of a new fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund for Social Impact Bonds to provide a multi-year reserve to make performance-based payments to contractors providing housing and case management for chronically homeless individuals. This is a companion ordinance to the Long Bill. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-4-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12222014_14-0950
|
Speaker 2: Certainly can. Councilwoman Candace, can you please have 950 placed on final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 950 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council and Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance which extends the contract for the photo red light program for six months. I am even thinking beyond that because my colleagues are asking to have them and photo red light intersections be spread more throughout the city. And I want you to think and when I say you, I'm thinking of the administration before it comes to us and says it's ready to do so. There are some key things I think need to be decided. First of all, has each intersection had a thorough engineering examination? Perhaps there are other issues creating safety hazards. Have yellow lights been extended as much as the traffic code allows? Have we installed highly visible countdown clocks to give drivers ample warning? Are the crosswalks freshly painted so they are easily visible by all? Have studies documented reduction and absence from these safety measures before we ever get around to installing red light cameras? I don't place faith in the numbers that I am given on the current photo red light locations because at the time that they were put in, we also requested that the yellow lights be extended. When you have multiple variables, you don't know what is causing an outcome. I believe that this work needs to be done before considering additional installations. And I also would like people to think about if the white line violation is about changing behavior, not revenue raising. Try issuing warnings instead, when the auditor is also raising questions about voter enforcement, we should listen. Our residents and any visitor to our fine city deserves our performing this due diligence. I will be voting no on the extension of the contract.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman thoughts? Councilwoman in each.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I did not comment on this bill last week when many of my colleagues did an extensive discussion. And so I just wanted to raise a few similar calls to action for the process going forward. I will be supporting this bill. It's an extension of our existing system. So it doesn't include expansions, it doesn't include any new services or designs because it's simply just extending our current contract. But I do think that we have heard a lot of very good feedback, and I believe that this Council should be very engaged in the process by which we debate the what we want in the new contract and the new RFP. So just to highlight a few of the areas that I would also like to ask that we consider is on the speed side, we really should be measuring average speeds in the corridors where we use the speed cameras. I do believe the goal is changing behavior. The statistic of 80% of citations being first time and only citations and not having a repeat. Shows me that we're being effective in changing behavior. But I'd like us to measure that more intentionally in terms of average speeds, and the technology should exist for that. I also think that we have heard a lot of concerns about where the revenue is going. And in a situation like this, where we have such a safety oriented program, I don't see any reason why we can't trace perhaps where we use this revenue for things like pedestrian safety and infrastructure, since that's the number one folks we're trying to protect. Certainly folks are injured in car upon car accidents, but a car on a pedestrian or a car and bicyclist accident is is far more dangerous. And so red light violations in particular, those pedestrians are the first line of folks that I want to protect. And so if we can find a way to make sure that some of these revenues are being used for that kind of safety. So I do hope that the administration takes seriously the ideas from my colleague, as well as any others that this council has. It incorporates those. Before you bring us a new contract, I would like to see rounds of meetings and some real analysis of what types of approaches we can change in the new contract rather than simply a recycling of the current contract. So with those caveats for the next round, I'm happy to support this tonight again based on the fact that 80% of the folks who are cited change their behavior. And that's a pretty effective statistic. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Canete, any other comments or questions on 950? Seen not manner secretary roll call votes no.
Speaker 4: Can each Montero I nevett i Ortega i rob i shepherd i. Susman I. Brooks, I.
Speaker 2: Brown, i.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I am secretary. Please Thursday announced the results.
Speaker 4: Ten Eyes one nay.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes one day 950 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. That was all the bills that were call out. We are now ready for the black vote. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman, can each where you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. It appears that our technology up there it comes. All right. I move that the final following resolutions be adopted 1070, 1082, 1083 and 1134. All series of 2014.
|
Bill
|
Amends the contract with Xerox State and Local Solutions to add $81,000, for a new total of $1,104,272, and extend it for 6 months, through 6-30-15, to continue the Automated Photo Red Light Program during the request for proposal process (CE-01061-06). (SAFETY & WELL-BEING) Amends the contract with Xerox State and Local Solutions to add $81,000, for a new total of $1,104,272, and extend it for 6 months, through 6-30-15, to continue the Automated Photo Red Light Program during the request for proposal process (CE-01061-06). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-22-14. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-25-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12152014_14-1084
|
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Moving on to proclamations, we have one proclamation this evening. Proclamation 1084. Councilwoman Shepard, would you please read Proclamation 1084?
Speaker 7: With great pleasure. Council President Herndon Proclamation 1084 Series of 2014 honoring Northwest Denver resident and neighborhood advocate Nettie Moore on her 90th birthday. Whereas, born Nettie Persichetti on December 22nd, 1924 to self-described good Italian stuck. Nettie is a northwest Denver notable notable and has been recognized over the years by an endless list of city, state and regional agencies for her diligent work to improve her community, including Denver Parks and Recreation, the Regional Transportation District, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver Police Department, city of Lakewood, Colorado, General Assembly, State House of Representatives and multiple registered neighborhood organizations. And. WHEREAS, Nettie and her husband of over five decades remembered fondly the old Denver streetcars that they rode and Nettie helped to bring them back, working to plan the recently opened West Light Rail Line. And. Whereas, a North Denver legacy herself, she is most noted as a neighborhood tour de force for curbs and lighting, coordinating cleanup efforts , securing grants to replace refuse with recreation facilities and playground equipment for children, and generally placemaking her neighborhood long before it became a catchword. And. Whereas, networked 28 years as a Denver Public Schools lunchroom manager, was the driving force behind getting 18 lights installed in her neighborhood and at 90 continues to serve ably as vice president of the Sloan's Lake Citizens Group. And. Whereas, in 1992, the Nettie More playground was dedicated by the city of Denver in the Lakewood Dry Gulch Park. And to this day, Nettie keeps an. Eye on her playground to make sure that it is up to par, just like its namesake. And. WHEREAS, Netty, who also has community apartments named after her, is the epitome of a community activist serving as a role model for wannabe neighborhood activists of all ages in Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council or the city and County of Denver wishes Nettie a well-earned and happy birthday and thanks her for all she has contributed to her community. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Miss Nettie Moore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Captain. You, Councilwoman, separate your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: I move that to proclamation 1084 series of 2014 be be moved and adopted moved in adopted.
Speaker 4: It has been moved second and third by the audience. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 7: With great pleasure. This is really a special moment this evening. And oh, Nettie, I wish I could I can just barely see your eyes over the podium. You know, there's many folks that get active on a particular issue and get really involved because they're motivated about something bringing change or they're not wanting change to come to some part of their community. And they get really intensely involved, maybe for two, three, four months, six months, and then the issue blows over and fades away. And then a lot of these folks we never see from again. That's what we call a hit and run activist. I borrowed that term from Councilwoman Monteiro, but let me tell you that Nettie Moore is anything but a hit and run activist. I believe that it is probably well over half a century that she has dedicated to improving her neighborhood for the better. And I listed, you know, in the proclamation many, many, many of her accomplishments. I've only been in office for three years, but there has been a lot that has transpired and changed for the better, even in those three years that I've been in office in the West Colfax corridor. And Nettie has been at every single table, every single meeting, every single event along that way. As we mentioned about the West Corridor, light rail, about the redevelopment of St Anthony's and all of the various steps that that process has gone through, she has been, I think, at every single Sloan's Lake Citizens Group meeting that I have attended. One of my favorite little stories about Nettie was at the groundbreaking for the St Anthony's redevelopment project. You know, the ground was very broken up and uneven, and she had been invited to speak. And I jumped up thinking that she might need my help to get over the uneven ground and get to that dais and get up on the dais. But she kind of swatted my hand away and made it very clear that she was fine to get to that dais on her own without any help from me. So, I mean, I think to me, Nettie is just an amazing inspiration to everyone about, you know, what truly authentic, engaged neighborhood activism is that really focuses on, you know, what can. Looking around our neighborhood and saying, what can I change for the better? How can I improve my community? And how can I be a positive force for good to bring about changes that will serve not only myself, but everyone in my community? And she has done that passionately and tirelessly over and over and over again for well over 50 years. So hats off to you, Ms.. Nettie. You have probably written the book on successful neighborhood activism. And, you know, I thank you for this for being such an inspiration and a role model for not only myself, but for many others across the community. And I know that several other of my colleagues know you well and probably have equally wonderful things to say.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Nettie. How are you, Nettie? I am so glad she's been in these chambers many times on various different issues that have come in front of city council. And it is so nice to be in these chambers to see you in these chambers so you can receive a proclamation in your honor. This city owes a debt of gratitude to you. When I think of the word respect and what it means, I think of you. And a lot of us in the West Side owe a great debt of gratitude to you. And we respect you for it. We absolutely respect you. And what does that look like when Nettie Moore is in the room? She's the biggest, strongest and only person you see. She's the first person you go in whose hand you shake her, whose hug you feel. She's the one voice out of everybody in a room of screaming and obnoxious people. She is the one voice. That pacifies you, it brings you peace, that you see it great. And, you know, we go to a lot of meetings. You do have a lot of contentious issues in this city. And Nettie Moore is the referee. She is the ref of this city. She brings people together. People who don't really like each other have one thing in common they love nothing more. West Colfax, a West Side legendary neighborhood, is legendary because of you and legendary because of your work. And you're the reason why. And I am so glad that you have a park named after you and that you are alive and well. Netty, to see and enjoy that part. Because for me, if it was up to me, we'd need a neighborhood after you. There is so much that we can be saying on this dais that would take us here all night praising you, Nettie. But there's one thing that I dislike to leave with, and there's many people in the West Side that want to leave that same message. There's one message that we can say is, thank you. Thank you, Nettie Moore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Many of my comments have been made already, but when I walked in the dais tonight and saw Netty sitting there with that big smile on her face, that's the one thing you always you always notice about Nettie is that that that warm glow that she has. I just want to say happy birthday and thank you thank you for all of your years of service to your community and to the Denver community. Because as we all play a role in making our neighborhood better, we make this city better for for everybody. And you have been a true role model for neighborhood activists and advocates all across the city and a role model for our young people as well. And you will leave just a great legacy to this city. So, again, I want to say thank you for all of what you have done. And God bless you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Nettie You do always have a smile, but sometimes the finger comes out. And I appreciate that as well, because it's always something really important. And, you know, the proclamation tonight mentions that the park playground was dedicated in 1982, but you are a detail oriented woman. And so you were also keeping track of whether that underlying Parkland had ever been dedicated as official Parkland. And that was when I got the that we need to talk finger to make sure that that park was forever protected by the charter. And in fact, I was so excited to be able to tell you the good news that we did dedicate that underlying parkland in the second round of dedications just a few months ago. And so it was great to hear the Oh good. And I love that detail oriented ness about you because other than your smile, the other thing you always have with you is your binder and your your scrapbooks. And you keep a great, meticulous history of Denver, not just of your own story, but of what you've seen evolve around you. So I'm so appreciative of that. And I wish you a happy birthday as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Mandela.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Mr. President, I would like to add my name to this proclamation and also wish you all the best and what a wonderful way to celebrate your birthday. You have lots of people here that love and care about you and that is so special. So I want to thank you very, very much for your friendship. And I remember the day that we met was at the Decatur Federal Station, and you came up and talked to me as if you'd always known me. And I thought, oh, my goodness, she watches Channel eight and she knows what everybody's talking about. So thank you so much and all the best. And I wish you many, many, many more wonderful years of good health and love and care.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Are there any other comments from members of council seen on Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Or are you 1/2.
Speaker 2: Distracted or sorry?
Speaker 6: SHEPHERD Hi. SUSMAN Hi. Brooks.
Speaker 1: Brown Hi.
Speaker 0: But I need I.
Speaker 6: LEHMAN Right. LOPEZ Hi. Montero. Nevitt Hi. ORTEGA Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 4: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 1084 has been adopted. Councilwoman Shepherd, is there anyone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. I would love to invite Ms.. Netty Moore to the podium to accept and if you would, introduce your family when you have a moment.
Speaker 4: Well, they just passed it.
Speaker 8: You know, I. I can only speak a.
Speaker 9: Lot and have a lot to say, but I have to from the bottom of my heart, this is something that I think.
Speaker 0: All of you.
Speaker 8: Very, very.
Speaker 9: Much. You know, this is a thrill. And it in my notebooks will get the information in it. And someday, I hope that.
Speaker 8: Jamie.
Speaker 9: Lee Miller is supposed to come and get more information to show more of the.
Speaker 0: Potholes and the development through the years.
Speaker 8: So I'm leaving behind.
Speaker 6: History that.
Speaker 9: That the city.
Speaker 8: Doesn't even know. And I hope you all, you know, enjoy it when.
Speaker 9: I'm gone at tiny nine.
Speaker 0: Years. I've still got it up here.
Speaker 8: But it might slip and it might not be there. So I hope you'll all enjoy it and watch it.
Speaker 9: So, I don't know. Do you want me to introduce it?
Speaker 7: Why don't you go ahead and introduce the folks that are here to support you?
Speaker 8: This is my great man up. My great. No way.
Speaker 0: And this is my son, Larry Moore, his wife, Amy Amara.
Speaker 5: They're very far from this area for our great grandson, Christopher, and my daughter, Diane, from the other side. But I. I have. Very.
Speaker 4: Thank you for that proclamation, Councilwoman Schaeffer. We are moving on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring NW Denver Resident and Neighborhood Advocate Nettie Moore's 90th Birthday on December 12, 2014.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12152014_14-1017
|
Speaker 4: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This ordinance establishes a social impact bond fund, essentially a counting place hold to put money that we will use for this mechanism. Now, I don't recall City Council formally approving this mechanism, which ironically does not involve actual bonds. It has an intriguing spin and one I really thought long and hard about. The sales pitch is that we contract with investors to start a program and we pay only for success with all the money taxpayers will save. However, put another way, it's a mechanism to debt finance social programs. Let me say it again. I believe it's a mechanism to finance social programs. Now, it's justification is the same logic I heard when Mayor Hickenlooper promoted Denver's road home for the homeless will save millions because will howls and treat the high expense individuals really costing taxpayers . That was what we were told and council voted to assert that program. Ironically, the plan first use I was told about for Denver using social impact bonds was to establish a program for high expense homeless individuals. And we'll save enormous amounts of money so we can fund the program and repay investors with interest, of course. Why not just serve those individuals with the program already promoted to serve them or just the program? Well, undoubtedly have specific contracts coming up where we can talk about the problems unique to each purpose that the city wants to use social impact bonds for. And if you I feel certain if this fund is established. The causes will grow and grow and grow. One teaser, though, is the difficulty. During the pilot program of correcting course midstream if that's warranted, you already have research criteria out there that's been established to prove a specific program caused an outcome and thus should generate payments to the investors. I mean, there'll be a whole lot of other issues I believe, that people will be raising as this goes forth. But right now, I'm being asked to create a fund to put money in for this purpose. At this time, I'm not ready to create an investment market for social programs. Let me say again, it's basically a new concept for expanding and debt financing. Social programs.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And I want to make sure that the public here's another version of Social Impact Bonds, which is one of the most innovative social funding mechanisms that cities are beginning to do nationwide. And I just want to make sure that there's someone here from Department of Finance that can is Tyler here at all to speak to that?
Speaker 9: Councilman Brooks. Guys start for the mayor's office. Tyler is not here tonight, but we have a briefing scheduled on the entire social impact bond program and what's being proposed in Safety and Well-Being Committee, I believe, on January 13th. So there will be more information provided at that time.
Speaker 2: Okay. You know, thank you. I appreciate this guy. I really would have liked Tyler to be here because this has been a program that the city has been working on in conjunction with a lot of private partners in the city of Denver for the last year. And we are kind of voting on the fund tonight. So our hope that he can be here. But I would ask that for those who are tuning in, we're going to ask a ton of questions. We're going to try to specify some specific projects in which the city will go after. But this is an incredible opportunity for the city and county of Denver to fund programs not from our general fund, but some innovative ways outside of that. And so I hope that we'll get that opportunity to to have a robust conversation there.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Reading.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I have also given a lot of thought to this, and some of my thoughts have gone along the way. Councilwoman thoughts went like, How does it really work? How do people really get paid back? Why would they invest? I hadn't thought of it in terms of of course we'll pay them back. But I did attend a couple of the I don't know whether they were interest sessions or seminars outside of the city and county building that were hosted through, I think, the Strategic Partnership Office. And it's very technical. I feel like there are a lot of measurements. I'm not saying that I could do the measurements myself. I don't understand them quite that well. But there are there is an independent advisor. We could legitimately ask, well, how does that person get paid? But. All of that, said Skye. My question is, you know, I'm still very open to this because of the size of the problem. But my question is, why are we setting up the fund before we're briefed on the exact program?
Speaker 9: The fund is just a mechanism.
Speaker 10: I get it.
Speaker 0: Right. It should have.
Speaker 9: Been established in the long bill and it was an oversight. It should have been established for the 2015 budget as part of the long bill.
Speaker 10: And why, if we haven't decided on the program, should it have been established.
Speaker 9: That the way the program works, you have to hold a reserve to pay back those funds if we.
Speaker 0: Do see a savings.
Speaker 9: And so we need to create a mechanism to do that. If we move them forward, if there are individual actions, they will still come to council for approval. This is just to establish that fund within the but the budget process.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to, as chair of finance, I did allow this to go through. I'm concerned with the condition that we get the full briefing. And so so that was a condition of this going through. And on the substance, I will say, these may not be the same kind of investors you're thinking of from Wall Street who put in $100 and want to get 110 or 100 and whatever back. The most frequent investors in social impact bonds are foundations who generally invest $100 and they get zero back. So if they invest 100 and they get ten back, 15, $20 back, those are funds they can then reinvest in growing outcomes. So I think that's a really important distinction for folks to have even just tonight, even just for the generic mechanism with no program to go with it, which is that this opportunity does bring and grow resources to the city that we would not otherwise have, i.e. outside investment from foundations. And in none of these models do you really pay back more than what you received. You're just paying back something to an investor that's typically trying to do good without getting a single dollar in return. So that may help to shift folks thinking a little bit about why this is an opportunity to city should pursue. And in terms of the return, I mean, I think that this is one of those things where it doesn't mean that you're not going to have other people who need similar services but jail nights and hospital nights , for example. And, you know, if we're dealing with someone who is homeless, are more costly than the housing that has been well-established in many cities throughout the United States, Seattle in particular. And so I do believe that even though it doesn't mean you don't have to continue providing other homeless services, those however many folks you have, you are saving dollars. So we'll learn more about that. I apologize for the timing of this going through, but it was conditioned on the committee hearing on the substance. So I do encourage folks to vote yes for tonight for a fund structure so that the financing pieces is done. But we then can can debate the program. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Canady, councilman rep.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm still stuck. I want to be clear, we're establishing the fund, but we're not putting any money on it. So why do we have to have a reserve? Because we won't have a reserve. We'll have a fun number.
Speaker 8: Mm hmm.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. I don't know the details of why exactly it had to be done at this specific moment in time. I can have Brendan reach out to you. This is first reading tonight. Okay. I can have Brendan and Tyler.
Speaker 10: I think we really have to explore this. I'm very serious about the proposal, but I'm perplexed about how it came forward.
Speaker 8: Great.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Rao. Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: You know what? I just wanted to this is this is on first reading. So I just want to make sure that we have Tyler and Brendan and some folks from finance here for second reading this. I have my vote tonight. I wish they'd have been here tonight. But to make sure that they're here for the second reading is going to be critical for this passage. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, any other comments on 1017 C None, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 8: But no.
Speaker 6: Carnage. Liman, Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Ortega. Rob.
Speaker 10: Abstain.
Speaker 6: I Susman. Brooks Brown. No, Mr. President, I.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and have the results tonight.
Speaker 6: Two nays, one abstention.
Speaker 4: 10 hours, two nays, one abstention. 1017 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, you want to have the next one, which I believe was 950. Councilwoman Fox called that one out. Wait for technology to catch up, but also ask, what would you like for us to do with this?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing a "Social Impact Bond" fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund and the means for authorizing expenditures from such fund.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the creation of a new fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund for Social Impact Bonds to provide a multi-year reserve to make performance-based payments to contractors providing housing and case management for chronically homeless individuals. This is a companion ordinance to the Long Bill. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-4-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12152014_14-0950
|
Speaker 4: 10 hours, two nays, one abstention. 1017 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, you want to have the next one, which I believe was 950. Councilwoman Fox called that one out. Wait for technology to catch up, but also ask, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 8: Put it on for four votes.
Speaker 4: Certainly. Councilman Brown, could you please have 950 ordered published?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. A move the council bill 950 the ordered.
Speaker 4: Publish it has been making it has been moved in seconded comments from members of council, the council and Fox.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. There are two ordinances on the agenda tonight dealing with photo traffic enforcement. One is an ordinance extending photo radar. Speeding is a big issue in my district and to my constituents, and I have not called out that ordinance. However, over 50% of the survey respondents in my district for my annual survey wanted the state to ban the use of photo red light. I started out being a fan because it was sold to me as a way to ticket people who blow through stoplights who could oppose that traffic light. You blow through, you get a ticket. Well, that isn't exactly how it turned out. And even before I go to what it turned out, I do want to mention we also, at the same time lengthened the yellow light, which really did help. There were ways to deal with this problem other than setting a photo red light ticket. However, in reality, this program targets people whose wheels stop over the white line. If the photo shows someone in the frame and people actually review these photos so they have discretion, whether they take it or not. If somebody is actually in the frame, either in the crosswalk or preparing to enter the crosswalk, I could be persuaded that this may be a safety issue. But a journalist gave me a stack of photos to review and nearly a hundred of them from the Quebec intersection. And I went through those photos. Those people had gotten photo red life tickets. And I don't recall seeing a single person, a single bicyclist, a single disabled individual, anybody in the frame. But these people were still ticketed. The rails were over the white line. I am not willing to collect revenue off a non hazardous situation and if there is nobody there and it's a matter of the wheels stopping a little bit too far forward, that to me is not a traffic hazard. My standard is whether an officer who could be standing at that intersection would ticket under the same circumstances. But I'm not willing to support a program where that officer definitely would not.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. Thoughts, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I respectfully disagree. I think the photo relay program is very helpful, and I do so because for me, it's a safety issue. I've seen folks blow through red lights doing this. Not even paying attention to what's ahead of them, but instead liking something on Facebook and for that instant. Imagine what can happen. On Sixth and Callum, all you got to do is sit there and you watch his cars go right through. Coming to a point. I was one of those folks that blew through that red light one time. I had a big fine waiting for me at home. And guess what? I. I slowed down, like, 30 feet before that. I don't want that. I don't want that. Fine. And I honestly don't want to be responsible for somebody losing their mother, their father, or their son and daughter. On the count of me running a red light. In other states, you fined up to 400 or $500. For one of these violations. And I absolutely disagree with the notion that just because you're you're crossing the line, your front end of the cars in the passing, that line in the intersection is not hazardous. We've been told time and time again by our own People with Disabilities Commission on how they like the idea of the photo radar. And you should be able to be a fine if you're in the cross out because unlike me, thank God. And I'm blessed to have the use of both of my legs unable to cross that sidewalk or cross that crosswalk and good speed to hustle on over. There are folks in this city who cannot. They are on a wheelchair. They're in a cane or crutches. They're blind with a walking stick. And they depend on any mechanism they can to help them cross safely. And if there's too much of an inconvenience for us to get us, what is it, 70 something dollars, $40, $40 to cross 40 bucks. That's the inconvenience that I have to pay. That's bigger inconvenience and somebody who's trying to get across the street in a wheelchair. I'm sorry, but. The Battle of the inconveniences. It's pretty, pretty obvious. I don't mind having to pay that $40 fine. As opposed to watching somebody in a wheelchair have to go around the front end of your car in traffic. Just to get to the other side. Well, your car. And I agree. Councilman Fox, I would love to have an officer sit there and watch cars go through and ticket them. I like that idea. I wish I was an officer. Every intersection I do that. But guess what? The same time, we got to be frugal with our budget, and we don't have enough officers. And Councilwoman in the budget. I was with you in making sure that we had more officers. I want to do this every single year. Until we're cool. But until then, every tool that we have in the toolbox to protect people's safety as they walk in this city. As a cross in the city should be utilized. And it gets the best of us. And it's inconvenient. But imagine if that were your kid in the coffin, in a hospital bed. Because it didn't cross a line or because they crossed the red line. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's easy for all of us to be.
Speaker 10: Real clear about the fact that running a red light is.
Speaker 0: Dangerous and against the law. But many of us have forgotten, probably from long, long ago, taking our driver's ed, that it is also against the law to stop in a crosswalk for safety reasons. It might be more evident to us that how dangerous it is to run a stoplight than how dangerous it is to cross into a crosswalk. And just because the after picture of not seeing anybody in the crosswalk doesn't matter. Because when you are coming up on a light, you can't always tell whether there's somebody in that crosswalk or not. There is a reason why it is against the law. And we have seen some terrifying photos from the police department of Mothers and strollers being barely missed of people in wheelchairs being barely missed because they are in the crosswalk. And the driver who is not paying attention has is almost not stopped in time. If we would want to not give a ticket for those who are breaking the law about crossing a crosswalk, then we need to change the law. But we can't just say, let's not give a ticket. Let's give a ticket for this lawbreaking, but not for that lawbreaking. What sense does that make? And we have seen the danger that it produces for the disabled, for people in bicycles, for people in wheelchairs. It is dangerous to stop at a crosswalk. A person has an opportunity to drive more carefully. Often the lights have countdowns. And if you remember that it is illegal to stop at a crosswalk. You can be more careful about making sure that you do it.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of the things I was planning on saying have been really pointed out by Council Bin Lopez and also Councilman Sussman. I got a I got one of these ones. And it was about ten years ago. I have never gotten one since. They are about changing behavior and there is no better way of changing behavior than getting one of these types of tickets at a red light. I am. I would say one of the top five complaints I get from constituents on a regular basis is about crosswalk and intersection safety on a regular basis. I'm a mom with a seven year old kid and I am hyper hypersensitive to these issues because I regularly am crossing the street with my son. I can't tell you how often I tell him to look both ways before he steps in the street. But my son did a little bit in the clouds, and I can't tell you how often he steps out into the street without doing exactly what I'm telling him. And I, you know, because I walk him to school every day, I see horrible behavior on the parts of drivers as they go through intersections. And I notice this particularly around my son's school, but I've seen it countless other places in my district. My district is full of a lot of seniors. It is full of a lot of boomers who are eventually going to find themselves perhaps with a walker or a cane or also, you know, just wheelchairs as well. A lot of the folks that live in my West Colfax corridor are also disabled. And I cannot stress enough how important I think it is to, as Councilman Lopez said, to ensure that we use every tool in our toolbox to ensure safety for all users of our of our roads. One thing that's important to note that if a car hits a pedestrian going ten miles an hour, nine out of ten pedestrians will survive that accident. If a car hits a pedestrian at 40 miles an hour, nine out of ten pedestrians will not survive that accident. I know most of us in this room are drivers. 40 doesn't feel like very fast to a driver, but it is the difference between life and death for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. So just because a ticket met the photo generated when a ticket is issued may or may not show. Someone in the crosswalk or about to enter the crosswalk. As Councilman Sussman said, that's irrelevant because once someone is killed, they're killed.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I received an email regarding this issue from an individual that lives in West Denver, and he asked some very, very good questions. And so I'm just going to put it out there so that I can get some answers to his questions before second reading. But there are people that feel that while this is a safety issue, they also feel that it's probably an illicit tax, that the city of Denver hasn't been very good at explaining what we're doing with with the money and where the proceeds from the from the tickets go. So that's one question that I have. And also and I think I think it's good to have this conversation about about this particular program, because every time we're supposed to vote on it, it does raise some controversy. And so the other thing that I would like to ask is. How how this revenue is really used so that it's helpful towards the safety of drivers and pedestrians. So if I could have that information to be able to send back to my constituent that lives in West Denver, I would really appreciate it.
Speaker 9: Sure. Councilman Monteiro The simple answer is, like all other fines that goes into the general fund and those dollars are allocated as part of the budget process every year for all sorts of things within the city, including safety. But there is no specific breakdown because it does all just run into the general fund.
Speaker 8: So so I think that that's probably I think that's probably the issue with this gentleman is that, you know, he lives near one of the intersections and sees people not taking it very serious at all. And it may be people that are so used to it from the neighborhood or I'm not sure, you know, chronic folks that just go through there. But I think that's part of the issue. Is that something that impacts people that we're not very good at seeing where those revenues go and for them to go into the general fund kind of diminishes the importance. So I just wanted to share that. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Happy to pass that on.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Councilman Fattah, I know you just ring back in, but I was going to go to some of our councilmembers having spoken. Is that okay, Councilman Nevitt?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be real brief. I agree with Councilwoman Monteiro that we've probably done a poor job of explaining the rationale for this. Educating people and education is definitely a critical, critical component of having this program be successful. I also agree with my colleagues who talked about the importance of protecting the crosswalk for children, for the disabled. But I want to make a pitch here, but I want to stake a claim that this is for the benefit of all of us. We are all pedestrians first before we get into a car. And we have made a deep commitment as a city to transform Denver into a true, multi-modal city. Where all forms of transportation and all forms of locomotion are honored and facilitated. And that means that we need to do a better job of mediating between the different forms of transportation. So, yes, cars belong on the road, but the roads also belong to pedestrians. When the light is red, the crosswalk belongs to the pedestrian. And that is worth reinforcing to all drivers so that all of us as pedestrians know that the street is safe. Because if we don't enforce it, then when the light is red, take your chances. But that's not what we want to say when the light is red. The crosswalk belongs to pedestrians. And if we can live with that and as people begin to get the message, and if we do a better job of communicating that message, we will make a big step forward to making a multi-modal city. If we abandon the crosswalk to haphazard approach of you can invaded if you want, or if there's a policeman there, you might get a ticket. I think we won't make very much progress. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I just want to ask a couple of specifics, and I'm not sure who is here from Public Works that can address my question. So let me just start out by saying, first of all, what we're doing here is adding $81,000 to an existing contract and extending it by six months. So, Sky, I guess you're the point person here to answer my question.
Speaker 9: It's actually safety's bill, but I'm happy to take the question. Okay.
Speaker 8: That's right. I forgot it was safety net. Public works. Do we get any additional interchanges? Because right now we only have four intersections that are photo redlining. Correct. So this doesn't do anything more than extend the contract and add those dollars.
Speaker 9: Yes, that's absolutely correct. We are in the process of developing an RFP. It's been a number of years since these two contracts were instituted, and so it's time to go back out for RFP and they intend to do that in the early part of next year. So this is an extension to get us through the first six months of the year while that RFP process takes place, and it does only include the four intersections. There will be a component of the new RFP that might consider future intersections, but that's a policy conversation to have in the future. And at.
Speaker 8: That time, we'll have another robust conversation about this, and we.
Speaker 9: Are very sure we will.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to be sure you understand that. I really do want safety measures, those things that I think are really pertinent to safety. One, as I said, was the longer yellow caution light. I think that really did help drivers be able to stop. Secondly, it was referenced a countdown mechanism that is very important to and we really should be having the larger countdown signs so that people can see how many seconds left there are. I get worried, though, when you have something that is such a generator of revenue that sometimes the safety part may take second steer, maybe not to these council members, but it may and I'm going to use a deer for an example. It was just told to me from a different city and adjacent city that uses photo red light and the citizen contacted them trying to get the larger count down measures. And the city purposely didn't want to put them in because it would cut into the revenue. And so just understand, unless you see these other safety measures in connection with this, somebody is talking out of half of their mouth, not the full story. I also had staff do some research and some cities do not ticket for white line violation. They ticket blowing through the red light. They do not ticket the white line. Other cities have found the program to be so ineffective they have discontinued it altogether.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Good for those other cities. But in Denver, we take it for the white line, because those as my colleagues said, the crosswalk belongs to pedestrians and not just the ones that walk, but the ones that roll and the ones that can't see. That's why it's important. If they have that problem, the other city that that city council deal with it. What I see here is a solution. It is a tool that we can use to help change behavior. You know, I wouldn't mind seeing those revenues down to zero, which means not very many people at all would be crossing those crosswalks or running those red lights out. I think that's the goal. I would like to go on record saying I want that goal to see that come down to zero. That means there are less accidents, more folks that are obeying that red line. And if I can go on record, I know we're not expanding, but I have some recommendations. Alameda and federal I would say Alameda. Knox I would say 10th in federal federal next position. Man I'll have one at the end of the block. I think these work, it's not about revenue. And you're talking to somebody whose family member can no longer work because they were struck by a vehicle running a red light. It is a very hard thing to deal with. We'll still be we will still be running red lights. Absolutely. Will people still be spitting? Absolutely. But hopefully. The number of people running red lines and the number of people speeding drops dramatically. And I think that's the purpose of this program. I would like to see that zero barrel balanced one time. That would be a great day in the city. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 10: Oh, just for people listening to this debate that we seem to have every other year or so, about three or four years ago when we had the debate, we did cut the fine for the white line violation in half. So it's half the cost of that going through the whole intersections. It's $40 and that's $10 less than a gosh darned street sweeping ticket. So I think it's as easy to stop at a white line as it is to read a street sweeping sign. So I tend to agree with Mary Beth assessment. I just wanted people to realize that it's a relatively poor Denver low cost ticket.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Rob. Any other comments? 950. Scene on Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 6: But no. Can each layman. I. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. I. Ortega. I. Rob. Shepherd. Susman. Hi, Brooks Brown.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the result.
Speaker 6: 12 eyes, one nay, 12 eyes.
Speaker 4: One day. 950 has been ordered published. So I believe that was all the bills that are called out. So all other bills are introduction except for council bill 941 are ordered published council will postpone order and published council Bill 941 concerning the Denver Zoological Foundation Certificate of Designation Application for the proposed Waste to Energy System Methods Institute at the Denver Denver Zoo until after the required public hearing this evening. And so we are now ready for the block votes. Councilman Brown, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
|
Bill
|
Amends the contract with Xerox State and Local Solutions to add $81,000, for a new total of $1,104,272, and extend it for 6 months, through 6-30-15, to continue the Automated Photo Red Light Program during the request for proposal process (CE-01061-06). (SAFETY & WELL-BEING) Amends the contract with Xerox State and Local Solutions to add $81,000, for a new total of $1,104,272, and extend it for 6 months, through 6-30-15, to continue the Automated Photo Red Light Program during the request for proposal process (CE-01061-06). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-22-14. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-25-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0985
|
Speaker 3: It has been moved. We just need a second has been moved in second and comments from members of council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. These are all ordinances relating to a series of bonds, a DEA that are being restructured and much like Groundhog Day. This is the same issue again. We have already had two of these ordinances go through and these six are stretching out the debt another six years. So essentially, we can give a package of rewards to United Airlines for 35 million and the other airlines all sharing in 10 million. I didn't like it before. I don't like it tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you, counsel, in advance. Any other comments or questions from members of counsel's? Well, that same number voted on 95 to 9090 in a block. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: But no. Can each layman I.
Speaker 4: Monteiro Nevitt.
Speaker 2: Pi.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I Rob Sheppard. I Susman. Brooks Brown. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote. And now the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes one Name.
Speaker 3: Webinars 1819 985 through 990 have been published in a block. Madam Secretary, can you take up the next one, which should be 1057? Councilman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 5: Please put it on the floor for a vote.
|
Bill
|
Authorizes amendments to the Series 2007 G1-G2 Airport System Supplemental Bond Ordinance for the purposes of extending the maturity and deferring principal on the corresponding bonds. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Authorizes amendments to the Series 2007 G1-G2 Airport System Supplemental Bond Ordinance for the purposes of extending the maturity and deferring principal on the corresponding bonds. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill on consent on 11-13-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-1057
|
Speaker 5: Please put it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 3: Certainly. Uh, Councilwoman Sussman, could you please put 1057 to be ordered published?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bill 1057 be published.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that moves $6 million from the contingency fund to the settlement fund. And of course, it is in in advance of what will happen next week with a resolution to pay a settlement. And it is a settlement to all. Concerning the Marvin Booker case, a few weeks ago, I supported a measure for the city to assume responsibility for punitive damages. In this case, the purpose, as it was explained to me, was to give the city standing and to contest the size of the punitive damages. I agreed with that rationale. The city filed a post-trial motion to reduce punitive damages, but that has not yet been acted on by the courts. Instead, the city is planning to settle for the full amount of punitive damages. That means that of the other 4.65 million awarded by the jury to the plaintiffs, the state 150,000 of which is company compensatory damages and 4.5 million punitive. Now, that's a 1 to 30 ratio. To me that is not proportional and case law supports requiring proportionality. Since this is taxpayer money, I'd prefer to have the amount of punitive damages legally determined so we can have certainty entering into a settlement at this time. While understandable in this emotionally charged local and national climate, gives no legal guidance to this issue of proportionality. That's a reason I'll be voting against transferring $6 million, which does include the attorney fees this week and against the actual settlement agreement next week.
Speaker 3: Thank you, councilman. Thoughts, councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want to go into too much detail, but I thought it was important since we have a vote and a colleague calling this out to just make a quick comment. As chair of finance, I was asked to approve this bill for filing. And my reason for doing so was because of the importance, I believe, for closure. We have a family who lost a loved one who certainly must be ready for closure. And we also, as a city, need to have closure on the past so that we can focus on the very real, very important work we have going forward . I happen to not just be a council person, but I'm also an attorney. And in both of the oath I took, I have respect for the jury system and we have a jury verdict and we have a very agreed upon settlement regarding attorney's fees tonight. And I think that it is time for us to focus on closure of this chapter so that we can do the really, really hard work that we have yet to do. That is where my focus will be. That is where the focus I want of our city attorney's office to be of our sheriff's department and all the leaders of this city. And I believe that closing this chapter allows us to put that focus going forward. So for that reason, in spite of the difficulty of this situation, I do hope that all my colleagues will be supporting this financial decision to move these funds so that we can then proceed, as my colleague described, with the legal decisions next. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: My vote on this will be consistent with when we have previously discussed this issue. As I shared, my daughter works for the Denver Sheriff's Department. She was not directly involved in this particular incident, but I feel that it's important to abstain from the vote. So I just wanted to indicate that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Are there any comments on 1057? CNN Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Fights. No carnage.
Speaker 4: Layman Guy Monteiro Nevett I. Ortega.
Speaker 7: Abstain.
Speaker 4: Rob Sheppard. Susman. Brooks. I. Brown. BROWN. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results tonight.
Speaker 4: One nay, one abstention.
Speaker 3: And I's one nay, one abstention. 1057 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary can remember the last bill for introduction, which I believe was 975. Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 5: Please put on the floor for a vote.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Authorizes a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $6 million from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund. This bill was approved for filing by Councilwoman Kniech.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0975
|
Speaker 5: Please put on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 3: Certainly can. And Councilwoman Sassaman, would you please have 975 ordered published?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bill nine 7975 be ordered published.
Speaker 3: Been moved in second hand comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, I feel as if I'm in Groundhog Day. This is an issue that concerns a bond proposal that people voted on. I mean, you had voter approval to build new construction for the better whole. And when that did not come about, because the symphony could not come up with the 30 million they had pledged, it was not that I thought we should go ahead and build it. It was that I felt that if we made any changes, we should be asking the voters for approval. They approved a specific amount for a specific purpose, and at that point it was not feasible to go ahead with that specific amount or specific purpose. So some time ago we made some adjustments and the committee got together and they decided a bunch of new things to spend the money on. And indeed that passed by ordinance. But the vote but the voters were shut out of that process. We never went back to the voters. Okay. So there was still some money set aside for year that you're still isn't ready to be remodeled. But there is a rule that if you have if you've gone to the bond market and you have money in hand, that you need to spend it within three years. So guess what? Once again, we're we're putting up new projects on this so we can spend that money. I understand where they're coming from. They're in a bind. But it could have been solved, I believe, by going back to the voters and asking for a whole new type of project or simply not letting the bonds all together. So I will be voting against this most recent reordering of the bonds, noting that the taxpayers still aren't getting what they have approved.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman fights Catwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I'd like to ask someone from city staff that is has been working on this if they could please come forward. I see Kent Rice coming forward. Kent, can you explain what this. This is the remaining money that was left from that year that was not transferred to other projects. What is it being proposed to be used for?
Speaker 10: Thanks for the question and I'll just affirm the history that Councilman Fox gave. The bulk of the money was redistributed at the beginning of 13. So now we're approaching the end of 14. There are $16.8 million remaining of the original 57 million. Some of the 60 million was spent on interim projects to support Bettcher. What we are proposing in conjunction with the Budget Office is to reserve $16.8 million for whatever is decided to be done with. BACHIR When our new executive leadership team makes that decision, which is probably going to be about a year. In the meantime, the $16.8 million will be used for two purposes either new construction or maintenance. And those were the two purposes that were outlined in the original bond initiative. And more than half of the money will be spent at the performing arts complex. Some of the money will be spent at Red Rocks, and a small amount of it will be spent at McNichols. So we are tackling projects at city owned venues that are in the portfolio of arts and venues management. All of these projects would likely be done in the next couple of years anyway. So we're using the bond money as defined legally that it can be used for projects that were on the list. What we're doing is refilling our capital fund account, which was another that was item nine, seven six on the docket tonight with the excess money that we have at the end of each year. So that's a I hope not to circular description, but essentially the 16.8 will be spent on new projects and maintenance projects in city owned venues that our agency manages, manages. And when we're ready to spend money for better or the arts complex, when the team is looking at that makes a decision, we'll have $16.8 million ready for that purpose.
Speaker 9: So can you tell me how much it's costing to go through that review process of the whole performing arts complex, including Becker Hall?
Speaker 10: I can't because we don't know yet, but we're issuing an RFP or an RFQ, so requests for qualifications, a request for proposal before the end of the year will have to engage a planning firm. And that's in the same way that the NDDC has engaged an outside planning firm to design what is going to happen up there . So I'm guessing.
Speaker 9: We have a certain amount of money set aside to go through that process.
Speaker 10: We have money set aside for it. I just don't know what the exact amount will be. I'm guessing it's between 100 and 200,000, but until the bids come in, we don't know.
Speaker 9: Okay. And that will not be that will not come out of any of these funds. The bond funds.
Speaker 10: That I had to look to my advisor here know, clarify that they won't.
Speaker 9: Okay. Will any of it be used on 1247 Tampa?
Speaker 10: None of it is slated for 1245 Tampa.
Speaker 9: Oh 45 okay. I think that's all the questions I have.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Can't get you into town, if I may say, introduce yourself.
Speaker 10: For the record, I apologize. I did not write the executive director for Arts and Venues and we manage the city owned venues here that I've been describing. Sorry for that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. While I do appreciate the direction that Councilwoman Potts is coming from, it goes all the way back to the original 60 some million that was reallocated possibly early in this term. If I'm remembering the numbers, right. And at that time, the choice that the administration, a committee they set up and ultimately council made was to reallocate those funds. The other alternative, which I gave serious consideration to, was simply to allow that amount of money to go into future bonding capacity. And so at some point in the future, a mini bond or citywide bond. And I don't mean mini bond by small bonds, but a small bond list might have come forward. And I gave serious thought to that now. Or it could have just waited until the city had even more bonding capacity. And we could go back to the voters for a whole new list of projects. As Councilwoman Potts knows, it will be some time till we have significant bonding capacity in the city. Because of the length of the last bonds. I felt that people wouldn't get a chance to look at that amount right away. And if you put it towards one project and by the way, at the time I did have a pet project I was looking at which has since been funded in other ways. It would have been. Hard to get a citywide vote on one project because we always look, you know, how best can we serve the whole city, not one council district or one area? So ultimately, I decided that, yes, we should change the funds and impact cents in not only with better, but also probably you would say with the McNichols building where some of the funds were allocated with the Museum of Nature and Science, we have made different choices. So I think under the circumstances, we are doing the best with the situation that we did not anticipate happening in the first. In the first place. It's not a choice that we love making, but to the point of the voters. I'm wondering, Sean, if you or possibly David Broadwell, I don't know who the right person is, could talk about the requirements for changing projects in our bond ordinance when we pass it issuing new bonds.
Speaker 0: Sean Raab better never bond program. The Councilwoman is quite right as a backdrop, though, that the bond program is brought forward on ten separate occasions. Companion Ordinance Changes Projects Have the Council set up a 10% rule before they started the bond program, such that if a budget was reduced by 10% or was increased by 10%, then it was brought forward to this to this council for a vote. So that is the that is as projects get added and deleted. Similarly, we also bring those forward for council consideration.
Speaker 8: And then my point is we also cannot change the funds from category to category. If it's in a cultural area, it remains there. If it's in a parks area, remains there.
Speaker 0: Yes, well stated, Councilwoman. Indeed, there are the purpose there. Eight purposes within the bond program. We have looked at the the the the elegant solution that has been described tonight by Mr. Rice. And we have vetted the projects and they do conform with purpose to an eight and what we're trying to achieve with those. We've run those through bond counsel and they have agreed with them as well. So we think we're on good stead there.
Speaker 8: So whether it's technically or whether we're dealing in a matter of perception, what we're saying is very legally and in the way bond issues are laid out, we are within the voter intent.
Speaker 0: That is a true statement.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I just wanted to ask, what is the deadline by which these dollars have to be expended?
Speaker 10: It's three years from the date of issuance and the majority of the bonds were issued in the fall of 13 and a smaller portion in the fall of Sort 14, which means all of it has to be expended no later than the fall of 17. But the challenge we've had is that the majority of the money has to be spent by the fall of 2016. So two years from now. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. You know the comments or questions on nine, seven, five seen on Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Roll call at no carnage. Layman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Montero.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Nevitt Ortega I. Rob Shepherd I. Susman Brooks Brown.
Speaker 0: II.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Councilmembers Montero and Ortega. Your votes. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announce the results.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes one day.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes one day. 975 has been ordered published. That should have been all the bills for intro. We have one bill for final consideration. 847. Councilwoman Monteiro, what would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call it out for comment.
Speaker 3: A comment. Go right ahead.
Speaker 7: Council Bill 847 is bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use in acquisition through negotiations related to the properties needed for the Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Project. And it's between West Seventh Avenue and West Holden.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 426, Series of 2007, as amended by Ordinance Number 335, Series of 2009, Ordinance Number 148, Series of 2010, Ordinance Number 11, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 191, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 258, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 630, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 63, Series of 2013, Ordinance Number 73, Series of 2014, and Ordinance Number 376, Series of 2014 designating the project to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of the Better Denver bonds.
. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Reallocates funding for Better Denver Bond projects. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-19-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0847
|
Speaker 7: Council Bill 847 is bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use in acquisition through negotiations related to the properties needed for the Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Project. And it's between West Seventh Avenue and West Holden. And I just wanted to pull this out because I understand that this Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Reconstruction Project has been in discussion for about 20 years. Yet it was important to me that those properties most impacted by this project were informed. So I asked the City Attorney's Office and Public Works to go back and contact the property owners again, to give them ample information about the project so that the property owners could know what to expect and what would happen in the next couple of years. General public meetings and notifications were done. But again, I said that extra steps, extra steps be taken to include outreach directly to the properties in my district to make sure that people were aware of the project and its potential impacts, and also to engage them in offering comments about the environmental assessment that was being done. It was important to me that this happened. And so my aide, Amanda Sandoval, contacted the potential 11 partial takes in eight full takes and talked with them directly to see that they were informed. Public works also did any necessary follow up. And now I feel that we've done all of the communication that we can since the city attorney's office even came back to committee after I asked for it to be held and on television was able to talk to people about their rights as property owners at this stage. And so property owners will get a letter of intent in early 2015 that will begin the negotiations with them. One of the concerns that was also heard in the neighborhood was the condition of the federal crossing at Holden Place. And we now have a commitment from public works to have the Holden Place intersection included in the final design construction of the project. The project will now include replacing the existing asphalt at Federal in Holden with concrete paving, including the addition of colored crosswalks. The other thing that's important in terms of the business owners and property owners in Sun Valley is that the environmental assessment process is also a part of this picture. The comment period was recently closed for Federal Boulevard and the comments have been submitted. I want to thank Denver Public Works for putting it on their website and also for the Federal Boulevard Partnership, the Sun Valley Community Coalition, which commented about the need for more landscaping and increased pedestrian safety, and also earthlings who requested an audible pedestrian crossing signal which public works has already committed to have at Holden Place. And so I will be supporting this bill. Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilor Monteiro. In the other comments on 847. Seeing none, those were all the bills that were called out. So we are now ready for the Bloc votes. All of the bills are introductions are ordered published. Councilwoman Sussman, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Project between West 7th Avenue and West Holden Place.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Grants the authority to acquire all or any portion of property interest in forty three (43) properties, including temporary and permanent easements, for the widening of Federal Boulevard from 7th Avenue to West Holden Place in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-22-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0971
|
Speaker 3: Yes. Council is reconvened. We have one cursory public hearing this evening. Speaker should begin the remarks by telling council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name and know that you are available for questions of council. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding time on the presentation monitor on the wall. When the yellow light comes on, you will have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. And when the red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments. Audience members Please understand that council members do use electronic devices of various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us. Be assured, however, that by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during the public hearings. All right, Councilwoman Session, will you please put Council Bill 971 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I move that council bill 971 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Waiting for technology to catch up. It has been moved. It has been moved. And second, in the public hearing for council bill 971 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 12: Good evening, members of Council. My name's Courtland Heiser with Denver Community Planning and Development. And for the past more than two years, I've been project manager on the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. Pleased to present for you tonight a final draft of the plan for your consideration for adoption. Just by way of background. The Globeville neighborhood is located in North Denver, shown here in these maps along the western banks of the South Platte River. And a couple of the most famous landmarks within the neighborhood are I-25 and I-70, both of which intersect at the mousetrap. Right in the right, in the center of Globeville.
Speaker 0: She's.
Speaker 12: Globeville is also one of the neighborhoods within the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative Focus and Study Area. And in fact, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan is one of the six identified projects within the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. If adopted tonight, it would be one of the first projects to reach the milestone of reaching an adoption and completion. Planning efforts are ongoing within the NDC study area, not just for Globeville, but for also the Elyria Swansea neighborhood across the South Platte River to the east and the National Western Center, directly across the river from Globeville. This timeline shows how the three planning efforts are nested together. So tonight, on December 1st, we're at City Council for a public hearing on Globeville. Meanwhile, just last week, Elyria, Swansea released their first public review draft of that planning effort. You'll be seeing that on the. It's currently on track to go to City Council on February 9th. National Western Center will be releasing their first public review draft of their planning document later this month, and then that's on a track to be in front of council on March 9th. So this is the first of three coordinated, interrelated planning efforts, all covering the the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative Focus area in North Denver. We'll talk now for the rest of the presentation about Globeville specifically. That's the item that's before you tonight. Our public process is summarized in this slide. First and foremost, our steering committee was comprised of a group of very diligent, hard working community members that met roughly every month. We missed a few months here or there. If there was a public meeting, perhaps we may not meet that month, but more or less. For the past couple of years, this group has been getting together once a month and sometimes more than once a month and met three or four times. In October of this year. In addition to that, we met jointly as needed with the Elyria Swansea Neighborhoods Plan Steering Committee at several key points throughout our planning process. Then there were general public meetings held throughout the planning process, typically every three or four months and seven of those in total. And in addition to that, we had targeted outreach to specific stakeholder groups to ensure their participation in the process, including the Spanish speaking community, youth industrial stakeholders. We attended festivals and special events throughout the planning process and coordinated with National Western Center, the DCC and others on tours and other projects and special events. In addition to that, there were a few special efforts associated with this planning process that were unique to it. Community Asset Mapping and Oral History Project were two very important efforts that were spearheaded by Councilwoman Monteiro and her office as a component and during our planning process, as well as a health impact assessment, which was conducted by Denver Environmental Health and which resulted in a detailed health assessment of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea. And the recommendations from that document were integrated with the draft plan before you. So the Globeville Neighborhood Plan is a product of a more than two year planning process. It is built on community input and has been coordinated with concurrent planning efforts. Associate with NBCC, the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan and the National Western Center Master Plan in particular. This is a graphic from the first few pages of the plan. Sometimes we refer to this as a plan on a page. It's really sort of a graphical table of contents that shows you what is in the plan document. So up top, the vision for Globeville that it's a unique, strong, connected and healthy neighborhood. Those were guiding principles that emerged from our public outreach early on in the process. Those principles were identified as being core to the identity of what Globeville is and what it wants to be. They became an organizing element for the plan, and so the first four chapters of the document are related specifically to those guiding principles unique , strong, connected and healthy. In addition to that, the plan identifies character areas within the neighborhood. There are four of them the residential neighborhood core Washington Street and the Globeville Riverfront, the 41st and Fox station area. And the industrial edges within the neighborhood and within those character areas are one or more catalytic projects, transformative projects that the plan goes into some level of detail on with each, and which we'll be summarizing tonight towards the end of the presentation. So first up, we want to talk about each of the guiding principles. A unique Globeville is the first one. And these are three recommendations within the unique chapter. Embedded within each of the three are strategies which we won't get into that level of detail tonight. We'll just keep it at the higher level of recommendations. But each of the recommendations has associated strategies that get to the specific particulars of implementing and achieving the intent of the recommendation . So for a unique Globeville, we have to showcase the history of Globeville to embrace the neighborhood's unique physical attributes, which include some of the things that are considered to be barriers like the I-70 sound wall, for example, or embankments. The plan has strategies for celebrating these features and turning them into community assets, and the third one is to reinforce and enhance. Globeville is a unique sense of place. Under the category of strong. Strong is really a collection of many ideas. First off, having a land use plan for the neighborhood that balances the needs of all the users within the neighborhood residents, commerce and industry so that they can coexist within the neighborhood. Effectively, managing storm drainage and water quality within the neighborhood is another concept within strong, as well as having an integrated, complete and diverse park system within the neighborhood and improving access to jobs, housing, neighborhood services and education. This is the concept land use map that's contained within the strong chapter. And I'll just take a minute now to sort of walk through the general land use strategy that's outlined in the plan. So first off, in yellow here in the middle of the neighborhood, this is the residential core of Globeville. It has the the highest concentration of residential uses today. And when people think of the Globeville neighborhood, this is generally the area that comes to mind for most people that is recommended to remain single family. But we do have, in addition to that, a recommendation to adjust the zoning as necessary to allow for the implementation of accessory dwelling units. This was an affordable housing strategy that emerged from our conversation with the neighborhood in that there was a lot of support for. So the zoning in Globeville today does not allow accessory dwelling units, but the plans direction is that that would be appropriate adjacent to the yellow here on the map you see the darker blue areas and these are recommended for industrial mixed use. And the plan strategy is to use industrial mixed use as sort of a buffer between residential and heavier industry. Today, there are many instances where industry is adjacent to across the street from or across an alley from a single family home. The strategy here is to introduce industrial mixed use to help provide a better transition between industrial and residential. The lighter blue areas are industrial today and are proposed to remain industrial in the future. And over here in the Forty-firsts and Fox station area, the plans recommendations are really fully consistent with the station area plan that was adopted in 2009 for 41st and Fox. So just reinforcing the land use recommendations and really all of the content from that plan is reflected and consistent with the Globeville neighborhood plan. Then here along the Washington corridor into the riverfront. The land use recommendation is to transition to mixed use development, and we'll be providing more details as to the rationale for that throughout the presentation. So by the end of the presentation, it should be fairly clear what the opportunities are specific to that transition to mixed use development in that area. Yeah. I'm sorry. The formatting looks like it got a little messed up here, but on the connected, global is the next guiding principle, and that is to update the key transportation policies affecting Globeville, such as the Strategic Transportation Plan and Blueprint. Denver and Denver moves consistent with the recommendations of this plan. The second one is a connected street network within the neighborhood to have a walkable and bikeable Globeville, as well as one that is well-served by transit and to address traffic operations and roadway maintenance issues that are prevalent within the neighborhood today. This graphic shows the proposed Street Network as recommended in the plan. There were just a couple of things that I wanted to highlight here. The first is these dashed arrows here heading across the river. Those indicate potential and recommended multi-modal connections from Globeville into the National Western Center and into the Elyria neighborhood. These are two recommendations that arose out of our planning process, where we coordinated very closely with NBCC and the National Western, so that this is an integrated concept that you'll see appearing in all three of these major planning efforts. It's in the Globeville plan, it's in the Elyria Swansea Neighborhoods plan, and it's also integrated in the National Western Center Draft Master Plan. The idea of having a strong connection from Globeville and Washington across the South Platte River and into the National Western Center, we believe presents a catalytic opportunity to encourage reinvestment along the Globeville waterfront associated with that recommendation within this hatched area. The plan is recommending enhancing the connectivity within that area. Currently, the streets today, they go from Washington, they approach the river, and most of them end in cul de sacs or don't really connect to other streets. So North-South connectivity and connectivity along the river are two things that would be needed to realize this vision of having a mixed use waterfront across the river from a revitalized National Western Center. The third thing that I wanted to call out in this map are these connections here to the west, which would go through some of the large assembled parcels here. The currently the streets don't connect through here and these circles denotes potential ped bike only connections that would allow people who live in Globeville to have much greater accessibility to Washington Street and then future transit at the National Western Center. And we have a few renderings highlighting some of the specific street and infrastructure improvements that are recommended in the plan. This is what Lincoln looks like today as it heads under I-70. For folks that live north of I-70, this is the route that their children take to the elementary school every day. There have been some recent enhancements with the murals that you see there. If we take that to the next level with some relatively modest, relatively affordable improvements, you can see how the current underpass could be greatly enhanced into a community amenity building upon the foundation that's already been set by emphasizing public art and murals, improving the lighting under the underpass, cutting back the sloped walls, or what engineers refer to as wing walls that currently extend here and narrow the sidewalk. You could cut those back. It doesn't affect the structural integrity of the bridge and you can widen the pedestrian area. Similarly at 48th AV under IE 25, we have another overpass that could be enhanced. Our concept here is a little more modest, not relying so much on public art, but very similar in gaining space by cutting back this wall to increase the amount of pedestrian area enhancing lighting. Implementing recommendations from this plan for bike connectivity to the west of Globeville neighborhood. Small moves could have a dramatic impact in improving quality of life. Hmm. The third one here is the 44th Avenue Bridge over I-25. This is the Globeville neighborhood's only connection across I-25 to the future station at 41st and Fox. In recent years, some improvements have been made to stripe the bike lanes here on the bridge, and a few more improvements related to lighting. Enhancing the pedestrian area. A little bit could go a long way in improving accessibility to 41st and Fox Station when it opens. Moving on now to the topic of health. I mentioned earlier that we conducted a health impact assessment as a component of our planning process. That process was led by Denver Environmental Health, and it was really an integrated component of the neighborhood planning process. It arose out of our planning process, and the recommendations from this Health Impact Assessment document were incorporated into the Draft Globeville plan and also cross-referenced among the various chapters within the plan. So they appear in the health chapter and then recommendations related to other topics in addition to health, such as connectivity, were referenced in the connectivity chapter . So within the health chapter, you can see this high level of overlap that the recommendations coming out of the HRA have with the other topics in the neighborhood plan to improve environmental quality, to improve multimodal connectivity, increase access to goods and services, enhance community safety, improve mental health and well-being. And then the sixth one, there is a catchall for anything that didn't fit into those above categories. All of the other recommendations are also included within the plan. Moving on to the topic of character areas and transformative projects. This was the third category of content from our plan on a page we have for the residential neighborhood core, the Washington Street Corridor and the riverfront, the 41st and Fox station area and the industrial edges. What we'll focus on here is more so than the character areas themselves, the transformative projects that are located within those areas. So starting with 45th Avenue as Globeville is Main Street, 45th Ave has a storied past but is underutilized today and has great potential for being an enhanced main street. The plan has recommendations and strategies related to elevating 45th so that it realizes that potential, which includes both some land use strategies and recommendations, as well as some public infrastructure. So what you see here is some of these ideas illustrated in maintaining the bike lanes that were put on the street last year celebrating the corridor with banners. This shows here how a parklet or a small public space could be introduced within a single parking space in conjunction with other events such as food trucks, you know , on a vacant lot or something like that, to bring more activity and interest to the corridor. The next transformative project is related to improving Washington Street. Washington Street is it's a complex corridor and it's a corridor one size does not fit all. Here are some sub areas that are located within Washington as it flows through Globeville. At the southern end here. This area was previously improved and is already pretty wide. That was done in conjunction with a freeway reconstruction project in the early 2000. But north of 47th, Washington narrows down to 60 feet of right of way and maintains that up to the city line at 52nd Avenue. And so that's the primary area of opportunity for addressing Washington and trying to improve it. Any improvements that are made here will need to transition effectively to Adams County's Future Cross section for Washington, which at this time is known to be a three lane section one traveling in each direction as well as a turn lane in the middle. As part of our planning process, we identified the community's priorities for Washington that what what was really important to them, what did they want to see? And these were their priorities that were identified first to have sufficient travel lanes to accommodate the traffic that's on the street to have on street parking, which is especially important if it's going to be a successful mixed use commercial corridor, having a high quality pedestrian realm, which includes having sidewalks on both sides of the street for the length of Washington. It's a condition that isn't present in the neighborhood today tree lawns and street trees to green up the street and assist with beautifying it. Having some sort of enhanced bike facility either on Washington or on a parallel street. That is a quality North-South connection and minimizing the impacts to existing businesses as this vision is implemented. What the plan does is that it presents three scenarios to help advance the conversation about the future of Washington. In scenario one, we tried to work within the 60 foot right of way within that constrained section of Washington to show how many of the community's priorities could be met if we didn't widen the right of way. Just working with what we have and what we have is traveling in both directions. Turn lanes at intersections where they're needed. Mid-Block There would be the opportunity because you don't have the turn lane to have some on street parking spaces. You get a relatively narrow tree line and pedestrian sidewalk area. All of that fits, but just barely within the 60 feet. Scenario two assumes a slightly wider Washington. And in this scenario, we have all of the facilities that were identified in scenario one, plus adding an extra travel lane in each direction. So it's the same concept as in scenario one, but with four travel plans instead of two. Scenario three is sort of the unconstrained scenario of, okay, what will it take if we everything everybody says they want in Washington, we try to provide it there. What does the street look like then? And it looks pretty wide. If you meet all of the community's priorities, you end up with a very wide cross-section. For Washington, this is the same as in scenario two, but adding protected bike lanes as well. The protected bike lane would be needed on Washington because it does carry a lot of truck traffic. So you don't want the situation of having trucks and a normal street bike lane adjacent to each other. You need the the ballers to protect the cyclists. You would have a very wide Washington street and you do fail in this instance to meet the community's priority of minimizing the impact to adjacent property owners. Washington improved by itself would be transformative for the neighborhood. But if you want to transform the area between Washington and the riverfront and take advantage of a revitalized, active year round entertainment destination at the National Western Center, you need to address the street great condition between Washington and the riverfront. You can see here in this graphic the high level of disconnection of the streets here as they approach the South Platte River. Don't quite get there and in cul de sacs or streets, just sort of loop on themselves and head back to Washington. So here as well, we have some scenarios for enhancing the street grid. Each of our scenarios show the two recommended connections to the National Western Center, which are at 49th and 51st, and then they differ in how they treat the street grid within this riverfront area. But what we tried to do here was to make use of all of the existing infrastructure. So existing street segments remain and the new segments are introduced to try to enhance the grid and complete it in this area. Scenario two is responding to a criticism of the first scenario, which is that. Scenario one doesn't allow for much enhanced green space along the river. Scenario two lays back the street more and allows you to have a much greener edge along the South Platte River. Now you would have one regardless, because there is the South Platte River Trail on the side of the river. But if you want to have a larger, truly enhanced greenspace along the river, the scenario accomplishes that while still connecting all of the street segments together. And here's how they all sort of stack up. So in the existing condition, you have industrial land uses going right up to the South Platte River Trail and bank in scenario one. It allows for more development potential. There's there are more streets and smaller blocks. And in scenario two, this is the shows the the green edge the enhanced park space along the river before you have the street and the opportunity for development. And here's the approach from a different way the existing condition, the scenario one with the detailed grid, and scenario two still with a grid, but with fewer street connections and more green space. So the planning board held its public hearing on November 5th for the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. The public testimony was generally supportive. And Planning Board did vote to approve the plan by unanimous vote based on its consistency with Planning Board's criteria, which are plan consistency with adopted plans, inclusive public process, and an appropriate long term perspective. So the staff recommendation is adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the Denver Comprehensive Plan.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We have ten individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five speakers if you can make your way to the bench here in the front, that will help speed up the proceedings. I will start with Tami Dore, Mr. Saca, Justin Croft, Nancy Grandees Jones and Vernon Hill. So if you can make your way to the first pew and Ms.. Door, you can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 13: Good evening, Council President and Honorable Members of City Council. My name is Tammy Dore and my address is 511 16th Street, Denver and behalf of the Downtown Denver Partnership. I wish to express our strong support for the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, the plan's overall vision elements unique, strong, connected and healthy. Combined with the strategic approach of including both large catalytic projects and smaller, more tactical quick wins will provide a strong path to achieve a successful vision for the Globeville neighborhood and the entire North Denver corridor of Opportunity. This vision, as the plan states, provides a unique and historic opportunity to rebuild a connected community and to energize a gateway to downtown Denver. These enhanced connections into the center city, thanks to the plan, will include all modes of transportation. We are encouraged by the walkability and likability aspects of the plan, specifically those vital connections from the 41st and Fox station into downtown. I want to personally thank and applaud Councilwoman Monteiro and the entire neighborhood for their hard work and dedication to making this neighborhood and the city an even better place. This area of the city is incredibly important to the vitality and the future of this center city overall. The partnership will continue to be a collaborative partner and the planning of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, and we're encouraged by this tremendous first step. Thank you for your time and I kindly ask you for your support this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr.. Mr.. Sekou.
Speaker 0: My name is Chairman Sekou, founder organizer of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Advocates for poor, working poor folks. That just got broke. Poor. And homeless people. We stand opposed to this plan of being connected with a comprehensive plan. That has never been implemented as shown on the screens. Give example, we had a add on to the comprehensive plan with the five point plan and guess what happened? The neighborhood was gentrified, poor people were pushed out, and now you have a community that has been totally displaced. I am a personal victim of that plan. I'm on Section eight. I have an $800 limit to the Section eight, and I can't find a unit, a studio that I can rent. So I get a worthless piece of paper and they tell me the best I can do. After living in the neighborhood for 61 years, I can move to Lakewood. Are you kidding me? But then, you know, unintended consequences happen, Doctor, because when you have no integrity, which means you're going to do what you said you're going to do when you do it, that comprehensive plan that you've attached yourself to. HEFFNER And the people that are sitting up here, half of them are going to be gone. So to Montel, who's fought with for this plan with you guys every day and kept the developers at bay to respect you and your neighborhood. She's gone and in her place is going to be six different people coming up here. Who's going to take the place? Who you can find to fight for you. Like system to the. You had better get organized. You better bet the next one's going to take her place and hold him to the line to protect this pen no matter what. Because I'm gonna tell you flat out, the mayor that you got in office now is not going to do it. He is possible and done.
Speaker 3: Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 0: And that's the reason why I will be your next mayor, because.
Speaker 3: Mr. Sekou, I appreciate your neighborhood. Mr.. Saca Thank you. Justin Croft.
Speaker 0: Good evening, members of the council. My name is Justin Croft and I'm with Zeppelin Development at 345 five Grimsby Court in Globeville. And I'm here to offer our support for adoption of this plan. Unfortunately, Mickey's Zeppelin could not be here tonight, so I'd like to read a statement to your city council members. Thank you for considering my letter of support for the Globeville plan. Unfortunately, I'm out of town and cannot personally offer my compliments to the community and city staff for their efforts. The plan represents a balance between preserving the roots of the neighborhood and confronting a transformative future. Globeville has struggled for more than 100 years to maintain itself as an independent community. This was despite efforts by the surrounding areas to eliminate it. It was treated as the dumping ground for undesirable city uses. It was the site of junkyards, smelters, sewer plants, industrial uses, dirty air and a polluted river in the 1950s, when the interstate highway system was established. Globeville was selected as the site for that highway. The result was a community physically split in half and was subject to major land impositions through land takings for the mouse trap and other vehicle uses. With the plan, there is a new opportunity for Globeville to work towards its potential. The plan recognizes that the beginning must be with the people who live and settled there. It provides for improving health, housing, jobs, education, recreation, parks, transportation and connectivity. Urge you to approve the Globeville plan. Moreover, please recognize that this area, which has been long neglected, deserve special attention. It demands action by the city to implement the plan. Respectfully, make yourself one. I'd also like to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her untiring advocacy on behalf B behalf of Globeville.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Craft. Nancy. Grand Grandees Jones.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 14: Council members, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in favor of the plan. I'm a business owner. I am an owner of JJ Properties located at 810 to 870 East 50th Avenue. That's about Washington and 50th. My husband purchased the property in 1995. It was a former meatpacking plant. It has over 108,000 square feet and now houses four very successful small businesses, which employ over 60 people in that Globeville neighborhood. When my husband died in 2007, I stepped in to take an active role in the company operations. As a business owner, I've made a contribution through paying taxes and invest and making an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the time in keeping that property that was built in 1920. To have to be repurposed for something that benefits the community and it provides good has provide good employment opportunities. And I appreciate the benefits that I have derived from having a business in Globeville. I have come to have a passion and respect for the history of Globeville and its people. And that's why I'm coming to speak before you. I have been involved in the neighborhood planning process and also have been an advocate for the residents through a significant sponsorship of the Habitat for Humanity build. So I am very committed to advocating for services for the residents. By adopting the plan, you have an opportunity to write decades of wrongs and promises broke into the residents of Globeville, but that's only going to be the first step, because we really need to see action in implementing the significant quality of life improvements in that plan sooner rather than later. This will result in bringing the residents of global to the minimum standards enjoyed by residents in other neighborhoods. But the vision in that plan is to bring it to something special giving opportunities for education and other quality of life improvements. Two factors that I think will determine the successful implementation of the plan is looking at the rezoning and land usage. Globeville right now has has been a the has been a place where marijuana facilities have come to and land is becoming precious. As a property owner, I know my property is wanted and I do not want to see what I have there to be used anymore for that I want it to be used for something to benefit the community. Just like when my husband and I sold a property that was transformed into Project Angel Heart. Another thing is, I think that land use is going to be very significant in terms of giving the amenities for the residents, including a grocery store. Hello.
Speaker 3: Miss Granderson, I apologize. Your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 14: Oh, I didn't even see that light. Okay. Use some tax money, marijuana tax money to give the residents amenities.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next is Vernon Hill. And as Vernon Hill comes up to the podium, I'll call up the next five speakers David O. Lenski, David Portillo, Katie McKenna, Rob Poulet and and Elizabeth. And you can make your way up to the front pew. Mr. Hill, go right ahead.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. My name is Vernon Hill. I'm a managing partner for J.J. Properties. And the reason I'm here probably not as prepared as Ms.. Jones was about this, but I've been involved with the Globeville area since 1984. I've been I had a business there since a period of time, and I've gotten to see Globeville go through a number of changes. And I'm very excited at this point and in support of this plan and seeing what's in the future for Globeville. I've had employees that have worked for me that lived in the Globeville area, and I've seen the transition from when it was a meatpacking district on down to the point now to where it's beginning to come back. It's been a desert there. We've had a food desert as it pertains to no grocery stores. No, no, you know, stores or anything of that nature within the area. And it's been a long time coming. So just in closing, I would like to say that we are in support of this plan. And I've talked to a number of businesses within that area, and they still they all seem to feel the same way. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Hill. David O.
Speaker 0: Lenski My name is David Lenski. I'm. A longtime Globeville resident president, Globeville Civic Association. And the first thing I want to do is thank all of you City Council for giving us this plan. Three years ago, we stood here and asked if we could have a plan, and you guys granted it. And it's been a long, drawn out, quick process, you know. And Judy, I can't thank you enough. You know, it's just the long hours and late nights, you know, just the the bus trips, you know, everything it took to get this going. And and, you know, this plan is needed because we have a lot going on in Globeville between the National Western Club, Swansea, Elyria, 41st light rail and I-70. You know, this isn't the plan isn't needed in time. It's needed now. And we need to implement it as quick as we can. We can't put it on the shelf, you know. And that's why I'd like to ask, you know, we've put a lot of planning in changing a lot of property zoning, and that's where we're going to need, if you could, an executive order to start that planning process . Now with the zoning, that will stop a lot of the grow houses. It'll stop a lot of junkyards. But it's going to be it's going to take a while to get that. And we need that. We need that plan. We need to implement it as quick as possible. And there's a number of us that are going to be in a committee. And we want we don't know where to go. I don't know where to go from here. And we're going to need your help. I hate to see you to be leaving in May, but maybe Debbie and Robin, you guys can help us out. And when they're when they start putting up bond money, don't let them. Let's leave Globeville out. We need our cut. You know, we need our share, and we don't want to be forgotten anymore. Anyway, all I can say is thank you for letting me be part of the neighborhood and part of these plans. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Lasky. David Portillo.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name is David Thiel. I work at the Denver Foundation. I live at 3522, wind up. And I thank Councilman Monteiro and Norma Gayle for inviting me today. I'm very proud of the work of with all of the leaders. And I'm so glad that David let ski and applied for a strength in neighborhoods grants to the Denver Foundation. I invite all city council members to make their leaders aware of the strength of the neighborhoods program for economic visioning, for leadership development. What do leaders usually apply for? Childcare, interpretation? Food. So again, these meetings can be or can be as inclusive as the global one as you look at work coming forward and opportunities that might be taken or missed. So again, thank you to to all of them. I also wanted to point out that the role I think both of the city councilwoman and and her staff was key in terms of both taking leadership by stepping back. So again, could leaders write the application? Could they manage the funds? So we think they can. And and we look forward to funding other processes to engage your resident leaders of all the city council areas. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Katie McKenna.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name's Katie McKenna. Thank you so much for having us here tonight. I live at 4438 Sherman Street in the Globeville neighborhood, and I also work at Habitat for Humanity. And I'm here today to thank all of you, particularly Councilwoman Monteiro, for all of your help getting the neighborhood plan this far. I can't agree with Dave more. So many late nights and just above and beyond to make this possible. From Habitat for Humanity standpoint, we have been building in the Globeville neighborhood for the past four years and are really looking forward to continuing our work in the neighborhood and to continue to see this plan come to fruition. It is such a great thing for a wonderful part of the city. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Robbo, let. Hi, I'm Robert and I live at 4785 Logan Street. For about the past four years or so, I've been involved on and off with the the plan developments, but it's been great and kind of just kind of checked in to see how it was going. I haven't had time, but the steering committee, everyone has done a great job. I think the plan is really it's now in the head for a lot of it and the sooner the better. So thanks. Thank you.
Speaker 3: And Elizabeth.
Speaker 1: Where's this light? I really need to know where it is. The time light over here. So is that a warning? And then it's a is.
Speaker 3: Also on the screen.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 2: First of all.
Speaker 1: I want to thank Judy Montero for one thing in particular, which was in the first meeting in June of 2012, I believe it was the concept of breaking down the silos between the departments in the city was put on the table as part of what would be a reflected success of this plan. And I feel that what emerged was some good work relative to the City Planning Department and the Environmental, Health and Parks and Rec.
Speaker 7: Working and working.
Speaker 1: Together. But I feel like there's a long way to go. I put that I was a speaker in favor of the plan with a caveat. And the caveat for me is the plan is like a false summit. The real work is the implementation that we have, the opportunity with everything that's going on to create a dynamic economy that is no longer a subsidized economy, that is no longer an economy that is dependent on the good graces. The graciousness of nonprofits, which we do love. Habitat for Humanity in particular, has been phenomenal. They've helped people improve their property and therefore have a greater means of staying in their property. We are still in jeopardy on the basis of keeping the families together that are traditionally the families of of Globeville. I'm, in some sense, a newcomer I've been involved with. Globeville lived over there for about eight years now, maybe seven. But I have never been so embraced by a neighborhood that understands that people are what we are and we all want the best for ourselves. And we all, in all of our imperfections, go forward to find that in a neighborhood is an extended family. So I would just like to prevail upon the city council and us, as in the neighborhoods, to recognize that the work, the hard work is beginning now. Yes, there have been many plans that have been placed on shelves and many of the the the the economic vitalization issues that need to be brought to fruition in Globeville are shared with many neighborhoods in in Denver and in the country. But to me, the most important thing is to recognize that this is an organic and living document that we want to it is an aspirational document in one sense, but that we still have to keep ourselves vividly aware of how the neighborhood is being impacted and make sure that it's a peer ship with the forces that are moving with the corridor of opportunity, as the mayor calls it. And to me, that has a lot to do with matching development, with jobs, bringing in education and making sure that the generations of folks that want to call this their place for eternity are brought into the flow of the prosperity that's coming to the area through education, jobs matching. And I would support a greater mitigation from the marijuana industry in the neighborhood as well. If there's any way to compensate, to support the folks that are getting prosperous in that way, to make it an either an even healthier and happier. And one last thing I would ask the city council to activate a relationship with with the Connect Denver Foundation and Connect as a potential source of direct resource development into helping the Globeville El-Erian, Swanson neighborhoods get the funding they need to accelerate infrastructure improvements and many of the things that make it a connected and mobile multimodal neighborhood . Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Elizabeth. That concludes our speakers, this time for questions of members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yes, so I just had a question around. You know, I was on a bike in Globeville two weeks ago, and Lord have mercy for anybody riding a bike in that neighborhood. And so I love seeing seeing the plans and seeing some protected bike lanes, but just making sure with all our plans that no street call for any SROs, which means for folks who don't know to share or has shared bike lanes with cars at our vehicles at all.
Speaker 12: It's. Okay. So this this shows the recommended bike facilities map. Yep. Which is in the connected chapter. I'm not sure on which page. There are some spaces where the share is recommended, the reason being that there isn't room otherwise for a bike facility. But wherever possible, we have more robust bike facilities recommended, and this was developed in coordination with public works and the team that works on Denver moves.
Speaker 6: Yeah. You know, and I'll just say this just to continue to push us, I think it's always unacceptable, especially when we're talking in a multimodal environment for we know that 60% of folks who don't ride bikes who would otherwise if they if they had a protected space, if there was dedication, they would ride. And so we need to do whatever we can to make that happen. My real question and Councilman Materials done a great job with this as as and just alluded to in breaking down the silos and you know was great that we got, you know, the health impact assessment done. The other thing that I was looking at was economic development. We know that this community really is is is looking for economic empowerment and multisector kind of focus, not just nonprofit, but was there any kind of conversation around jobs, offered opportunities for the plan and going forward on a on a larger perspective for community planning and development , I think how do we really take these other agencies and bring them into a plan? I think it's a great example of how we can do that in the future. And if you guys have been kind of thinking about that.
Speaker 12: Yes, definitely. So the first question was about economic development and jobs. Yeah, we do have a series of strategies specific to that. On page begin on page 44, it's B 13 A through D, and they are about expanding job growth within the neighborhood, providing job training and workforce development, keeping industry and jobs in Denver. And there's a recommendation that's about it's called Jumpstart the Local Economy. And those are strategies taken directly from Jumpstart 2014. So in terms of our collaboration with other departments, we do work with them directly in developing these plans. And so that includes always public works. Office of Economic Development, Parks and Recreation and then other city departments as needed, if they're topic specific to those. But the three that I listed are involved in every planning effort and in on the city team that's coordinating and working on these plans. So these recommendations are vetted through those agencies before they appear in the plan.
Speaker 6: Great. So it's pretty broad. There's there's not a lot of specificity to it or is there? Because I don't have a plan.
Speaker 12: Right. In terms of the recommendations themselves, they they are broader. They're consistent with, you know, more specific policies that have been developed by OED, for example, like Jumpstart is its own, you know, lengthy document, which is mostly referenced here. And they need to remain relevant, you know, for decades into the future for the plan.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions. Most of them are focused around transportation issues. The first one is looking at just the most multimodal conversation about the connections at 47/51. Actually, I think the map shows 49th and 51st, if I remember that correctly. I don't know if you could pull that up. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Just trying to find the best one as you talk.
Speaker 9: Okay. So what I'm wanting to know is in some of the conversations that I've participated in related to National Western, the connection that's supposed to go across at 47 or the furthest Southern street was originally going to go straight through National Western. And then there was talk about closing the ST during events which are going to be a lot more frequent in the way that National Western has been planning their future use of the property. And so I just want to see how that was addressed in the Globeville neighborhood plan to ensure that the connectivity is something that is consistent, reliable for the residents of the neighborhood so that we don't have the same problem that happened before where, you know, 46th Avenue used to be shut down. The neighborhood couldn't go through the site until the new the bridge was built that connected them underneath 46th Avenue. I want to make sure that that connectivity is is secure and reliable. So can you speak to that?
Speaker 12: I can and I can speak to it in particular with where these connections are made in Globeville. So 47th is the existing one that exists today. You sort of cross Washington, go behind the Pizza Hut and curve over towards National Western and end up largely underneath I-70. The additional recommended connections at 49th and 51st, we recommended them at those locations because of where they land in Globeville, that at the locations at 49th and 51st, you have the best opportunity for redevelopment of property that's located along there. They're evenly spaced along the Globeville riverfront, so the 47th connection remains. Then you add on the odd numbered streets, 49th and 51st, you have a nice even spacing of those connections across the river, and then you have three of them instead of just one. So it is true that 49th, which should be the one that would go most directly through the National Western Center, they do envision having to close that to vehicular traffic, depending on the event and the marquee event being the stock show itself. And January is the one where they're pretty certain that they would need to close it to traffic, but you would still have the other two connections if all of these recommendations are implemented.
Speaker 9: The other two, meaning.
Speaker 12: 47th and 51st.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 12: And 51st. If I could just conclude is an important connection, because that's the one that most directly connects the Globeville neighborhood to the future station right on the north metro line.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: So I want to talk for a minute now about 48th Avenue, the bridge that connects Globeville to the West. I don't remember if that's a four lane bridge or a two lane bridge. And the picture shows a bike lane on each side. And I just want to clarify that, that the width of that bridge is wide enough to accommodate bike traffic.
Speaker 12: So are you speaking of 44th, this image here?
Speaker 9: I'm talking about 48th Avenue Bridge, the one that goes over the railroad tracks over to Pico Street.
Speaker 12: Oh, okay. Right. So this the recommendation that's here is is actually at 40th under I-25. So the bridge that you're speaking about is not directly addressed by this recommendation.
Speaker 9: I thought that's what? That bridge.
Speaker 12: Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry.
Speaker 9: All right. And then lastly. So the widening of Washington Street, you had two scenarios, two and three that looked at doing widening. And I want to know if both of those scenarios involved having to take properties to be able to accommodate both of those.
Speaker 12: Yes, they would. The with the 60 feet of right of way, there isn't an opportunity to have a wider cross-section like this without the need to take a property on either side of the street. How that property is taken would be something that would need to be the focus of a follow up study that's recommended in the plan, because there may be a way to reduce the impacts to adjacent property owners in because of the the setbacks, very on the west side of the street, the buildings tend to be much closer to Washington Street, whereas on the east side of the street they tend to be set a little further back. So there would be considerations like that to take into account with a follow up study.
Speaker 9: And, Mr. President, if I may, I just have one last question. Go right ahead. And this is about the funding commitments to address any of these improvements that are needed. We know that there was money put into the 2015 budget, and I'd like to know if you can elaborate on whether any of these projects in this plan are scheduled to be funded with any of the dollars that were approved in the 2015 budget.
Speaker 12: In terms of scheduled? I don't believe so, but I do not know for certain. I think that there is the a clear opportunity for it with an adopted plan and with the existence of the DCC in particular as a group that could help coordinate partnerships, funding and some of this implementation.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This question is for Gretchen. Because the issue of marijuana grow facilities was brought up several times, and I would just like for you to share with us that was one of the comments that was made in the health impact assessment as well as others. So could you talk about that a little bit? Yes, it was. I'm Gretchen Armijo with Denver.
Speaker 2: Environmental Health.
Speaker 7: Department. One of the issues raised during the community input and engagement in the health impact assessment was the strong odors emanating from the.
Speaker 4: Marijuana grow houses. There are a number of grow.
Speaker 7: Facilities in Globeville and residents reported in our assessment.
Speaker 2: Headaches, watering.
Speaker 7: Eyes, throat irritation. So we documented that those impacts from residents. We recommended in the health impact assessment that further study be done.
Speaker 2: On whether there were any.
Speaker 7: Toxic components of those emissions that could be causing any more than a nuisance impacts like temporary.
Speaker 2: Sore throat or watering eyes. But we just don't know.
Speaker 7: So we did receive input from residents that they felt negative impacts from the odors when the grow houses do their venting.
Speaker 2: And we recommended.
Speaker 4: That there be further.
Speaker 7: Study about the health implications. What could you also just generally recap what the top things were as you were writing the health impact assessment and talking with the residents? Yes, the the major health concerns that residents raised through the process were related to environmental quality, particularly air quality odors. And then noise and.
Speaker 2: The odors were not only from marijuana grow.
Speaker 7: Facilities, but the other heavy industrial uses in the neighborhood. And then noise primarily from the freight trains and truck traffic and from industrial users. The connectivity and mobility was a big concern, and this plan obviously addresses a lot of those connectivity.
Speaker 4: Problems.
Speaker 7: That cause everything from increased number of accidents or lack of access to transportation. Public transportation, access to goods and services was the third area. And as it has been mentioned tonight, no grocery store in a community of almost 10,000 people. When you include Elyria, Swansea, a neighborhood as well, and a range of other daily neighborhood services and needs.
Speaker 4: For.
Speaker 7: Community safety, both actual crime and. Safety and then perceptions of safety based on civil instabilities and poor lighting and vandalism and factors in the neighborhood that could be addressed through enforcement or improvements to the built environment. And then finally, mental wellbeing. Mental health and wellbeing was a factor that because of all these other factors, you know, the constant onslaught from the built environment really impacts people's ability to go about their daily business, go to jobs, go to school. And so a lot of the recommendations we included in the plan could help reduce those mental health impacts and improve mental well-being. And how, as a policymaker, can we utilize the health impact assessment with the plan? What can we do so that it doesn't sit on a shelf? Absolutely. Well, I think.
Speaker 2: We are so grateful for the opportunity to have partnered with community.
Speaker 7: Planning and development and really broken down those silos and.
Speaker 4: Work.
Speaker 2: Together so that our.
Speaker 7: Recommendations.
Speaker 2: Are.
Speaker 7: Part of this plan. And we worked very closely to dovetail the health implications and how these recommendations to improve the built environment really could improve health. And we added the evidence basis to this plan. So we're grateful that that we could do that. I think implementation of this plan, of the recommendations in this neighborhood plan, which is what a lot of other commenters have talked about tonight, will really be key to realizing improving community health and also reducing the health disparities that this neighborhood experiences at a higher rate than other neighborhoods in the city. So by bringing the built environment up to the standards that many other neighborhoods in the city enjoy, the residents can really, you know, improve their daily quality of life and ultimately improve their health. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro, are there any other questions for members of council? Seen on a public hearing is now closed. Time for comments from members of Council Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Cortland, for that for that amazing presentation. You did it really well because there was so much stuff that we needed to talk about. But you did it in all the graphics and it was just amazing. And you've been above and beyond in terms of advocating and fighting for this process. So thank you. And and also to Michelle and Sam and Steve for being there with us. Thank you, Nancy. Gladys Jones and Vernon Hill and David. Let's Ski. And Katie McKenna and Elizabeth Jones up in I don't know where he is, but I'm sure that he's here in spirit. Justin Kraft, thank you for coming. And and, Rob, thank you for coming. We're going to really need you to help move all of this forward as we get this done. It's been quite a journey working in global on this neighborhood plan for over two years now. I've gotten to know the Globeville streets and the people in the neighborhood, their history and the day to day reality in a whole new way. Many invested neighbors and stakeholders have been a part of this process, and I really loved hearing about the plan in their own words. And for all of you to hear, this has meant what this has meant to the neighborhood and to the leaders. Globeville is a neighborhood full of really strong, tenacious people with a deep rooted love and respect for this community. The neighborhood planning process has really brought people together in a powerful way that I hope will have stopped making me cry. Will have lasting effects through the implementation and ongoing connections between the neighborhood leaders. I am so honored to have been able to work alongside with you and I'm really asking you with all your might to work and to continue to fight, to live with the resources that you're going to need in this community. And I would say that everyone here has always been amazing. All of my colleagues on on city council have been great. And they've all fallen in love with Globeville as well, even though it's a little bit difficult. You guys are a little bit, you know. But we've all fallen in love and want to embrace and continue Globeville to go forward. I remember when we first started talking about the Globeville neighborhood plan with community planning and development, and it was actually Councilwoman Ortega and myself that wrote a letter to Mayor Hancock asking him, you know, this this neighborhood has been so dissected in so many ways and there's been so many different plans that have been talked about, written, and have been put on the shelf. And so our plea to more Hancock was to find a way to thread everything together so that it would be a heavy lift, but we would all lift together. So thank you, Councilman Ortega, for helping me with that. And as a result, Mayor Hancock heard our call and directed a lot of his energy and intention into the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. So, you know, we have six catalytic projects and I keep saying I'm pushing for seven and you're going to need to push for seven two . And that's the redevelopment of Washington Street. As Cortland had said, one of our next one of our next jobs is to get a plan going for what the vision for Washington Street is in the future. So nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing has been typical about this planning process beginning. Our office in the neighborhood had asked for a different approach and to modify how this planning would be. And I always talk about how we, even as someone that's looked at maps and we talk about planning and zoning, how it's so difficult for me to walk into a room and there's the maps and it's looks like a big plate of spaghetti to me. And so we talked about how we would, you know, how we would do it different and what kind of values we would have that go along with lifting communities and doing community development and what the values were that we wanted to adhere to , including environmental and social justice values, economic and employment, revitalization, culture and historic relevancy. And at the core of our land planning would be the health disparities. And I really believe that without the lens of these values, you can't even begin to have a conversation about land use and community development because it leaves the culture and the values of the people, and it takes preference over other things like cars and zoning. That isn't always compatible for this neighborhood, and so for community planning and development to listen to us and to help us, we all sort of grew together and even in doing we even went so far as to do a history documentary with the neighborhood elders and leaders on Channel eight. And for some folks in here, we actually went third place national and a little national award on the documentary that we all just thought, Hey, let's try this. We learned a lot about global identity, how it thrived and how it suffered with the strong, strong presence of industry, including the smelters, meatpacking , meatpacking plants and large scale factories. The Globeville smelter factories made the steel and metal that built the foundation of the city of Denver and enabled Colorado commerce to move forward. Yet the smelters also polluted the area and left residents with questionable soil and concerns about their health. Living in their neighborhood industry and residents have had a love hate relationship in Globeville. They started intertwined with people making a living and have since grown apart and become in conflict with residents. Healthy living. The neighborhood plan, really, in my opinion, address this tension and will create new pathways on how to move forward. That includes buffering between residential, industrial and industrial MC use mixed uses that can be lighter industrial uses next to residential. You can also see a major change in the plan. How the neighborhood thinks about the river and the recognition of its assets and it becoming a transformative part of the neighborhood. Globeville is always been such a tight knit neighborhood and everybody really does care with care for each other. Every. But don't get me wrong, it's not peace. It's it it's it's a neighborhood where it's give and take, but it's a neighborhood where everybody's opinion counts in a in a very big way. And it's one of those relationships that people have their opinions. They can dig their heels in, but it it's all going in the same direction. And it also strengthens the neighborhood. Immigrants from many countries have called Globeville their home. Yet regardless of the differences, they create a vibrant neighborhood culture in the day to day life in Globeville, churches, shops and schools. I believe this Globeville culture will continue to the direction of this neighborhood plan through things like the historic 45th Street beautification, through art enhancing alley streets, creating unique neighborhood destinations and interpretive signs, historical markers included in this plan. We've had lots and lots of great accomplishments that have been talked about, and I've placed them on your desk if you would ever like to read them. Many of my colleagues have heard I think many of my colleagues know so much about Globeville. And Charlie, when Garth Brooks came and, you know, Habitat for Humanity and when Clinton came and all of that. But it's an amazing, amazing neighborhood. I appreciate all the efforts, again, that all the city people have made. Gretchen Armijo, Doug Link, Hart, Jean Hook on the Health Impact Assessment, Cortland, Michelle Sam and Steve who listened and worked with the community members. And we all learned and grew together and we all just really need to continue to listen and plan forward. I want to thank the Denver Foundation for your generous contributions to our to our child care, our food, our food, because we really like to eat for the interpretation and for all of your help and and for being open to help us with that Grant and David Lenski and NOLA for writing the Grants and Spirit and Nancy and Vern and also for taking the time to organize the the merchants on Washington Street that you really felt disenfranchized, even though they were paying paying a large portion of the taxes. And so now it's on you also to be able to carry that forward so that you can see what you would like there. So moving forward, if I could have a if I could wish anything for Globeville, it would be that they carry on, that you carry on your strong spirit into this next period of history in the neighborhood, that those who live and work in Globeville now and in the future, the children going up there, even the developers that come in, that they know the history of the neighborhood and carry on its culture, evolving it to the changes around, but maintaining its integrity, its grit, and finding a new healthy balance with industry and benefits that the neighborhoods will be proud of and will have a healthy community again. So I would just I took a long time. Did you count that, Charlie? That was 4 minutes and 55 seconds. So thank you so much. And I urge the support of my council members for this neighborhood plan.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro. You know, I think as being on council for 12 years, not me, but her seeing this Globeville plan finally come to its completion is incredibly satisfying for even us who who are cheering her on. But so it must be incredibly satisfying to you. And thank you so much for representing the district. And it's also so great to hear folks in the community that have been at many of the meetings that I have attended be in such incredible support of this plan. And we. Expect to see great things. Also want to want to thank our mayor. Mayor Hancock, who you know, in my mind when I think about Westwood, when I think about Globeville or Swansea, I think about Welton. These are all neighborhoods who have been pretty forgotten for the last 30 years, and they're getting a significant planning documents upgrade investment into their neighborhoods. And so that's that's incredible. And in Cortland. Cortland Cortland did the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. And I can tell you, this plan is going to take off. There's going to be a lot of incredible resources that come around it, because I've seen it happen with the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan that you put together in 2011. So thanks for your work on this. I guess my my encouragement in this and I think Councilwoman Monteiro and Nolan and her office have been working on this to really bring break down the silos. And I think we can continue to get better at that. I think a neighborhood plan should really invest in and go deep into some key areas in this health impact assessment was a great example of that. That document is thorough, right? It's a guiding document for those who are going to be doing work in the neighborhood. But what's the guiding document for economic empowerment? What's the guiding document for a housing plan for that area specifically? What's the guiding document for the educational system in that area? And so, you know, while I am celebrating this, I think as a city and as community planning and development, like coming together and putting these neighborhood plans together , especially for neighborhoods that have been overlooked, we can do a deep dove into some of these other areas that I think have been have been overlooked. And so this is exciting. And I just also want to encourage everyone, because I did this a couple of weeks ago and I didn't drive through Globeville. I rode on my bike. I got off and walked around the neighborhood. Go do that. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, you will see that this is a hidden treasure in our city. I think you'll enjoy it. So congratulations, everyone.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Cohen. Each.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be very brief first to just say well done, well done in taking leadership as current residents for a future of individuals who haven't yet arrived. Because without that care for the next generation, no good change gets managed. Well done for not turning your back on the hard things, right? Mental health. I mean, folks in this neighborhood do experience stress from the environment in which they live and you know, to have a planning document acknowledging mental health right after our Denver Post series about how we have turned our back on that aspect of health and also affordable housing, you know, the the the accessory dwelling units, right? That's in my time on council. It's the first time I've had a new neighborhood take that on and say, we have a legacy of affordability and we're not turning our back on that. We're embracing it. And so, so well done. And then, you know, just to say, I got your back, Councilman Monteiro, till the day you leave office, I got you back. And to these residents, I've already not taken no for an answer when it comes to important work in Globeville. And I will be there with you and, you know, with my colleague, I'm sure if we're able to grace these seats, you know, to continue to make sure that implementation is as celebrated as this plan is. So I'll be there with you and good luck and stick with us. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro. Your comments were very well stated. It covered the gamut. I just want to mention a couple of things and not try to be redundant. I want to congratulate the neighborhood, both the businesses and the residents, for just the tenacity it takes to get through the process of putting together a neighborhood plan and the involvement of Councilwoman Montero's office in, you know, saying to the planning of this, this is a priority. We need this to be front and center of all the other work that's going on in the community. I want to congratulate her, her staff, I think. Nolan's still here. Amanda for for their work with the neighborhoods as well for all of the city staff that were involved from Cortland to your colleagues, folks from Environmental Health, I know Public Works is very involved in many of the discussions about the traffic issues. I have a concern and that is that we just learned today that the I-70 project may be completely different than what has been discussed and proposed based on the whole of taxpayer bill of Rights and the lack of. Right now, there's a $200 million gap on the project. And so they're now talking about the fact that the CDOT commissioners will be discussing whether or not, you know, they're going to continue to try to find the dollars through a public private partnership, whether they're going to look at scaling back the project, just doing patchwork on it . And so, you know, that project alone has major effects on this neighborhood and in the adjacent neighborhoods. And, you know, the opportunities that we're going to present itself for jobs and potential economic development and replacement housing, which right now we don't know how that would be affected. But I think we all need to really pay attention to what's happening with that project and look at what that means, because the neighbors today just learned about this, this very information that I'm sharing with you. The other concern that I have is that there's a big focus on national Western. It's a big project. It's been very important to the city. It generates a lot of money. You know, in January, when oftentimes our sales tax dollars are flat and there are some pretty grandiose plans being looked at for that complex. And I think we as a body will need to be, you know, very thoughtful and careful in looking at what is brought forward, particularly if it is looking at public financing to address how, you know, the new national western is going to look and feel and ensuring that it's not done to the exclusion of things that the neighborhoods have fought for in the neighborhood, plans for Globeville and for Swansea and Elyria to ensure that there's some balance between what happens with National Western and whatever that new look is and the needs of these neighborhoods, and that they not be short changed. And I just want to assure you that that's one of the things that I will work very hard at and ensure that, you know. As a city, we're trying to do our collective part to address that balance between all of the needs in this quadrant of the city. So, again, congratulations to all of you for the hard work that you've put into this. Now, the real work begins in in terms of the implementation, and I'm just committed to continuing to work with your community and helping to ensure that the implementation will will follow. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman, are there any other comments from members of Council c none. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Rocco Monteiro.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: Nevett i.
Speaker 4: Ortega Rob Shepherd. Sussman. Brooks. Hi. Brown.
Speaker 2: Hi, Fats. I can each.
Speaker 4: Layman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting venue, announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 Ice.
Speaker 3: 12 Ice. 971 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. No other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 2: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 1: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 2: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
|
Bill
|
Approve the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-12-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11242014_14-1035
|
Speaker 2: We do have one proclamation this evening. Proclamation? 1035 Councilwoman Canete, will you please read Proclamation 1035?
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. Proclamation 135 celebrating the eighth annual Buy Local Week from November 28th through December 5th as part of the ongoing buy local campaign to encourage the support of local businesses. Whereas local businesses are owned by our neighbors and the unique products and services they provide enhance the character of our city and the strength of our neighborhoods. And. Whereas, these local companies provide vital employment opportunities and generate tax revenues that support city services, our schools and our state. And. Whereas, retail spending accounts for more than $11 billion during the holidays and dollars spent at local retailers have a greater impact on our local economy by keeping profits in our community and using local suppliers and services. And. Whereas, the city and county of Denver recognizes the vital role of local businesses in building a diverse and resilient economy and is committed to growing our base of local retailers and restaurants. And. Whereas, supporting locally owned businesses during the holiday season and beyond has a positive economic impact and contributes to the quality of life and sense of community in Denver. And. Whereas, The Mile-High Business Alliance and its members mobilized Coloradans to shop local businesses first and to raise awareness of the opportunities and impacts of mining locally. And. WHEREAS, more than 10,000 small businesses in Denver employ nearly 200,000 persons, 44% of the employment in the city, contributing more than $10 billion in wages to our local economy. And. Whereas, the residents of Denver are encouraged to support our local retailers and restaurant establishments this holiday season and throughout the year. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City and Council of the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that, in recognition of the annual buy local campaign, Denver City Council proclaims the week of November 28th through December 5th as buy local week in Denver to show its support and to highlight the importance of buying in Denver at its many retail and restaurant businesses. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Mikki Langston Mile-High Business Alliance.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman can eat your motion to adopt.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 1035 be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved in. Second it comments from members of the council council and can each.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my annual buy local proclamation because we are getting ready for the beginning of that shopping season. People call it Black Friday, but remember that Saturday is small business Saturday. And as usual, just thinking about with intentionality the things that we can buy. You know, we have so many local business districts in Denver, South Pearl, we've got Gaylord Street, we've got Cherry Creek, we've got Tennyson Street. We've got all of the great independent businesses around Larimer Square and downtown in the LoDo vicinity. And so we are blessed with these opportunities and these businesses. This is a make or break season for them and it takes that little bit of thought to really go ahead and get a gift certificate from them or pick up a piece of jewelry or some item that can really bring joy to the people you buy gifts for, but also bring more dollars back to your economy because those businesses are more likely to be using local suppliers, they're more likely to be using local banks, and they probably are investing their profits back into their own homes, in their own communities, with their own shopping and their own economic purchasing power. So it really is a circle of money that these businesses create in our community. And so for that reason, I hope that folks do go ahead and buy local beginning Friday and all year long. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Canning. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: Very well put, and thank you for bringing the proclamation. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 0: I know all my colleagues know.
Speaker 7: About Cherry Creek.
Speaker 6: But maybe someone's flipping channels. And I want.
Speaker 7: You to know at home that there are.
Speaker 6: 292.
Speaker 0: Locally owned and operated.
Speaker 6: Businesses in.
Speaker 7: Cherry Creek. This is the largest.
Speaker 0: Accumulation of local businesses.
Speaker 6: In the region, maybe in quite a large region.
Speaker 0: And the other really cool thing that you should know.
Speaker 7: Is this year for the.
Speaker 0: Holidays, starting on Saturday Shop Local Saturday.
Speaker 6: The Business Improvement District will.
Speaker 7: Be providing.
Speaker 0: Free valet parking. You can get the valet, you can have your car laid on the west side.
Speaker 6: Of Fillmore Plaza between first and second, or on.
Speaker 0: Josephine Street, between second and third on the east side.
Speaker 6: Of the street. You do have to bring proof of a purchase back when you pick up your car. That's all you have to do. But you can park free. No hassle. So we'll look forward to seeing people.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to thank Councilwoman Canete for bringing this forward and just add that there's one other place that people don't always think about as one of our shopping venues, if you will, and that's how it does. We have a number of locally owned businesses that, you know, have restaurants as well as other types of goods, and just encourage that if you're picking someone up or if you're flying through Denver, that's another place to shop locally. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments on 1035 C None, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 7: Roll call can each layman by Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. I Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Hi. Brooks. Hi, Brown. I thought.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 7: Lopez.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Student.
Speaker 2: Councilmembers Brooks and Brown. Your votes are hanging.
Speaker 3: Fire BS.
Speaker 2: One more. Thank you, councilman. Round. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And as a result 3939 1035 has been adopted. Councilman McNeish, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 6: You need to call someone up.
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. I'm sorry. May I please have Mikki Langston join us to accept the proclamation? Thank you, Mr. President, and members of Council. It's always such a privilege to hear your support of local businesses during by work week. When I first started at Mile High Business Lyons in 2007, some people said to me, Why are you talking about the economy? There's nothing wrong with the economy. And that was 27. Obviously, it became very clear very quickly that creating an economy that works for everyone is not an accident. And that's especially true for I'm sorry, I get nervous. It's especially true for the millions of Americans who are still struggling to recover from the recession that started in 2008. And in Colorado, we're really lucky. We live in a state that has one of the highest rates of economic growth and one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the entire nation. But that really is the point of buy local week, that what Buy Local Week is about is reminding us that we have the power individually and collectively to build the kind of community that we want to live in that has independent, local businesses that not only add to the economic vitality of our community , but also the neighborhoods that we really love to live in. So I'm honored to receive this proclamation and have great gratitude for Councilwoman Canete and for all of you for supporting local businesses now and into the future. And for those folks that do want to connect with local businesses, we always invite them to our website at Mile High Best at work. Thank you and have a great evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Langston. Thank you, Councilman Kenny, for bringing this forward. We are now moving on to the resolution. Madam Secretary, please read the resolution.
Speaker 7: From safety and well-being 1036 resolution authorizing approving expenditure and payment from the appropriation account. Designated labor liability claim sum at $25,000 payable to Regina and Petraeus in amount of $14,600 into Kilmer Lane of Newman LLP in the amount of $10,400 for payment suspension, all claims to the election number of 13 dashboards 303220w id KMT in United States
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating the 8th annual “Buy Local Week” from November 28 through December 5, as part of the ongoing "Buy Local" campaign to encourage the support of local businesses. A proclamation celebrating the 8th annual “Buy Local Week” from November 28 through December 2nd, as part of the ongoing Buy Local campaign to encourage the support of local businesses.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11242014_14-0971
|
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I call this out because this is a proposed ordinance approving the Globeville neighborhood plan. And what I would like to do is ask for a courtesy public.
Speaker 0: Hearing for.
Speaker 6: For the night of December 1st.
Speaker 2: December 1st. Got it. So if there are no objections from members of council, we will have a cursory public hearing on 971 The Globeville Neighborhood Plan. Monday, December 1st. Thank you, Councilman Monti. Madam Secretary, can you tee up the next one, which I believe should be 924, called out by Councilman Fox? Councilman Fox, would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: Please put on the floor for a vote?
Speaker 2: Certainly. Councilmember S, could you make the motion for us this evening?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Could you please put 924 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 3: Certainly I move the constable 924 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance to purchase a building for 911 purposes will house the call receivers and dispatch information. I do not oppose the actual purchase of this building, but it is a package deal. It also will be coming with a bill that for payment requires certificates of participation to be floated and in fact
|
Bill
|
Approve the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-12-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11242014_14-0924
|
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance to purchase a building for 911 purposes will house the call receivers and dispatch information. I do not oppose the actual purchase of this building, but it is a package deal. It also will be coming with a bill that for payment requires certificates of participation to be floated and in fact they will be floated over what the cost of the building actually is to incorporate some of the money that will be required for the for remodeling this building. We will, according to the Department of Finance, end up when it's when they it's structured the way they expect. Probably pay about $4 million in interest. And we have such a rich budget this year, I don't see any reason why a safety measure should have to be floated in debt. And certificates of participation are a very, very sensitive matter for me because I believe they are a way to get around the TABOR constitutional amendment to avoid a public vote on debt. And so I will be opposing this ordinance.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Are there any other questions? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I do have a question and I'm not sure who is here from finance, but my question is about the fact that we normally pledge different city buildings until the debt is paid off. And I'd like to know what properties are being set aside for that purpose. So can someone from that.
Speaker 0: I'm happy to take that sky. Stuart Mayor's office as councilman fox reference. The actual bill to set up the copy will not be coming to council till January and at that time we will identify the buildings included in it. I don't have a list now and I think they're still working through that, but that will be provided when the actual bill for the CLP comes forward.
Speaker 6: Okay. So this is just asking us to approve this, not just the purchase and.
Speaker 0: Sale and.
Speaker 6: Purchase of the new building.
Speaker 0: Correct. Just acquisition.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good, councilwoman. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments and questions are on 924. Scene on Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 7: Facts. No. Can each layman write Lopez Montero. Nevitt. Hi. Ortega. I Rob Shepherd. Assessment by Brookes.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the volume. And now the.
Speaker 7: Result. 11 eyes, one ni, 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: One day, 9/24, when placed upon final consideration and does pass to the next one. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 961 Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: Please put on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 2: Certainly in council members. Could you please put 961 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and TMC Enterprises, LLC for the building located at 12025 East 45th Avenue. (FINANCE & SERVICES) The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-8-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-6-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11242014_14-0961
|
Speaker 2: Certainly in council members. Could you please put 961 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 3: Certainly, Mr. President, I put Bill Constable 961 ask to be placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is the supplemental appropriation bill. I will be voting against it because of one measure within it and it is a whopper. It's $1.3 million of business incentive money we are transferring to that fund. I do not like that fund to begin with, but in this case they won't even name the business we're supposed to be subsidizing. And so this is a nonstarter for me. I'm voting no.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Watts. And there any other comments from members of council? Seen none. Madam Secretary, Roco.
Speaker 7: Fights no each layman. Lopez Monteiro Nevett i. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd, I. Sussman Brookes.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 11 eyes one.
Speaker 2: Day. 11 eyes one day. 961 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. I believe that with all the bills that are called out so we are ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to Departments and to the Business Incentive Fund and Technology Service Capital Fund; and authorizing a supplemental appropriation and the procurement of leased golf carts from the Golf Enterprise Fund.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves 2014 supplemental requests for the General Fund and Golf Enterprise Fund. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-4-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11242014_14-0813
|
Speaker 2: Audience Members Please understand that council members to use electronic devices of various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us would be assured that by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during the public hearing. Councilman Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 813 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 813 be placed upon the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: The public hearing for council bill 813 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening, members of Council. I'm Steven Chester with Community Planning and Development. Here to present the staff report for rezoning application for 2298 Cle Street from GMU 3u032umx2x. The subject property is within Council District One Councilwoman Sheppard's district directly across the street from Jefferson Park at the intersection of 23rd Avenue, Clay Street and River Drive. Currently zoned GMU three you oh three it is about a 3000 square foot parcel that is a single storey commercial building and a two storey residential structure kind of conjoined through the years. It's about a hundred year old structure. The property owners are requesting a rezoning to allow for an eating and drinking establishment for the entire building. So the rezoning application is for a duplex to zoned district. You notice that the you oh three has gone away. The use overlay three allows for a small list of commercial uses in residential zoned districts and since will be rezoning to a mixed use zoned district. It's redundant to no longer necessary as a nonresidential building currently in a residential zoned district primary, nine nonresidential and accessory use is allowed in the next two ex are permitted so there as it currently exists. All the uses under MBS two x are currently allowed for the commercial portions of the building. So this rezoning will allow for commercial uses for the entire structure under the use list allowed in you annex two x. So we will be rezoning to the urban neighborhood. Context mixed use two storey annex zone district with the ex at the end signifying a a list of uses that is less intense. And just. Um. To. The existing context for zoning. There's primarily multi-unit and two unit residential zoning to the north and east of the site with some higher density residential to the south. And Jefferson Park zoned OSA to the west. Land use is an area of primarily single-family multifamily residential to the north and east with some higher density multifamily to the south and some commercial uses along the ground story of these higher density buildings. A lot of the vacant parcels you see in this map are now rapidly going through redevelopment. The surrounding building forms are a mixture of one and two storey residential structures, and you see there at the bottom a six storey residential building. There's some higher density residential residential buildings surrounding the park. So we went to planning board and on September 17th I received a 9 to 0 approval, a recommendation for approval of the zoning application. Five speakers spoke in support of the rezoning with conditions primarily associated with parking, traffic, noise and odors. A lot of these have been addressed or all of these have been addressed in a good neighbor. Good neighbor agreement that the applicant is here that can answer any questions. The details of that agreement. Our Neighborhoods and Planning Committee moved the rezoning application out of committee on October 15th in preparation for a public hearing tonight at City Council. The Jefferson Park United neighbors submitted a letter in support with conditions similar to those that were mentioned at the public hearing at Planning Borden. They support the rezoning application with some conditions that have been met in the Good Neighbor Agreement. The applicant has also provided a list of over 100 neighbors in support of the rezoning and notification of both public hearings has been posted per the Denver Zoning Code. I'll now walk through the criteria in the Denver zoning code for rezoning application, starting with consistency with adopted plans, comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan or the applicable adopted city plans for the subject site. Starting with Comprehensive Plan 2000. There's a number of strategies that support this rezoning application, typically having to do with promoting infill development, creating neighborhoods where residents can live, work and play within close proximity to each other, along with some sustainability strategies focused around re-use of existing buildings and promoting infill development. Blueprint Denver designates the subject site as single family duplex. These are four moderately dense areas of the city that are primarily residential, however, with some complementary small scale commercial uses. The plan also designated the site as an area of change. Areas of change is where we like to channel growth in order to improve access to jobs, housing and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. 23rd Avenue and Clay Street are both designated as residential collectors and River Drive as a undesignated local street. The Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan provides a number of strategies which support this rezoning application, primarily in the Land Use Urban Forum and zoning section of the plan. Some of the strategies include maintaining enhancing the character and identity of the neighborhood, bringing zoning into closer conformance with the existing land use and land use vision and enhancing residents ability to workshop and recruit within the neighborhood. The plan also has a number of sub areas. This subject site falls within the park face sub area and a number of strategies within this section of the plan. Further support this rezoning application, such as preserving the views of downtown Denver from the west side of Jefferson Park. It's important to note that this rezoning is actually lowering the maximum height for the person from three stories to two stories, thus implementing this plan vision of preserving those views. The Park Face Area also discusses increasing the safety and activity in the Jefferson Park. We feel as though providing a mix of uses surrounding the park will provide more eyes on the park throughout the day, along with increasing the overall activity of the park and increasing its overall safety. So we find that the adopted city plans are consistent with this rezoning application. Further, the rezoning application through the adoption are through the implementation of our adopted city plans, provides a uniformity of district regulations and furthers the public health, safety and welfare. The just as justified circumstances for this rezoning application is that the land or its surrounding environs have changed or is changing to a degree that is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area, to recognize the change character of the area. We find that this criterion is met due to the Blueprint Denver designation of an area of change, along with the impressive amount of redevelopment occurring within the Jefferson Park neighborhood. In terms of consistency with the neighborhood context zone district purpose and intent really the you AMCs to zone district. I was just actually talking with the applicant before the presentation that it's really the perfect zone district for this type of development. It recognizes our embedded small commercial sites within existing residential neighborhoods, typically one or two parcels and limited to low scale building farms and low intensity uses. We find this criterion is met based on the plan, recommendations for this area and existing and desired character for the neighborhood. With that, CPD recommends approval based on finding of review criteria have been met. Thank you. We also have the applicant is here with some brief slides detailing their proposal.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. We have the applicant on speak now or is that going to be during the three minute? I'm sure that between three and 3 minutes. Okay. You kind of threw me a curveball at the very end.
Speaker 8: Oh, sorry.
Speaker 2: Thank you for that. All right. We have we have six speakers, and I'm going to go ahead and say all six names and I apologize for have any mispronunciations. David Bertrand, Andre Colby on that text, Christopher Schooler, Kent Dawson and Celina Jandreau. So, Mr. Bird Burton, if you want to come up, you can go ahead and begin.
Speaker 3: I just press spacebar.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is David Burton. I'm the applicant. My address is 2899, North Spear Boulevard, Denver, you know, two, one, one. And I just want to present our project that we're proposing tonight, which is rezoning the existing 100 year old commercial building to, um, x2x zoning. This building is, was, was originally built the turn of the century. It's been used for commercial uses over the past hundred years. It's been a restaurant, it's been a bar. It's gone to the Board of Adjustment three or four times over its lifespan. I was asked by by CPD to rezone this instead of taking it to the board. Again, 80% of the building has been commercial and 20% was residential. It's not a great picture, but you can see it's a commercial storefront corner. There is a six story building right next door. We're proposing to renovate the existing building and make it completely commercial. You can see there's a small little gable roof that was embedded in this building. Our proposal is to renovate the existing building and to bring it up to today's standards. It'll be a complete renovation. Over the past year, we've met with Jefferson Park. We've met with many different neighborhood groups in the area and garnered their support to do this project. So here's an existing model of the existing building and here is the proposed look. We so we're really keeping about the same square footage, but we are proposing a roof deck that will meet the criteria of the, um, x2x Zone District, again, the existing building around the corner of River Drive. And then here is the renovated building. So that being said, again, it's been a commercial building for over 100 years. We really are trying to correct an inconsistent zoning to make the zoning consistent with the building type. The um, x to x is the proper zoning for it as it's an embedded commercial building on a corner of a residential district. The parcel really is only 3000 square feet. The building is about 3400 square feet existing, and we're not planning on expanding it beyond what we're showing here as well. So if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Burton. Andre Cuvier.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is.
Speaker 8: Andre Cory, and I'm also here on, uh, on behalf of the development team. I don't have a lot to add to what my boss said. The one thing that I would add is just to reiterate the fact that we're not looking for up zoning. We're actually lowering the maximum number of stories and we're not looking for any new uses. The GMU three, which it is currently zoned, is the same use as the um x2x, which is what we're asking for. Really, all we're looking to do is, as he said, CPD wants us to take the one bedroom apartment that is part of this and combine it into the rest of the into the rest of the commercial parcel.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's a.
Speaker 1: That. That's a 4535 Julian Street, Denver. In presenting this project, this staff member spoke of the changing character of this neighborhood. Of course, since the camping ban you passed, part of that changing character is more people sleeping in Jefferson Park and the other parks around the city as you enjoy your Thanksgiving. I hope you'll think of the people who are going to spend their days in our parks, along our rivers, and under our bridges. And I hope that you join me in hoping that the weather improves enough that they all survive.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Texa. Christopher Schooler.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Christopher Schooler I am a resident of Jefferson Park and neighbor at 25, 22, 23rd Avenue. I live just about eight. Shops down from the proposed site. And I'm merely here to say that I think this is a great project. The neighborhood has gone, undergone tremendous change over the years. I've lived there for nearly 12 years, and it's fantastic to see this site potentially becoming available to the public and providing an amenity to our community and even giving some identity to our community. So thank you for your time. I do support this project.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Schooler. Kent Dawson.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Katon Dawson and I'm the proposed tenant for for this property. And we're very excited about the opportunity to to have this establishment in Jefferson Park given given the growth. I've been working with Mr. Burton for several months now. We've had some some very productive frequent meetings with the neighborhood association during the General Assembly and with their land use committee. We were able to sign a good neighbor agreement that we all felt very good about that makes this truly a neighborhood friendly, walk up kid friendly establishment, too, to really help, you know, give the neighborhood a place where they can be comfortable and ride their bike, walk up to. So I appreciate you're here with us tonight and thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Dawson. Selena Jandreau.
Speaker 0: Hello. I'm Selena Gaudreau and I live at 2620 West 23rd Avenue and I am actually three houses down from the proposed redevelopment. So I'm excited about it because I think that the building needs a facelift and it will be a great structure and area for us to walk to and not have to get into our car. We don't have many of those places in Jefferson Park, so I'm excited and I'm for the the proposal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Woodrow. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega?
Speaker 6: Well, I would like to ask probably the applicant, if you could talk about or might be the the tenant what the Good Neighbor agreement entails. Just so we know how issues of parking and traffic, I mean, it sounds like it's the kind of amenity that the neighborhood is looking for. And oftentimes when they're really good establishments, it draws in traffic from outside. And I know we've got some of these circumstances in other areas where we have existing buildings that might have a use change that draws more traffic to the neighborhood. So can you just speak to how those issues, number one, what they are and then what the solution is?
Speaker 5: Sure. Can. David Burton So two of the issues that came up during the Good Neighborhood Agreement was parking and was smells of the proposed use. We're proposing to do a brewpub in this establishment. So those were really the two issues that neighbors were adamant that we addressed. So we went through a few different requirements in that agreement and a few different rounds regarding smells and health department requirements of what may be a toxic or noxious odor. And we kind of came to a resolution that if there's multiple complaints that we would address them and we set up a process and a good neighborhood agreement to address them. Parking was also an issue. Fortunately, we are on a corner where right across the street is Jefferson Park and there's on street parking on too long. It's too long streets. In reality, we also agreed with the neighbors that we would provide some offsite parking for tenants for employees of the restaurant.
Speaker 6: Where are you doing that?
Speaker 5: So we have we've have a parking available at a property across 23rd Avenue, across the highway on 23rd Avenue. And I can't remember the exact name of.
Speaker 6: The street from the old Tsingtao Brewery.
Speaker 5: Yes, exactly. Okay. So actually next to the old brewery, not across the street. So in the parking lot that's owned by that building. So we have ten spots that we are planning on leasing for them.
Speaker 6: Did the issue of noise and outdoor music come up is a concern and how is that being dealt with?
Speaker 5: It did in the um x two zone district there are specific requirements for outdoor eating to be closed at a certain time. And it's and it's a fairly early time and that's actually part of the code. And it was really we talked about changing that. But they, the neighbors pretty much agreed that the timing that the code said was adequate for establishment. Okay.
Speaker 6: I have one more question, if I may, and this one's for the city attorney. So. If the property changes hands. The conditions that are in place, as I understand, are with the current owner and operator of the property. So what would happen to those conditions if the property does change hands? You have any? Not about this.
Speaker 1: You're talking about the conditions attached to the zoning. I'm sorry, david broadwell, assistant city attorney, that the good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 6: Of a good neighbor agreement. It's not as I understand, it's not a condition of the zoning. But if the property changes hands and you've got a different operator that comes in because a lot of times if there's a liquor license, it transfers with the property. And, you know, I just want to make sure the conditions.
Speaker 1: Since the since the city is not party to the good neighbor agreement, we haven't had occasion in our office to inspector to be able to answer that question. The answer to that question depends on exactly what got negotiated and whether it's a covenant runs with the land, who knows? But I would invite the applicant to answer that question as best I can.
Speaker 5: Sure. So the good neighborhood agreement really is specific for this use on this building. So at a later date, if this tenant goes away and it becomes a a sewing shop or dress shop, which it was before, that good neighborhood agreement is essentially would be renegotiated. So the parking per.
Speaker 6: Use stays the same.
Speaker 5: Stays the same.
Speaker 6: The ownership changes.
Speaker 5: Right? The tent, both the tenant and the ownership have signed the agreement with the neighborhood and there is a provision in there to Andrew may be able to answer this a little bit better than I to negotiate or just been negotiated points in that agreement for that parameter. So if you do, I'm going to let Andre have.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think the I think that the issue that you're you're addressing here is covered in the Good Neighbor Agreement, which we did submit. But but the basics are that the as long as the use stays the same, the good neighbor agreement goes with the the use, it'll stay with it regardless of who the owner is. And as, as Dave said, it was signed by the tenant as well. So.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega and Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 0: Actually, my questions were addressed.
Speaker 6: By Debbie's.
Speaker 0: Questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, councilwoman. Councilwoman Lemon.
Speaker 0: Mine were.
Speaker 2: Two. Well, there we go. Congratulations. Good job, Councilwoman. I tell you. All right. Do we have any other questions from members of council and seen none. The public hearing on 813 is not closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, everyone, for coming out this evening. The week of Thanksgiving. I know a lot of folks. His thoughts are elsewhere this week. I am definitely in support of this this evening. And I know that there was a bit of consternation and concern when the idea was first introduced, you know, especially with some members of the neighborhood in the River Clay Building, particularly, which is immediately adjacent and is one of the nearest residences that will be dealing with the impacts. But, you know, I really want to hand it to the development team for sitting down with the neighbors and hashing out the good neighbor agreement and, you know, working very well together to address some of those concerns because the use is a good use, the proposed use is a good use and makes sense.
Speaker 7: Is a good fit.
Speaker 0: For that corner. You know, legitimizes a building that has functioned as a commercial building for over 100 years now and perhaps brings and I think brings a broader a more a use that is able to be enjoyed by more people because certainly not everyone is shopping for a wedding dress. So, you know, but there's, you know, definitely a few people out there that would like to enjoy a beer. So I think it adds to the walkability of the neighborhood and, you know, gives us a chance to have a nice local business. I live very, very close to this site, so I pass it constantly. I'm familiar with, you know, the issues. And I know I said this to the tenant when we were talking, but, you know, I really would, you know, encourage you to figure out ways to incentivize people to come to the restaurant in a way other than a car. You know, and I remember at that time I suggested to you perhaps, you know, a 10% discount if someone is walked or biked, you know, or is a local or something like that. 23rd Avenue is absolutely the busiest, probably the busiest East-West bike corridor in northwest Denver. I bike it a lot myself. When I'm at the intersection, you know, at the red light, I say to the bikers next to me, So, hey, where are you from? And I regularly meet people that have bike that are biking from Aurora to gold and back. So, you know, there's a lot of opportunities to attract a lot of business there that don't involve people driving to that location. And parking is a big crunch there. This neighborhood is undergoing absolutely the biggest surge of urban infill and redevelopment more than any other neighborhood in northwest Denver. So, you know, I would very much appreciate any and all efforts to attract customers to the store in ways that. Don't involve them driving their own car in parking. So just with that little editorial comment, once again, I will say I am in full support and would urge my colleagues to vote yes as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Are there any other comments from members of council seen on Madam Secretary? Roll Call.
Speaker 7: Sheppard. I. Susman. I. But I. Can each layman. I. Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Right. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. 813 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. There are no prior German announcements other than to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving this week and seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 1: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 0: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 2298 Clay Street from G-MU-3 UO-3 to U-MX-2x, in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Rezones property at 2298 Clay Street from G-MU-3 UO-3 to U-MX-2x, in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-15-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11172014_14-0924
|
Speaker 5: A CLP Certificate of Power of Participation Ordinance will be coming forth in the first quarter of 2000. Now the probable scenario, and I say probable because as I understand it, not everything's been finalized, but they do know that that's the mechanism they're going to be using. The probable scenario is a debt of about 10.5 million. It will be a 15 year debt instrument, which would, at the rates that are anticipated, garner about a $4 million interest cost. We've just gone through establishing a budget. Now, there was plenty of one time funding included for other projects. I question the administrative priorities that can't say emergency response. This 911 building isn't a top priority for one time funding, but it wasn't there. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay an extra $4 million of interest and incur debt with a budget as rich as the one we approved. Well, I like this first ordinance. No problem whatsoever in having a new building for this call center. The second one. Floating cops is a real deal killer. I'll be voting no.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Fats. And there any other comments from members or questions for members of the council? CNN. Mr. Secretary, being on 924 will cover these thoughts.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Can each layman i. Lopez. I. Monteiro never. I.
Speaker 2: Shepherd i.
Speaker 4: Brooks, i. Brown, i. Mr. President, i. Councilman Brown voting in favor. Mr. Secretary, please close the venue, announce the results. 99199919 924 has been ordered published for the sector acuity of the next one, which should be 961. Wait for technology to catch up. Call out by Councilman Fox. Councilwoman Fox Would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 5: Please put on the floor for a vote?
Speaker 4: Certainly can. Councilwoman Sheperd, can you please put 961 on the floor to be ordered published?
Speaker 2: Certainly. I move that council bill 961 series 2014 be ordered published.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and TMC Enterprises, LLC for the building located at 12025 East 45th Avenue. (FINANCE & SERVICES) The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-8-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-6-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11172014_14-0961
|
Speaker 2: Certainly. I move that council bill 961 series 2014 be ordered published.
Speaker 4: It has been moved we need a second has been moved in second it comments from members of Council Councilwoman thoughts.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that's the supplemental appropriation for 2014. The Finance Department, City Finance Department has chosen to lump together supplemental appropriations for several different purposes. The largest one for more than $1.3 million out of the general fund contingency is my main concern. The administration wants this money to be used for incentives for a specific business. Interestingly, they cite confidentiality so that we can't be told at this point what the business is. Well, I don't like making special deals for special businesses. Regardless, I'm not at all willing to do a, trust me, transfer to a business incentive fund I detest for a business that can't be named, so due diligence can't be performed. Keep in mind, even after we do learn the name, if we didn't like the company, the money will still be in this corporate welfare fund. We have many city basic services I'd prefer to use the money for or give overall tax relief to all businesses. So there's a level playing field. Well, I'm not objecting to other items in the supplemental. I'll need to vote no to register my objection to the business incentive fund transfer.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Fox, Councilman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. We did have this supplemental in the Finance Committee and Councilwoman Fox touched on this very briefly in her comments. But we do, as a council, have an opportunity once there is a negotiation that's complete between the city and this party and there is some form of a contract or agreement, the final contract to disperse these funds would require council approval. I share that because I actually share Councilman Fox's skepticism about business incentives. For me, the issue is, are we investing in good jobs? Are we investing in, you know, livable wages and the kinds of jobs that are really going to help our citizens be good able to afford our city residents ? But I agree that that scrutiny is really important, and I am comforted by the fact that we will have a vote if and when this this company comes to agreement with the city. I respect Councilwoman Fox's decision to say no upfront, but I remind my colleagues that we'll have a second chance. And it is it's unusual to be asked to do this without knowing the company, but. But having a second chance before the dollars are spent is is why I feel comfortable voting yes tonight and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman. Any other comments from members of council? And I will I will I will come as well. I second Councilman Kasich's comments and I share Councilman Fox's concerns so that having the legislative branch make an approval based off of just trusting the good will certainly not to imply anything counter of the administration, but we have the responsibility to do due diligence as well. So knowing that this will have to come back to council for approval gives me comfort in knowing that we will address that in due time. Mr. Secretary, we are now 961 to be ordered publish roll call please thoughts no can each layman Lopez. Right. Montero, I never i.
Speaker 2: Shepherd I.
Speaker 4: Brooks Brown, I. Mr. President. Hi, Mr. Secretary. Please close the voting and now the results. 99199912 961 has been ordered published. The last bill for introduction, I believe was 930. Leader was called out by Councilman Nevitt and will technology will catch up it was councilman that.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to Departments and to the Business Incentive Fund and Technology Service Capital Fund; and authorizing a supplemental appropriation and the procurement of leased golf carts from the Golf Enterprise Fund.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves 2014 supplemental requests for the General Fund and Golf Enterprise Fund. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-4-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11172014_14-0930
|
Speaker 4: Brooks Brown, I. Mr. President. Hi, Mr. Secretary. Please close the voting and now the results. 99199912 961 has been ordered published. The last bill for introduction, I believe was 930. Leader was called out by Councilman Nevitt and will technology will catch up it was councilman that. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, I am calling out council bill nine 3931 932 933 934 936 and 937. But it's just for a comment, so you don't actually have to put them on the floor.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, then go right ahead.
Speaker 3: So I just wanted to point out, each of these bills designates certain number of acres of land in the city as parkland. And this is land that has been open space currently but is not designated as parkland and by the action of nine 3931 932 933 934 936 and 937. We are taking many acres of land and moving them from a more fungible category open space into a much more protected category that is specific designated parkland. And I point that out only because this administration has gotten a lot of criticism from some quarters and this council has gotten a lot of criticism as an enabler of bad behavior on the part of the administration. With respect to Parkland, the the argument is that there's no respect for Parkland, that we view Parkland as as as fungible and something to be disposed of at will. And I just need to point out that this is designating as Parkland a lot of acres that have not been designated for years and years and years may have been open space, but the administration is moving forward with actually designating this land as parkland. In fact, this is not the first nor I think is it the last. I don't know if there's anybody here from Parks and Rec who can answer that question. Mr. Gilmore. I'm glad you're here. So you can cover my ignorance as to the details.
Speaker 4: Now, you were doing a pretty good job.
Speaker 3: I'm Scott Gilmore.
Speaker 4: Deputy executive director of Denver Parks and Rec. This is actually the fourth and fifth round of designation. We've been designating Park Land for the last two years. This actually will bring our.
Speaker 3: Total up to about 70%.
Speaker 4: So when we started this process, about 68% of the park land that was available to designate was designated officially. We have moved that number to about 80%. So we are moving that that forward. And so it's very exciting to have this moving, this process forward. We will continue to move forward and designate all the park land that we can designate that is that is legally able to designate. So it's a process where we have to work on title. We have to work on surveys. We need to do this properly because there are a lot of lines, property lines and utilities and other things that we have to work on. So it's been a and it's been an interesting process. I do want to give a shout out to the eye and see the eye and see the inner inter neighborhood cooperation. And they have put together a committee that supports me and that gives me a lot of input on parks that they feel that should be designated or other things that I should work on and the Parks Department should work on. So I want to give them a shout out and tell them thank you.
Speaker 3: Great. Likewise. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Shephard.
Speaker 2: Actually, Scott, if you could come back. I thought since I had you up there, I asked this point of clarification during committee, but I want to ask it again tonight. If any District one residents are watching. Can you? I believe that 933 regarding Highland Senior Center Park does not include the rec center that is located there, nor the land that's under it. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes, it does not.
Speaker 3: There are some title issues that reside on that, that piece of parcel.
Speaker 4: So we cannot designate anything that does not have clear title. So we don't have clear title to that. So we do have clear title to all the park land that's directly adjacent to it. And so we are designating that parcel and that's what the ordinance is.
Speaker 2: I thought during committee you said that DOJ actually.
Speaker 3: I think I.
Speaker 4: Didn't get a chance to check on that. And I think DHS has some type of ownership on that, that building.
Speaker 2: And the parking lot. What about the parking lot?
Speaker 4: The part of the building. So I'm not I did not look at that. I apologize.
Speaker 2: Okay. So perhaps if I could get clarification.
Speaker 4: Okay. I'll get to that.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, are there any other comments on 930? All right. That concludes the bill for introduction. Now moving on to bills for final consideration, and I believe the first one was 81, called out by Councilwoman Montero. Secretary, you want to tee that one up? And while he's doing that, Councilwoman Montero, would you like for us to do with that?
Speaker 5: I would just like to make a comment.
Speaker 4: Go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This council Bill 881 is on final reading, and it's an intergovernmental agreement with the regional transportation district. And what it does is it provides for the construction of the 35th Street pedestrian bridge over the East Corridor Rail and the acquisition of the relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Yard office. And it appropriates 1.350 million four from RTT funding for the construction of this pedestrian bridge in Council District nine. And so this bridge is very important because what it does is it's a connector for the neighborhoods that are west of the railroad tracks like Globeville Ballpark in West Reno to the station. And it's an essential part of the 38 Blake Street Station where there's new development blossoming. It'll bring commerce and access between West and North Rhino neighborhoods and will create new pathways for neighbors where they didn't have it before. And once this bridge is done, you'll be able to go from Larimer, Walnut, the Blake area, to Brighton Boulevard and down towards the River and Globeville. So this will infuse the already vibrant Reno, our district, with new mobility. This was part of what was originally identified by the 2003 River North Plan, the Reno plan. And so I just want to close by saying that based on my experience in the Highland neighborhood, the 16th Street pedestrian bridge, the Highland Bridge was very catalytic to the growth and the vibrancy and connectivity for Highland and their connection to the Platte street merchants and also to the Central Platte Valley. So I'm really, really excited. And also want to say that this involves agreements with Union Pacific, with Regional Transportation District, the Railroad Transportation Administration and the city and county of Denver, and has been in the works for two years. So it's great news for the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro, any other comments on 881 scene? And we'll go to the next one, which was 896, I believe, called out by Councilwoman Shepherd. Catherine Shepherd, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 2: I just have a question to someone here from arts and venues. Thank you. So I think I ask this in committee, but I'm not sure I got a definitive answer. And this is the bill regarding the Contract with Access Digital to provide ticketing, sales and related services for city owned operated venues. So typically with these types of arrangements, the company will charge a surcharge on top of the ticket for their service. And knowing that that can really make your dollars add up, especially if you happen to be buying several tickets for, let's say you have a large family, that kind of might quickly become very cost prohibitive if you're paying those surcharges on top of that ticket. So my question would be, will there still be the ability to walk up to the window and purchase those tickets directly without having to pay the surcharge?
Speaker 6: Sure. I'm Brian Kitch with Arts and Venues. And the simple answer is yes, that with any of our venues that there still will be a walk up option, including at Red Rocks. You're going to have to hike to get there, but especially on day of show, there will be that option and part of those are set by the promoter. But the deal with access calls for no ticketing fees at the box office.
Speaker 2: Okay. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I think it could be tough for larger families. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Separate. All right. So you know the comments and 1896 will go through the last one, which I believe was 927 cut out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilman, what would you like for us to do with this?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as “park” under section 2.4.5 of the city charter, namely Centennial Park (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Designates 5.5 acres of land as Centennial Park located at 1301 Elitch Circle, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-5-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11172014_14-0927
|
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Separate. All right. So you know the comments and 1896 will go through the last one, which I believe was 927 cut out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilman, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 5: I would like to ask a question.
Speaker 4: Go right ahead.
Speaker 5: And first make a statement before I ask the person to come up. For the purposes of business development and affordable housing, the loan agreement and this particular ordinance was first executed with Sable Ridge development in the year 2000. That's prior to the service of most of us on council believe. Councilwoman Ortega was on council at the time that would have gone in. And it certainly prior to the involvement of the current Office of Economic Development Leaders. But as the title of the ordinance says, this is the Eighth Amendment and modification agreement. I'm calling this out for a question with the explicit goal of having the public recognize how convoluted some of these agreements can get. I'm very sensitive to a lot of the activities in the Office of Office of Economic Development. But I do recognize how important it is for them to stay on top of twists and turns that occur if we're going to lend out tax money since this ordinance was on consent in committee. I'd like to ask Seneca Holmes to recount how we got to where we are today and advise us. When is it reasonable to pull the plug? Hmm.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Seneca Homes with the Office of Economic Development. The Sable Ridge Loan was, as Councilman Fox had reference, was originally made in 2000. It was for the acquisition of property at Chambers and 40th. That property was going to be developed for commercial and affordable housing. It was supposed to be a short term loan and in fact we were paid $2.6 million of the $3.5 million loan in 2001. The remaining property, which was for affordable housing, had difficulty finding the appropriate finance. And so for a period of, I guess, going now on 14 years, we have had to extend the maturity date of that so that we were able to work with the developer so that he would be able to find the financing to build the housing. We came to committee in 2012 as part of our series of loan portfolio workouts, and we essentially called the loan at that point. We had said that if by January 2014, this developer was not able to find financing, namely through low income housing tax credits, that we would do a deed in lieu of foreclosure. 2014, obviously is his past. January 2014 has passed. The developer was not able to receive financing. However, it does seem that there is an opportunity for him to go after a 4% Logitech product. Ultimately, what we want to see there is the development of affordable housing. So we're willing to work with the developer once again to fully realize affordable housing on that property. One thing to keep in mind is that although we do have a deed in lieu on the property itself, it doesn't come close to making us whole. So it makes fiscal sense for the office to continue to work with the developer as long as there is an opportunity to develop the property for affordable housing.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Seneca. The story actually is about twice as long as what he just gave you. After I'd heard it, I thought, Good heavens, people really need to understand how much this goes through when we do these kinds of arrangements at this point, as far as a bottom line is concerned. Seneca's last statement was the most important to me. If we aren't going to be to be made whole, perhaps since 14 years have already passed, maybe a few more can be tolerated. But I do hope the people who follow me run out of patience at some point, if indeed it doesn't come to fruition. Thank you very much, Seneca.
Speaker 4: Thank you again, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Senate could stay up here. You know, I agree with Council on the fact that it is a convoluted process. That's probably why we need to put together a housing trust so that folks don't have to put all these cobble all of these finances together. But let me ask you a question around. Was this in the middle of economic downturns? And because I know I'm pretty familiar with that area, but for this particular developer that this goal was this does this fall apart during 28, 29 as well? Well, the loan was made quite a bit earlier than that. So the expectation, I think, was that we were going to have housing well in advance of the recession. But obviously the recession has delayed things quite a bit, not just here, but for the affordable housing market in general. Yeah, I just you know, we're dealing with something on 2020, 300 well, ten that has been it's been on that property for actually we the city have money into that property. But you know well over eight years. And so I just I think it's important that the public understand that development does go through cycles. And there are some issues that we're seeing on varied levels around especially affordable housing, but development as well.
Speaker 4: So certainly. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other comments or questions on 927? All right. Scene none. That concludes all the bills that are called out. So we are ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered, published, and since we had no resolutions, will go directly to bills on final Councilwoman Shepard. Would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following bills be placed on final consideration and do pass in a block. 901902903904905906979089099 11 912 913 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 881 896, nine, ten, nine, 16, nine, 22, nine, 27.
|
Bill
|
Modifies the loan to Sable Ridge Development to: 1) extend its maturity date three years to 1-1-17; 2) provide additional security in the form of a deed of trust on a property located at 15255 E. 40th Ave.; and 3) secure a forward commitment to leave not less than $1 million in the 4203 N. Chambers site for its redevelopment as an affordable apartment community (GE04001). (SAFETY & WELL-BEING) Modifies the loan to Sable Ridge Development to: 1) extend its maturity date three years to 1-1-17; 2) provide additional security in the form of a deed of trust on a property located at 15255 E. 40th Ave.; and 3) secure a forward commitment to leave not less than $1 million in the 4203 N. Chambers site for its redevelopment as an affordable apartment community (GE04001). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-1-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-30-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11172014_14-0822
|
Speaker 4: The first public hearing will be on 822. Councilwoman Sheperd, will you please put Council Bill 822 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill 822 822 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 4: It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council bill 822 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Tim Watkins with Community Planning and Development Case Manager, Case Manager for Rezoning Application 2014 I number 52. This is for property located in West Central Denver Council District three along the northern northern boundary of the Westwood neighborhood at the intersection of Alameda and Irving would point out that it's just really less than a block away from Morrison Road, which is an important gateway into the Westwood neighborhood. The property is just over two acres. The applicant's goals are to create a transition of development that would transition from Alameda. The intensity of Alameda to the local condition of Nevada place additional building height for residential mixed use development. The current zoning is urban edge mixed use three story use overlay one and use overlay to. This current zoning allows for mixed uses, including residential office and retail on any level within the three stories use overlay. One is adult use use overlay, two is billboard. The requested zone district is er5 or urban edge residential mixed use up to five stories and retaining use overlay one. And I would point out the retaining use overlay one helps the city of Denver retain a freedom of speech, a First Amendment protected right within the city and county of Denver. Urban edge residential mixed use development provides for. Retail or residential or office uses on the ground level and residential or lodging uses on the upper storeys. The site today is predominantly vacant. There are some rental properties, some residential uses fronting Nevada place. Otherwise it is vacant property. And briefly describe the existing context and the surroundings. Just on the north side of Alameda, you see commercial use as well, commercial buildings, but a a variety of uses within those buildings, including retail. Even some church assembly uses and some industrial uses. And then over on the Irving Street, we see retail single-family and multifamily. Just abutting the west of the property is retail and residential. This is being a mixed use condition. And then south along Nevada place you have single family as well as church assembly and a school that's associated with the church. This is another view of the property looking west from Irving and Nevada, place in the foreground, you see multifamily to the left, you see the church assembly use and this is the subject property with the residential properties fronting Nevada Place. Beside is well-served by transit today, including RTD Route three along Alameda Avenue has 30 minute intervals as standard service with 15 minute peak intervals and Federal Boulevard is served by routes 30 and 30 limited, 36 limited with 15 minute standard intervals as well as a 30 minute during the the low, low hours . And just wanted to provide a regional view of transit that the site connects to regional light rail. Just two miles to the north is the Decatur Federal Light Rail Station. Two miles to the east is the Alameda Light Rail Station. So. It is well served regionally to and from the site, accessing a variety of transit options. Public process to present. Includes significant public outreach by the applicant to the neighborhood organizations listed above, and that has resulted in multiple letters of support. There was one letter of concern by a nearby resident, and there have been some questions raised about Denver's zoning code parking standards, and questions about what the intended management of potential apartments on the site might be. But I would point out that these two items are beyond the standard review criteria for rezoning. There's a planning board hearing on September 17th, board members recommended unanimous approval of the application. There were a number of supportive public comments during the hearing, both from private and public entities. There were some questions raised again about the parking standards and some safety concerns related to children walking along sidewalk conditions, which they question of being adequate today along Nevada place and what traffic impacts future development might create along Nevada place. The Neighborhood and Planning Committee reviewed this application on September 30th and posting and notice sign requirements were met and written notice for both public hearing and this hearing tonight onto the review criteria and consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages infill development near existing services and infrastructure and supports transportation or encourages development that would support transportation near shopping schools and jobs. Encourages quality infill development that's consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and also encourages high quality, mixed use development that would support diverse housing needs in public transportation. Blueprint Denver identifies Alameda Avenue as a pedestrian shopping corridor, and you see that hatch lines representing area of change along the corridor. Four properties fronting Alameda Avenue. Alameda Avenue is a commercial arterial. These are regionally significant streets that carry traffic as well as other modes of transportation, including pedestrians and transit, to access mixed use conditions and to connect various districts and particularly commercial districts throughout the city. Irving Street is an enhanced transit corridor or excuse me, Irving Street is a residential collector, and collectors are intended to connect neighborhoods to other neighborhoods or to commercial street arterial streets and Nevada Places Local Street The Westwood Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1986 and recommends mixed use development as part of a business district fronting Alameda. It recommends improving the linkage or transition between the Westwood neighborhood and Farnham neighborhoods to the north. It's a just providing services and products through this development, fronting an Alameda that would benefit surrounding residents and also suggest ample street frontage or excuse me, ample front and rear setbacks with landscaping. And you'll note in this photo that there is no on street parking. And so there's a fairly intensive street condition with traffic moving right next to the sidewalk. And so this could be the purpose of this recommendation is to create some more of a buffer between that street condition and future development. I would point out that the Plan West with plan recommends or references B-2 zoning, which allows for commercial and residential mixed uses and also allows for 1 to 1 floor to area ratio with no specified height limit. The rezoning request of the Zone District would result in uniform application of district regulations. It would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing the recommendations of these adopted plans. The justifying circumstance as a changed or changing conditions, including the need for housing in Westwood neighborhood to support existing and new businesses and public transit along Alameda. The other condition is the demolition of commercial structures on the site that took place about 15 years ago. And I just point to this 1995 aerial showing, commercial block buildings fronting Alameda. They were demolished by 2000 in this aerial image and still largely vacant site today. The final review criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district, purpose and intent. The urban edge residential mixed use zone districts are intended to improve the transition from commercial mixed use. Areas to lower skill residential areas. They allow for diverse uses and building forms that activate the public realm and create safe, walkable and pedestrian skilled neighborhoods. An Era five zoning would allow for limited commercial. And more flexible building standard that would allow for landscape buffering along busy streets such as Alameda Avenue. Upon finding that these review criteria have been met, CPD recommends approval of this application. And I would also mention that there are two representatives, if you care, to pose any questions to them about their rezoning interest.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Atkins. We have three speakers and I'll call all three. Out to the front pew Bob Golic, Arthur McDermott and Jason Hahn. And Mr. Golic, you can go ahead and take the podium and begin your remarks.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, members of Council, good evening. My name is Bob Golic and my address is 609 South Gaylord Street in Denver. Change conditions are what support this rezoning request. There's a revitalization going on throughout the entire Westwood neighborhood. We have new development and new infrastructure in Mawson Road, which is just two blocks west of the subject site. There's a new park called Quattro Viento, meaning four winds which recently opened at the corner of Alameda and Newton, which is two blocks away from the subject property. There's already a five story building at Alameda and Federal a little bit further to the west called Los Altos de Alameda. There's a desire for people to live near transit. Alameda is an enhanced transit quarter with RTD service, two light rail stations, two two separate light rail stations, as a matter of fact. And that'll help lessen the reliance on cars, people who work downtown. We always see people who work downtown in these areas need transit. They really need transit. They don't just desire they need transit to get to their jobs and to get back home in a safe, reliable manner. This will provide that access to several hundred new residents. It will be on Alameda if this is approved. I believe that we as a city are very fortunate to have a two acre parcel that's basically an infill site and that we can it's an opportunity to redevelop on Alameda Avenue with the infrastructure already in place. This zoning request is already supported by Blueprint Denver. It's an area of change for pedestrian shopping corridor. The shopping quarters, as defined in Blueprint Denver, are for high residential density. We're providing medium to high residential density. Housing always drives retail, and that will be the same with this on Alameda. The more residential units, the more people we can put on the street, the better all the commercial businesses will do along. Alameda The Westwood Plan recommends mixed use development along Alameda quarter to improve the transition between the neighborhoods, which is what we are providing. The proposed air zone district is the correct zoned district. It's a good solution for the site. It limits development above the first floor to only residential development with ground floor commercial along with additional residential units. This provides a good transition to the existing neighborhood south of us and buffers them from the Alameda corridor. In some instances, this could be considered a down zoning curve. We're coming from a commercial zone district. We've had an extensive outreach program for this rezoning, and Mr. McDermott will speak to that afterwards. Planning and a result in the numerous letters of support, by the way, that are part of the Application Planning Board and CPD have given their support, planning board, unanimous support. I urge you to do the same, and we will answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 4: Thank. Thank you, Mr. Garlic. Arthur McDermott.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Arthur McDermott. I live at 2290 South Adams Street in Denver. And it's very nice to be here this evening for this hearing. My wife and I own a small company that does big things. We develop apartments. We develop market rate apartments, and we develop affordable apartments. In fact, we've developed over 3000 affordable apartments. We've got really good, strong partners. Transamerica Insurance, for example, is one of our partners. J.P. Morgan Chase is another one of our partners, the Royal Bank of Canada. RBC Capital Markets, I just mentioned is one of our partners. We have Raymond James is one of our partner, so we have blue chip partners. We are recognized for the quality work that we do. A few months ago, Dora came to me and asked if I could find a site in the Westwood area. They came to me because we had had a very successful project with them called Dahlia Square, Senior Partner Apartments up in the Dallas Square area where Councilman Chavez's district is. We went out and searched for a spot and we found the two acres that is before you this evening. We need to go to the higher zoning, the more stories to make the project feasible. We have to have 25 more units, which would bring us to a total of 98 units to really add for the economic feasible of the property. Building affordable housing is tough work and many, many years ago Mayor Wellington Webb told me, You just don't realize how tough it is to build affordable housing, but we've solved that problem and we ask for your support this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. McDermott. Jason, hon.
Speaker 6: Hello. Good evening.
Speaker 3: My name is Jason Hunt.
Speaker 6: I come from three 420 West Alameda Avenue.
Speaker 3: I'm from the Frank Record Store. I'm the retailer.
Speaker 6: You know, I just next to that empty space to ground. So I need to develop. So, you know, I love to, you know. To accept or to join you. Change, whatever. So. You know, it's going to be more population for us for me and you know all the Taylor needs to more business so and. Uh. No more population means. You know, but great developing. I believe it. So. Well, this I I'm. You know I'm speaking. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Han. That concludes our speakers. Is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of council? All right. Seen there in question. The public hearing on 822 is closed now, but. Oh, my God. I apologize, Councilman Lyman.
Speaker 5: Yes? I was wondering if somebody could please explain to me that this overlay allowing adult businesses in why that's included in this.
Speaker 6: So the use overlay won the business. Is a means that Denver can provide for the First Amendment freedom of speech, right? That due to Supreme Court case law, it's incumbent upon every local government to provide for this. And so Denver's policy is to. Not create new but to retain existing, which provides options and flexibility in the future.
Speaker 5: So is there an existing?
Speaker 6: There was existing you will one adult use and existing your to billboard. The billboard is expires with this rezoning but you will one is retained.
Speaker 5: And have you heard from the community about this use being retained?
Speaker 6: I have. And when I provide this explanation, it seems to satisfy their inquiry.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. My apologies for that. Now moving on to comments from members of Council Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. You know this the when rezoning this this area, it looks a little tricky. You know, before it was B2 and B2 was kind of a broad brush of a zone district for the area, really allowed everything. And on on this site, I think for those of you who have ever been to this area, used to be the airplane bar and you just where the store the field goal after the 1978 think 77 championship game field goal post ended up at this bar. And so that's why it's a very popular place. Long gone is the bar. You know this you know, the structure there were pretty blighted. So they were leveled. It's been empty and vacant for at least ten or 12 years, I think I think even more I think probably close to 15. You know, there have been houses behind this. We've looked at other uses, including commercial. Part of the problem with this particular area is that Alameda is a is a seat on. Corridor and any inlet or any cut through or anything like that has to go through cedar. They won't allow it. They just won't allow that turn in from Alameda because it's considered a state state highway. So it's always been tricky. This particular use, however, is meeting a big need in our city. It fits the area. I think, you know, on numerous occasions I think I've seen Mr. McDermott and the folks with the development come to the community. Community met extensively with the with the organization, I think with West Virginia, those of us with residents. Barnum, the whole gamut. Boku West, which is down the street and they're right. This is an area that is developing pretty quickly. A lot of blanks being turned around. And there's the problem in this part of town is, you know, there are folks who want to create businesses. There are folks who could pay rent. There are folks who would buy. There just is not very many structures, is not the infrastructure is not there. The the bones, the brick and mortar is not there. And it's very expensive for folks to build. So that's basically the challenge in this area. We've looked at it as a grocery store. We looked at it for different we looked at at a soccer field, one at one point. It's kind of a tricky corridor because that intersection is still not modernized, and that's going to be changing through public works later on this year. However, this particular zone district, I think, helps address this need and kind of ushers it in as opposed to just amx3, which would only allow three stories. The other thing I think that you didn't mention, which was and of course, we looked at this because the other story that's needed is due to the the east, the southeast corner, which creates a it's the ground kind of slope. So you can need that that extra floor, which would create, I think, the 4 to 5 building on that side just so that this building could fit on this site. And it creates that that foundation for it. But it also makes sure that that structure is safe. That's the reason why we're going there. We're looking at this tonight and we're going for this actual zone district as opposed to just leaving it at some other mixed use zone district. So in short, this is a you know, what seems to be a very good use. I think this is addressing a huge need for the neighborhood, but also for our city. And I think the fact that we don't have very many folks here, if any, opposed to it, speaks a lot to the neighborhood. So I don't want to prolong the obvious. And, you know, I'm in support of this. I think this is a good use name. What I said my colleagues also support.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Tony. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, any other comments from members of council? So, you know, Mr. Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Brooks, I.
Speaker 4: Brown I thought I can teach. Damon. Lopez. Ontario. I never. Hi, Shepherd. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Mr. Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. Ten I0 nays tonight. 088 22 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. All right. The next public hearing is on Council Bill 841. Councilwoman Sheppard, would you please put a41 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 3301-3411 West Nevada Place from Urban Edge, Mixed Use, 3 stories, Use Overlay allowing adult businesses and billboards (E-MX-3 UO-1, UO-2) to Urban Edge, Residential Mixed Use, 5 stories, Use Overlay allowing adult businesses (E-RX-5 UO-1) in Council District 3. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Rezones property at 3301-3411 West Nevada Place from Urban Edge, Mixed Use, 3 stories, Use Overlay allowing adult businesses and billboards (E-MX-3 UO-1, UO-2) to Urban Edge, Residential Mixed Use, 5 stories, Use Overlay allowing adult businesses (E-RX-5 UO-1) in Council District 3. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-15-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10272014_14-0765
|
Speaker 9: These include concerns about traffic and parking in the neighborhood, about the need for better transit, serving Cherry Creek. And we did want to note that in addition to the zoning that we've been working on in the past year and a half, there have been a lot of efforts underway to address a lot of the other implementation recommendations in the plan. Many of those by partners that are in the private sector, including groups such as the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District, the Cherry Creek Area Business Alliance, who have formed a parking task force to address some of the parking concerns in the area. We've also been working with other public partners like RTD, who conducted a study to look at improving transit on Speer and First Avenue. And some of the recommendations from that study are already being implemented this year, including more frequent bus service on that corridor. So we did just want to note that this the zoning is one piece of a much larger puzzle to realizing the vision in Cherry Creek. There were eight specific goals to guide our zoning effort in the Cherry Creek area plan. I will not read all of these to you, but I'll throw them up on the slide here for everyone to see on the screen. They include goals about retaining and enhancing the character of Cherry Creek, encouraging smaller lots to remain and redevelop and not reassembled into larger development sites wherever possible. Maintaining high transitions, especially between second and Third Avenue and to the adjacent neighborhoods that are about this district and really trying to promote that vibrant, pedestrian friendly atmosphere that Cherry Creek North is so well-known for. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kyle.
Speaker 12: So with a clear plan direction to change the zoning in Cherry Creek. Several months after his adoption, we set forth on the process to do that and the process started just over 18 months ago. It was a three phase process that began in the summer or was finished in the summer of 2013 with the first phase. In the first phase, both the Cherry Creek Steering Committee and this technical task force that Sarah mentioned agreed to the process and use that first phase to identify how they would work together, what sort of rules they would have regarding communications, ground rules in the meetings, and really what would be on the menu to solve through the zoning process. Phase two followed through the rest of the summer of 2013, fall of 2013, and wrapped up in the spring of 2014 with the Technical Task Force actually doing the hard work of drafting the zoning after they had a complete draft. They put that draft out for public review and adoption, which is the third phase of the zoning process, which concludes here tonight and took place throughout the summer and is wrapping up here in the fall where the public and stakeholders provided input on that draft. The Technical Task Force. We reviewed the draft and then it went through the public approval process as all of our rezonings do. Wrapping up here tonight with City Council at the end of the first phase, agreeing to the process phase, the Cherry Creek Steering Committee and the Zoning Technical Task Force agreed to a framework document that set forth sort of the scope for the whole zoning project. So it identified the guiding documents, the rules for how folks would work together. It cemented in writing that the group's commitment to having a transparent, inclusive and accountable process and really set the roadmap for how they would all work together during the drafting phases and ultimately through the adoption phase. The process was designed from the beginning to be a collaborative process where everyone was listening to the voices of those who lived and worked in Cherry Creek. It was facilitated by a third party facilitator who we hired to set to set the ground rules, to work together with the task force and with the steering committee , and to be a neutral third party, to draw out all the voices and help them achieve consensus. And that third party facilitator, Mike Hughes, is here tonight and can address the body later. I should note that the staff took the the role here of of taking a back seat and serving as technical experts. This is not staff's code. This is the code of the technical task force, as reviewed and by the public and as changed by them and is facilitated by the third party facilitator. We attended all meetings and provided the technical expertize for the process. And then the technical task force was a 16 member task force of diverse stakeholders representing a wide variety of community groups, professionals, folks who were who represented neighborhood organizations, who represented business organizations, architects, landscape architects, planners, many of them wearing multiple hats, the majority of whom were residents in the district or in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the district. And these are the folks who who set forth to draft the code throughout phase two, multiple meetings that were all open to the public in which they took comment from the public in every meeting. Each of these meetings was at least 3 hours, sometimes 4 hours long in the evenings, really diving into the technical details of the zoning code. During that process, they used four guiding documents to to guide their work, the Cherry Creek Area Plan, as Sarah mentioned, and its two appendices. They also look to certain aspects of the current zoning, recognizing that there were still some qualities worth keeping in the current zoning. That design sentencing guidelines for Cherry Creek North, which were updated in 2012, continue to be relevant and and guide and shape the kind of development that happens in Cherry Creek North. So they looked at how the new zoning would interact with those design standards and guidelines. And then finally the Denver zoning code adopted in 2010, they agreed from the beginning to use the context based and form based approach of the Denver zoning code in drafting the new zoning. Once they had a draft, it went through an extensive public review process throughout the month of June this year. The Cherry Creek Steering Committee weighed in and had presentations on the Technical Task Force draft. We invited all of the registered neighborhood organizations to review the draft, and Sarah and I went out and presented to many of them the red line draft and was posted on on the city's website and available for public comment as well as at the local Denver Public Library branch. It was distributed by email to all those who signed up. At the very beginning of the process. We sent postcards to every property owner in the statistical neighborhood and invited them to sign up on the email list. So folks have been getting emails throughout the process. We sent postcards to all of the property owners who are actually affected by the zoning. We had a public meeting in an open house with over 50 people attending. Are there in the district again at the library branch. We held office hours to meet with folks. One on. One and answer any questions you need to maybe their property or some curiosity they had about the draft code. And then we also presented at the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee at following that review. And the task force reviewed the draft and put and put forth their final draft for the public adoption process. It was forwarded to the planning board. They had a public hearing on September 3rd and recommended approval of both the text amendment and the MAP Amendment unanimously. The draft was forward to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee of City Council and moved out on September 17th. In your packets, there are two letters of support from two of the Rochester neighborhood organizations the Capitol Hill, United Neighbors and Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association. I'll also note that for both the text amendment and the map amendment, written notification of the hearings has been provided in advance in accordance with the code and for purposes of the MAP Amendment. We have posted signs throughout the Cherry Creek North District. So I'll turn it back to Sarah to go through the substance.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Kyle. So one of the primary goals of the new zoning is to implement the building height recommendations from the Cherry Creek Area Plan. This is a map from that plan showing the variety of building heights in the area, which range anywhere from 3 to 12 stories for a recommended height. The zoning does have a menu of zoned districts, as is common in our Denver zoning code, where you have options depending on a maximum building height. So can three, CCN, four, CCN, five, etc. as a way to implement these height recommendations. That does include a height transition that was very important in the plan as well as its appendix. The Urban Form Study, also known as the White Paper. The task force chose to follow the recommendations specifically from the Urban Inform study when it came to how to step down in height from third from Second Avenue to Third Avenue . So this image is showing you have Second Avenue on the right where building heights can reach up to eight storeys. And as you move north towards Third Avenue, you step down to a five story zone district with additional height limits that I'll discuss in a minute based on a bulk plane along Third Avenue. This is the proposed zoning map. The the stripes of color you see there, again, represent the height transitions that were recommended in the plan and how they're being implemented here. There are also some important transitions that are required where the zoning abuts adjacent residential neighborhoods or protected districts and the zoning code. So all of the protected district setbacks and upper storey setbacks that are required for most of our mixed use commercial zone districts do apply here. So that does include a ten foot minimum setback at the ground story and then upper story setbacks that are diagramed here, including a 40 foot setback once you're above 51 feet in height and a 25 foot setback when you're about 27 feet in height. As I mentioned a moment ago, there's additional sculpting and reduction in building height along the south side of Third Avenue. This is rooted in a planned goal to preserve the pedestrian oriented character of Third Avenue, which has traditionally been it's recognized again in the plan as an area that attracts kind of smaller scale, more voce grouped retailers, and really has that pedestrian oriented character. That is what drove the task force to recommend the Third Avenue Solar accessible clean, which as demonstrated in this image here, the build primary building that you see in the center, in left of the image is on the south side of Third Avenue. And this is showing kind of the darkest day at the darkest moment of the year, which is 12 p.m. on December 21st. The shadow that this building casts does not extend onto the sidewalk on the north side of Third Avenue, which is over here in any way. So the angle of the bulk plane was specifically designed so that shadows do not impact the north side of the streets. And that is what any future buildings developed under the zoning would have to follow. Another major component of the zoning is the requirement for an upper storey mass reduction. This is rooted in a lot of the plan goals about access to sunlight throughout the district, as well as the desire to allow for new development and higher density in the area, but making sure that it's appropriately scaled and not too bulky. So what this requirement is, is one chair above the second story of the building. You can essentially only use 75% of your zoned lot for your building footprint. So it reduces the amount of the building by 25%. One chair above the second story. And that does allow for flexibility in architecture. The example of showing here's where that that mass production is coming out actually allows for the building to curve because it's not a set setback, for example, from the street. Another important topic the task force discussed a lot relates to the form and character of buildings as you experience them along the streets. There was a clear consensus on retaining the five foot setbacks that are required along all streets in the current zoning that will remain in the proposed zoning. There's also a lot of requirements for transparency and pedestrian entrances along the ground floor of buildings to encourage that vibrant pedestrian atmosphere that Cherry Creek North is known for. And these requirements build upon the design standards and guidelines that Kyle mentioned earlier were just guiding document for the technical task force. I would note the task force did propose a few minor redlines to the design standards and guidelines to compliment the zoning, and those were presented and approved as part of the Planning Board, public hearings , planning board as part of the approval for those. So they all work together as a great package to ensure quality design in terms of uses. Another big component of our zoning, in large part the mix of uses, remains very similar to what the current zoning allows as a way to promote a very vibrant, mixed use district. There were some changes made by recommendation of the task force and these mostly focused on the desire to have the most active pedestrian environment as possible. So one of those changes is that surface parking lots are no longer allowed as a primary use. They can only be accessory use. So you have to have another use on the site. Another change is having more robust requirements for active ground floor uses where you have parking garages. Another change related to land use in the district is the allowance for lodging. In the current season, zoning only bed and breakfasts are allowed, and under the proposed zoning, all lodging uses will be permitted. And I'm going to turn it over to Kyle.
Speaker 12: Parking was a very important topic to the task force and to members of the public throughout the process. There were many conversations on various aspects of parking, many of which aren't addressed through zoning. And as Sarah mentioned, in many ways, this process was a springboard for other organizations to begin talking about parts of parking that aren't addressed through zoning, like wayfinding and pricing and and how to manage the on street supply. But zoning deals with the off street minimum parking requirements for private development, and the task force did agree to new ratios minimum of three parking ratios, which are shown in the red box on this table. They are higher than our typical urban center. And this is appropriate because Cherry Creek is a unique urban center in that it draws from the entire region and beyond, even out of state. And so there is justification for higher parking ratios than in urban and other urban centers. But I will note that most of the uses are substantially reduced from the current rates, which are the highest in the city. And so the technical task force landed on these rates as a compromise. Looking at development feasibility, some of the task force members did their own studies in terms of what rates would be appropriate, in terms of balancing the need for appropriate levels of parking and development, feasibility and of course, looking to the guiding documents we talked about earlier. So all in all, they did recommend some changes as shown on the slide. Another important topic to many of the task force members, and that was in the plan recommendations that Sarah mentioned earlier was to try to preserve small lots. One of the unique characteristics of Cherry Creek North remains that there are still several a few dozen small zone lots that remain, even though they're a small portion of the total land area. It's very important to keep this character of the small lot experienced. So the technical task force looked at ways to provide incentives for those lots to be able to to reinvest in what can be a difficult situation on a small lot and and and help them from from having to aggregate with their neighbors into larger lots. So the task force identifies three things to do in the new zoning. First, small lots do not have to do the upper story mass reduction that Sarah mentioned earlier. There's a parking reduction in the code. There has been a series of parking reductions in the code for small lots for many years in Cherry Creek North. And and the new zoning includes a parking reduction for small lots. And then they may also include encroach into the Third Avenue bulk plan that Sarah mentioned earlier. In some situations, another topic that was important to the task force members was to create an incentive for the kind of unique, privately held open spaces that are found in Cherry Creek North that provide a kind of interesting pedestrian experience. So the task force set forth to provide an incentive where for property owners that provide at their option private open space that those properties do not have to provide the upper storey mass reduction that Sarah mentioned earlier if they meet the rules defined in the new Denver zoning code and I'll make that mention that these private open spaces do have to comply with the design standards and guidelines to ensure that they're quality spaces. Now, that's the general rule. Small lots on the south side of third have a different kind of open space incentive because they already are excluded from the upper storey mass reduction that I mentioned earlier. They can encroach into the bulk plain on the south side of third in exchange for providing that private open space. So they get a little bit more height if they if they agree voluntarily to provide private open space on their properties. So that wraps up the content. The major content themes of the zoning code. Really quickly, I'll go through the review criteria. There are three review criteria in the zoning code for a text amendment. First is that they be consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. Sarah did a good job earlier explaining how this zoning is intended to implement those plans, so I won't repeat that. There is also additional information in your staff reports about how the new zoning will further the public health, safety and general welfare through the implementation of the adopted plans. And each zone district will have regulations that are uniform. There are also three review criteria for a legislative map amendment, which is what this is, and they're essentially the same three criteria. First, that the MAP amendment be consistent with adopted plans. Second, that regulations be uniform throughout the districts. And then, third, that they further the public health, safety and welfare. And again, as we further detailed in our staff report, we find that the both the text and the map amendment are consistent with the codes review criteria. And therefore, having reviewed both the text and the MAP amendment against the review criteria, we recommend approval of both.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you both. We have eight speakers for 764, 765. I'll call up the first five K Pride, Michael Hughes, David Steele, Bob Flynn and William DeMaio and Mr. Pride, you can go ahead and get started.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Kay Pride. I live at 335 Cook Street in Cherry Creek North in Denver. And I appreciate the council hearing us tonight. You all know how important Cherry Creek North is to the economy and vitality of the city. It's a real draw for people, as Kyle pointed out from all across the region. So if we're going to increase density and height and make this more like downtown than it has been, it will be a major activity center that needs public transit to connect it to the larger transit grid. There was a mention of more frequent bus service. I hope we can think creatively beyond that. For instance, I would like to have a van or a small bus that would leave from the front of Neiman Marcus, go to the Golden Triangle and the cultural complex, go on to the DCP and on to Union Station. That would solve a lot of driving for a lot of people. I think it would also bring the downtown visitors out to Cherry Creek, which would also be very helpful. There's also something within Cherry Creek that would be helpful, and that is something like a mall shuttle maybe down second and up third or vice versa, so that people didn't have to move their cars every time they wanted to make another stop in Cherry Creek, because it's it's a long, narrow artery there. And we we know that not everybody can walk that far. So I would urge you, as members of the city council, to use your leadership skills to support better transit, connecting Cherry Creek to the rest of the metro area. And I think there would be a big payoff.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Michael Hughes.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Thank you. Michael Hughes. I live at 40 South Miller Street in Hilltop, and I was the third party facilitator that you heard about. I just want to say two things. As you prepare to cast your vote, either for or against these texts and map changes. First, I just want to commend the work of the technical task force. They did an extraordinary job, really wrestling with the hard issues and balancing the interests of adjacent neighborhoods and business owners and landowners and trying to find something that fully implemented the Cherry Creek Area plan. And they did as good a job in consensus building as I've ever seen. Second, I want to commend the staff effort that was connected to this. They listened very carefully to the conversation among the task force members and really did an extraordinary job in presenting back to the task force the physical representations in the maps and the text changes that fully implemented the discussion of the task force. So I hope that you'll support this really extraordinary level of effort from both the task force and the staff.
Speaker 4: Thank you, David Steel.
Speaker 8: My name is David Steele. I live at 300 Lafayette Street in Denver. I'm here on behalf of the Cherry Creek Area Business Alliance and the vice chairman of that organization. And we've full and wholeheartedly support the adoption of these bills. Seven, 647, six, five, I believe. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Bob Flynn.
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you. I'm Bob Flynn and I live in Englewood, Colorado, but I'm here in my capacity this evening as board chair of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District. The Business Improvement District Board supports this new zoning for the following reasons. Zoning is a matter of citywide interest and vibrant and regionally competitive. Cherry Creek North is absolutely vital to the economic health of this city. Modernizing the Cherry Creek, zoning the Cherry Creek North zoning is a necessary step to fully implement the Cherry Creek Area plan that was adopted by this body in July of 2012. The new zoning is consistent with the city's new form based zoning, and it customizes it to the unique character of Cherry Creek North. And lastly, the zoning with the Cherry Creek North Design Guidelines and the oversight of the Cherry Creek North Design Advisory Board will ensure high quality infill development for years to come. City Council members the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District Board urges you to pass these zoning measures. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. William DiMeo. And as he comes up, I want to call up the final speakers, Wayne New Robert Vogel and Brooks Waldman. Go right ahead.
Speaker 8: Thanks. My name is Bill DiMeo. I live as seventh and cook, and I'm here on behalf of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. We have discussed the Cherry Creek zoning in several meetings and after a presentation by the Community Planning and Development Capital Neighborhoods, supports the new zoning in Cherry Creek. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. When you.
Speaker 8: I knew. I live at 443 Adams Street, the A Cherry Creek North. I'm a member of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association, a member of the Cherry Creek Steering Committee, co-chair of the four year planning process and a member of the Tactical Task Force. So I just want to to commend Carl, our senior planning staff, for a wonderful collaborative process that we had with the Tactical Task Force. It was a very collaborative. We they ensured and encouraged good participation and input from all the tactical task force members and also from the general public, people who who attended developers or or residents who attended our tactical task force meeting, making sure they had the opportunity to input into the deliberations. You also the the the end product was a very strong collaboration of all of the parties that were involved. It was it was very encouraging to see the agreement and the consensus that was reached. And we're very pleased with the outcome of the process. One of the things that was really strong in the process was the use of analytics, use of data. It helped improve the quality of our decisions, but also it helped explanation to explain to residents the decisions that were made, eliminating a lot of anxiety and fear. It really improve the quality of the process as we move forward. And I hope that you will approve the zoning requirements tonight. I hope that we'll be able to work together closely with the Business Improvement District Planning, Public Works and all the neighborhoods to help address the ramifications of the development. We're going to have some traffic and parking issues we need to address. We just need to manage that and work together to do that. Also very important, too, is we've worked so hard nine months to develop these zoning requirements and I can't imagine any kind of justification to have a variance to these requirements coming up in the near future. I think all the property owners had the opportunity to opt in to the new zoning and they made a decision about that. So I feel that we we have a very strong zoning requirements that I feel that we should be able to use the zoning requirements for the next couple of years. Thank you for listening to and I hope you'll approve the zoning today.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Robert Vogel.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, members of the council. My name is Robert Vogel. I'm the president of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association. Thank you for hearing what we have to say from the neighborhood. On behalf of the board of CC and A, I'd like to support the changes that are proposed here. Our board has voted on that. Our family of our members have taken part in the process. I would like to thank the members of the Technical Task Force for their hard work in reaching a very collaborative agreement. I will stop at this point praising what has gone on, because I think that there are several reservations that I have about this. My neighbor Kay on Cook Street and others have said that this is a good start. Cherry Creek North is a robust neighborhood. It is also a fragile neighborhood. If you want to know how fragile it is, just go down there at the end of our stormwater management excavation project and see the impact that difficulties in traffic and parking and transportation have had on the community. If the Council does not recognize that as much progress as we've made in rezoning, if it is not continued in parking and traffic and transportation, we're going to have the same difficulties at the end of the renovation of Cherry Creek. And so I implore the Council to think beyond the zoning, to think about the difficulties that density and height will bring. You have to bring people into the neighborhood if you want to maintain it as a robust point of interest within Denver and within Colorado. So I want you to think about the next steps, because this is only a good start. This is not the end. It's a good start. And I implore you to vote about the new zoning through. But think about what we still have to do, which is to provide transportation, to collaborate with the bid, to provide parking as Boulder does much better than Denver does. To think about transportation for those who will not have cars in the future. I strongly support the transportation in the form of walking and biking, and all of this needs to be done collaboratively with the neighborhood to make and keep Cherry Creek, the robust neighborhood that we know it to be . So thank you for your efforts and for listening.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Brooks Waldman.
Speaker 8: Brooks Wallman, 66. South Garfield Street. Past President Cherry Creek East. Co-Chair of the Cherry Creek Steering Committee. A member of the task force. I'd like to see some of the things that Dr. Bob Vogel said, because I think moving forward is really very important. We worked really hard to strike a balance between business and residents. At this point in time, I think we're going to have nearly 1500 new units coming forward in Cherry Creek. It's going to put a lot of strain on our infrastructure. We spent two and a half years.
Speaker 1: On a plan. We spent 18.
Speaker 8: Months on a rezoning. We now have the tools we now need to implement that plan. And if any of you have been through Cherry Creek recently with all the construction, you can feel the electricity in the air. This zoning is already working. We've got the density and it's a change in scale of Cherry Creek that we've never seen before. So we're going to need support from the city for the infrastructure for this. The burden that's put on the new residents to be able to cross those streets. Connectivity. Connecting. Open spaces. All those things that make it a livable environment for the future. Appreciating this change in scale.
Speaker 1: And I don't think any of.
Speaker 8: Us speaking for myself, I didn't realize what a massive change this really is. Cherry Creek will not be the same Cherry Creek that those of us who grew up in this area and our children grew up in. It's going to be different. So we really have to make it a livable place and an exciting place and keep it vibrant and make it thrive. So we're going to need your help. We're probably going to be back. Thanks so much. Thank you.
Speaker 4: That concludes our speakers is now time for questions from members of Council on 764 765. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask Caio if you can come to the microphone, please. And I was trying to pull up the PowerPoint, not finding it so easily. Would you mind pulling up the slide that had the parking information? Let's see if I can.
Speaker 6: Get back to it.
Speaker 5: Okay. So in the highlighted section that's in red is that two for every thousand square feet. Okay. So on the restaurant or any of the commercial. So that's two and a half spaces for 3000 square feet. How how does that differ from other areas of the city?
Speaker 12: Sure. So regarding the restaurant minimum parking ratio, you'll see the 2.5 per thousand is the same as the current zoning and it's also the same as the urban center zoning throughout the rest of the city. So that particular ratio is not changed as compared to those.
Speaker 5: Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
Speaker 4: That's why I'm an Ortega councilwoman each.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if I could ask Mr. Vogel a question. Do you mind? I was really intrigued. Well, it's here. Up here. Mr. Vogel, I was really intrigued by your comparison to Boulder, and I was curious if you could share what you think they're doing better that we maybe should be learning from. I just. You really picked me.
Speaker 8: My daughter and three wonderful grandkids live in Boulder, so I'm up there fairly often. I think Boulder does a better job in constructing park parking structures that allow for affordable parking in the downtown area. And despite the fact that Boulder is what we know it to be very much pro biking and and pedestrians and all the things that are evolving in our society. They still realize that you have to be able to park. And I think that if we don't solve the parking problem in Cherry Creek, we will lose its vitality. And I know that there are reasons why the Business Improvement District has a vested interest in being able to park. But the sad story is that if we don't park adequately there, we spill into the neighborhoods and we lose the wonderful residential slash business collaboration that we have now. So I go to Boulder often. I am able to park cheaply and and easily downtown, something that I can't do in Cherry Creek. And our residents of Cherry Creek have the same feeling. There is more availability in the parking, in the high rise parking. There's reluctance to use it. But I think that if the city becomes involved in partnership with the business district, we're going to get the best of both worlds.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Canete. Catwoman Fat.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. First for one of our staff members. I need to have you use your calculator. Tell me how much reduction parking we are approving if we approve this from current zoning.
Speaker 12: Well, let me take a shot at that. So this slide that's still on the screen shows the only rates that are changing. So every other use that's in the code isn't changing. So there are a lot of other uses. We're just kind of highlighting the main ones that people talked about the most and that are kind of critical and are typically the ones that are developed most in Cherry Creek. So there's the office, the retail and the residential I mentioned earlier the restaurant isn't changing, so the office is going down from three and a third parking spaces per thousand square feet today down to two per thousand square feet. The retail goes from 3.33 per thousand today down to 2.5 per 1000 square feet. And then the residential is cut in half as an incentive really to get out to remove one of the barriers to providing housing in the district. It's cut in half from two per unit to one per unit.
Speaker 0: I mean, so percentage wise, when you take a look at the total picture, how much less parking are we requiring? Or is that are you can you even tell?
Speaker 12: Yeah, it's a good question, but it's not possible for staff to say because it all depends on what uses ultimately get developed and what folks ultimately decide to build there. If they build more residential will have a different impact than if they build more office or more retail.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 9: Sorry. I just gave one point that the the shared parking and other tools that are in our code apply, too, which complicates that. So, for example, one of the things the task force talked about that they really want to see continue to happen in Cherry Creek is renters recognizing that sometimes you have complimentary land users that can share parking. So there's that's a tool that's already allowed in the code and will continue to be allowed. So makes it challenging when you think about all those different factors to calculate exact percentage.
Speaker 0: If I could ask one other question along that same line with now saying that there will be no parking lots per say. I gather the idea is to build down or are you thinking they will use up parking? Or what is your vision of of this lesser parking requirement which deeply concerns me?
Speaker 9: I think we've certainly modeled the options and talked with the task force about both options for going below grade and or above grade. The because of water table issues and the cost of going below grade, we assume no more than two stories below grade in the modeling we were doing for all of the proposed zoning. So for a lot of larger developments, that did translate to some parking above grade, which is one of the reasons why there's very strong design standards for parking garages and the design standards and guidelines.
Speaker 0: I can't think.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Potts. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, funny, but parking's on my list too, for questions. And I do want to address you can build parking at grade, but you have to wrap it with retail. So for instance, along Second Avenue, just east of film or Plaza where there's a new I'm trying to think, is that where the new Hallmark store is? And there's a restaurant there that is actually in front of a parking garage that is at grade level and then goes up. Okay. So my question on the parking and this is always dangerous when you don't know the exact answer to ask a question. But David Steel, since you have been developing office and residential, you're currently developing that. Could you talk about what the market is for office parking and for residential parking? Because I know, boy, before we even started this, we had we had lots of discussions on parking.
Speaker 8: Well, I think the the simple answer is, you know, there's code requirements and then there's market requirements and they're not necessarily in alignment with each other. But as far as Shore Creek North is concerned, at this point in time, a ratio of 2 to 1 is going to satisfy both of those requirements. So that's what we're providing. And that's not to say that as a developer, you can't provide more. I guess you can always provide more if you want. They're very expensive to build and really, depending on the size of your development, stuff like that, it gets very expensive going down. So I would assume that going forward, some of the people will like to try to go up a little bit, but then there's a ceiling on that as well too, in terms of height. And so in terms of the the residential, the proposed one per unit at this point in time, that seems to be okay. We are actually providing a little bit more than that for some of the residents because I think there's a husband and wife there living over there. Chances are that they probably have more than one car. We get back to Kay's point, and that is that we are desperately trying to figure out ways to have better transportation access , if you will, to the Cherry Creek north and provide, you know, connectivity, if you will, to into downtown and particularly down the Denver Union Station area. So all that plays together. But so there's no you know, that's what we're doing. And it seems to be working. And I got to tell you that so far it's been successful.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. And then my second question on parking, I've been talking to some of my colleagues about the dilemma that all over the city on 60 to 50 square foot lots, no parking, I don't mean all over the city in commercial mixed use zones, of which Cherry Creek North is one. We already have no parking requirements on 60 to 50 lots. But when Sarah talked about a small lot parking reduction in order to and we very much did want to incentivize that. Could you talk, Sarah? One in Cherry Creek North Zoning, we define a small lot slightly differently. It's a little bit larger. And what that reduction is for the small lot, I think it's the same as in the current Cherry Creek North zoning.
Speaker 9: Sure. So the the definition of a smaller and Cherry Creek North is slightly larger. It's 9375 square feet. That was based on testing that we did with the technical task force, looking at actual lot sizes in Cherry Creek and putting development program on those lots to see what was feasible based on the zoning requirements. So the 60 to 50 small exemption that's citywide assumes a 50 foot wide lot with by the typical depth of 125 feet. But we found through the modeling that we did and that the testing that the Cherry Creek zoning was very difficult to accomplish on even a lot. That was 75 feet wide. And the task force felt that that was still qualified as a small enough parcel that they would want to incentivize development on those parcels, not see them be assembled. So therefore, the the incentives you see for small lots apply for those lots, which is where the 93, 75 comes from, 75 foot wide lot. And then the reduction that's available to those lots is a 67% or two thirds, which is indeed based on what's in the current zoning. The current zoning is a little more complicated. It actually has four tiers of parking reductions depending on your lot size. So it starts with lots that are 6200 square feet and then moves up in different tiers and depending on what tier and you get a certain reduction with the task force we worked on trying to simplify that, make it a little clearer and under just easier to understand and kind of went with for when you were in the range of 9375 square feet in the current code, it would be a 67% reduction. So we kept that same amount.
Speaker 10: So to summarize between 93, 75 square feet, in 6250, you get a 67% reduction. And after that no parking is below 6250, no parking is required. But the task force did discuss whether that was the ultimate and decided to wait for a citywide sort of approach.
Speaker 9: That's correct, because the exemption, the 6250 cutoff only exists due to the city wide requirement in Article ten. It's not tied to the zoning.
Speaker 10: Okay. And if folks can bear with me, Wayne knew I was just going to give you an opportunity because you did a lot of the modeling on the parking in the Cherry Creek North neighborhood, actually did a parking study. And I want to know if you wanted to add anything.
Speaker 8: Part of the data analysis that we did. We did a lot, took all the parking ratios and worked with Karl and Sarah, and we looked at all different sized of all the way up to a half a block, down to 60 to 50. And I just want to say, we the analysis that we did, we did like 41 different case studies. And they really conformed to what Sarah Sarah said, the 6250 lot you couldn't park. There's no question about that. As you get up to the 93, 75, you could park it and as you got it to the larger light , what any problem especially wasn't a problem if you go to one floor of parking above grade. So it added parking above grade, which we now really favor, but it does work for adequate parking. So we we think that these parking ratios will will suffice for Cherry Creek. And also other developers like David Steele are building more than one residential space per per unit. So I think that's going to work out in the future. So I hope that we work together and will again. The main thing is, like Bob Vogel said, because deal with the traffic and the congestion that we come up and I think we can do this successfully.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I'm good.
Speaker 4: Thank you, councilwoman. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 8: Thank you much. President Wayne, back to the podium, please. I have a question for you. I hope I misheard you. When you said that this plan was good for a couple more years, surely that's a typo? No. You don't spend two and a half years creating a plan and have it last for two years. We've spent a lot of time and money and effort in Cherry Creek, as you know. So. Come on. I'm sorry. I hope I heard misheard that I wasn't clear on that. The plan was to drill for 20 years. Okay. And we will support that. No problem with that at all. What I'm suggesting is there should be any significant changes to the zoning coming in the next couple of years. There may be there may be some kind of rezoning or PD or some kind of issue that comes up that must have extraordinary circumstances. But I can't see the way the zoning has been developed that there should be able to need a lot of changes, that one property owner would have to deviate from the zoning that we're proposing tonight. So. But the players. 20 years. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Brown, are there any other questions from members of council? Seen on the combined public hearing on seven, six, four and 765 is now closed. Comments from members of Council. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I jotted down on a lot of things on comments, but first and foremost, like most of the people who commented said the technical task force was amazing when you heard three and four hour meetings and I know a lot of us have trouble sitting still that long. That's pretty awesome in that sense. Well, at least all of 2014 through August of 2014 and before that, we had a couple or another phase that took long meetings. So I'd like to ask, I know there are more people here than spoke. If you served on the technical task force, would you please stand so we can recognize you? Okay. And then I do also want to say that Sarah and Kyle, while they say, well, we're only technical, this is in our zoning, they are extremely technical. They are the dynamic duo of technical advice and guidance. And finally, but not least, I couldn't think of a great descriptor for you, Mike, if, you know, if we have the dynamic duo of Batman and Robin, I heard this superhero named Night King, you know, you flew in and when nothing else would do, you could save us from ourselves. So I really think it was an amazing effort. I haven't really in the whole time I've been on council seeing something that went that well where people really and we worked by consensus. If there wasn't consensus, it didn't happen. To comment on some of the other things that came up tonight. I had written down even before that the comments started, the testimony start started, the words move forward together. And I heard that in two or three or maybe even more of the comments, those words move forward. And, you know, it's it's not surprising because transportation is all about moving people. And certainly for the remainder of my term, I am committed to continue to working on this. I think we've started with the business alliance and with some other creative thinking transportation solutions. I think we have started to get a handle on it doesn't mean it's going to happen overnight. Secondly, on the parking, there's a lot that the private sector yet has to do in terms of wayfinding signage. I'm hoping even over the holidays we could maybe test some ideas on making parking in garages easier for people to come . I know when I go out to Park Meadows, I go, No, I'm sorry, Lone Tree or wherever Park Meadows is, but I go, I can't stand it out here. I don't know where I'm going. There's too much traffic. Which lane do I get in? But they want me out there, you know, and I only go occasionally, I confess. But I have a feeling that when people who don't live right in the Cherry Creek area come to Cherry Creek, they had that same reaction that I have when I'm in a place I'm not in all the time, and we have to make it easy for them to park once and then walk.
Speaker 5: I love the fact that someone said.
Speaker 10: I think it was Sarah that we worked very hard to have a transparent, inclusive and accountable process. And I heard that numerous times in other processes in Cherry Creek that we weren't getting there with those goals, and I think we did it this time. Finally, I'm going to go a little off script. I want you to know that the first in university construction will be done by this Saturday and that. If you are coming from point south like Lone Tree or you can't find what you need at Park Meadows, no problem. You can come right up university and get into Cherry Creek. You can get the Whole Foods, you can be part of the folks crowding that parking lot. And it's it's going to come back. Whole Foods, I promise you. But I also want to say in that regard, I think, Bob Vogel, you might have spoken about the small retailers. They have struggled. They are doing remarkable jobs of reaching out and trying to do special things, working longer hours. Some have laid off employees. That's not good for anyone. It means their bottom line is down. It means people are out of jobs. And it's really important, as important as parking and transportation. And Bob Vogel, you're right. They're related. We need to keep the small local retail in Cherry Creek alive. And I know even as we did some of the rezonings, people worried about that and we were zoned anyway. They're still marvelous. 73% of the shops in the bid area are still locally owned. So we really need to have that focus as a community. And that too is partially a private sector thing. Bringing the community and making it feel like a community, a place, events, the things that that you know of. People have told me I always go to show of hands in Cherry Creek when I go, there's no place like it. But get these people over there to do some activities so they'll drop in and shop. So that's sort of my soapbox for tonight. Come back to Cherry Creek and shop locally. We're making it easy for you now.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Just want to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Grubb, for her wonderful words. But I do want to let everybody in the audience know that I never shop in Lone Tree. I often shop in Cherry Creek at the mall or either in North Cherry Creek. And I've been over there enough times now that I don't usually get lost, except for the last time I was going through there on my bicycle on that cherry. So I really want to know when that transition for the cyclists underneath underneath University Boulevard is going to be reopened again. So you don't have to navigate all that traffic on university. But I do want to make a couple of comments on some of the of the points that were brought up tonight. I mean, I know what a diverse group you all are. And it's just, you know, I highly, highly commend you all for, you know, being able to work so productively and effectively, you know, through these years to come up with something that sounds like you have tremendous consensus on. And so, you know, hats off to you and kudos for doing such a great job. I'm sure it wasn't all smooth along the way and I wasn't there for the blow by blow. But, you know. Fantastic. Hats off to you, too, Mr. Waldman. You know, Cherry Creek is an area that draws people from all over the city and the region. You know, and it is so obvious when you're going I live in northwest Denver and I represent that area. But when I'm when I go to Cherry Creek, it is shocking to even me, you know, and I do this for a living about how much it's changing. And so, you know, I hear I hear what you're saying about wanting to keep it to keep it livable and vibrant. And then secondly, to many of Mr. Vogel's points, during the regular part of your testimony, there was a lot of discussion among this whole body during our City Council budget hearings on this very issue. So Cherry Creek is experiencing a tremendous amount of urban infill development, but so are several other areas in our city, including my district and in several others of us who are on this body. And we talked very much about, you know, how our our planning and our engineering on our transportation side and our infrastructure side needs to keep pace or certainly try to catch up significantly to what's happened on the development side with all this increasing density, you know, and all this influx of new people. I am the chair of the Infrastructure and Culture Committee, so I wanted to communicate to you that, you know, there were there was a significant I think there was 11 folks on this council that agreed that these issues were of exceedingly exciting importance during our budget hearings. And as Councilwoman Sussman alluded to earlier, we were able to ask the mayor for a significant staffing increase in the transportation planning and engineering areas. That includes six new people in both of those areas to deal with intersection safety and pedestrian safety and traffic calming and parking because it is an issue that we're all experiencing, you know , the crunch very significantly. So, you know, thanks to the advocacy of this council, we were able to get six new people in addition to those that were already asked for in the 2015. Birgit. So I just want you to know that we hear you not just in Cherry Creek, but, you know, northwest Denver and downtown and all of the areas that are experiencing this kind of growth. And we know that we have to do a better job. So I just want to make sure that you knew that and I will be supporting this this package tonight.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it is very impressive that so many of you have come representing different interests and all coming to the same conclusion. And for that reason, I'll start with the punch line. If this is what you want, this is what I'll vote for. On the other hand, I think the parking reduction is a big, big mistake. And I know that my other colleagues on this council who have great faith that public transit will solve the problems, and I know that Councilwoman Sussman and Council and Rob are working on alternative methods such were mentioned our first speaker. I mean people are trying to be creative but I do not believe the kind of reduction that you have asked for and that you want will be solved in any way by public transit or creative transit. And so I would say it's with a heavy heart that I give you what you want. I will.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Fox McKinney.
Speaker 3: Hello. Thank you, Mr. President. I did not expect to be following that. I, I wanted to, first of all, thank my colleague, Councilwoman Robb, for a lot of her leadership, sometimes quiet and sometimes forceful. And, you know, this area of town is one that I think everyone has some nostalgic connection to. Right. And what I found fascinating when many of us were elected to office in 2011, was how we had to come to terms with our nostalgia about Cherry Creek versus what was really going on in the ground. And it took some of those tours from the bid and the forming the business alliance was just forming and getting itself organized at that time and just noticing how many really vacant spaces there were and the, you know, split levels. I don't know the technical term, but the split levels with the steps down and just realizing, you know, as a parent of a one and a half year old at the time, how I didn't use any of those because I had a stroller, much less, you know, someone with a mobility disorder, disability. And so I think that you all and I, you know, I credit the business community, I think, for starting that conversation with us and the council. And I think that was in some ways the start of this zoning, which is the idea that if you love it, how do you let it evolve and how do you let it grow and how do you come to terms with the fact that it has to change to survive? And I think that that was a really hard process. And I think there were fits and starts. But but I really do believe that what has been described and what you all shared, having gone through, was really a process of really coming to terms with the idea that this is the future and it may not be perfect , but that allowing it to grow and allowing to change the boundaries a little bit is the best hope for that Cherry Creek in its next iteration. It'll look different than our nostalgic memories, but it'll also have potential to really survive and grow. And I think that daytime population the other thing I want to say is I know that it was really hard for folks to see some of the individual zoning laws come forward. But the time that it took you to get through this process, I really I fear for what it would have happened if we had stopped all development during that time. You know, it's hard to get financing. It's hard to get these projects off the ground. And so I think that this is a pinnacle now, this area rezoning. But I also think that it was a really important catalyst to see those early projects go through as difficult as that was. So. So I think that there was a big team effort here on a lot of areas, some folks continuing to move forward with the market while this major process went forward. And and I think that that just deserves a lot of credit and a little reflection. And so congratulations. And to all of you who spoke tonight and to especially Councilwoman Robb for her leadership. Well done. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney, do we have any other comments from members of council? All right. We're going to roll call on 764, the text amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Rob. I. Shepherd. I. Susman. Brown. I fight. I can eat. Lemon. Lopez. Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi. Councilwoman can each. Madam Secretary, please both of you announced the results.
Speaker 7: To advice.
Speaker 4: To advise 764 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Councilman Fons, will you please put 765 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Certainly, Mr. President, under the council, Bill 765 is placed upon final consideration and do pass it.
Speaker 4: It has been moved and seconded. We're done with comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 7: Rob Shepherd, Susman Brown Fats. I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Monteiro Nevett I. Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 4: Kathryn Lopez. Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results. 1212 By 765, the zoning map amendment has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. One Free Adjournment amounts announcement on Monday, November 3rd, 2014. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 708, approving a proposed First Amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the
|
Bill
|
Approves a Legislative Map Amendment to rezone property from C-CCN, PUD, or C-MU-10 with waivers to proposed zoned districts C-CCN-4, C-CCN-5, C-CCN-7, C-CCN-8, or C-CCN-12. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Approves a Legislative Map Amendment to rezone property from C-CCN, PUD, or C-MU-10 with waivers to proposed zoned districts C-CCN-4, C-CCN-5, C-CCN-7, C-CCN-8, or C-CCN-12. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-18-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10202014_14-0866
|
Speaker 3: We do have two proclamations this evening, and we'll start with the first one. Proclamation 866. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 866 will do.
Speaker 7: Mr. President. Proclamation number 866 series of 2014, celebrating Denver after school programs and the 15th Annual National Lights on after school day. Whereas the Denver City Council is is committed to quality afterschool programs and the opportunities they provide children and youth engaging and challenging them through learning experiences that help develop their social, emotional, physical and academic skills . In addition to supporting working families by ensuring their children are safe and productive after the regular school day ends. And. Whereas, quality afterschool programs provide students with activities such as academic support, music, arts, sports, leadership, development and conflict resolution, and other 21st century skills, and inspire. Increase confidence, improve social skills and connections to the future, education and career opportunities. And. WHEREAS, Quality afterschool programs have a proven track record of increasing school attendance, improving student engagement and achievement are resulting in higher proficiency in academic subjects and fewer behavioral issues. And students who are parties who participate are less likely to repeat a grade, be placed in remedial courses or to drop out, but more likely to perform at a grade level and to be prepared for their future. And. Whereas, the city and county of Denver, the Denver Afterschool Alliance, Denver Public Schools and many of Denver's funding and community based organizations work together to develop a sustainable citywide afterschool system to increase access to and participation in quality afterschool programs for all of Denver's.
Speaker 8: Youth.
Speaker 7: In order to keep kids safe, inspire them to learn and prepare them for the future. And. Whereas, Denver is home to over 93,000 school age youth, producing a significant need for afterschool programs to support their academic, social and physical development. And we're as lights on afterschool a national celebration of afterschool programs on October 23rd, 2014 highlights the critical importance of quality afterschool programs in the lives of children, their families and their communities. And. Whereas, the Denver City Council pledges to support afterschool programs so that Denver's children and families benefit from quality afterschool programs that help them close the achievement gap and prepare young people to come pee and to succeed. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one at the Denver City Council recognizes the outstanding leadership of the Denver Afterschool Alliance and the quality and the Denver Quality Afterschool connection for their innovative afterschool programs for Denver children and recognizes the 15th Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day. Thursday, October 23rd, 2014. Section two that the Clerk of the of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county Denver to this proclamation. And. Transmit it to the Office of Education and Children.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: I move that proclamation number 866 series of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and second it comments from members of council councilman lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. It is a delight to be able to read this proclamation, but to do it in front of these beautiful kids who are sitting in our council chambers. And if you take notice. They're all sitting up front. Not one space is empty. And the front row and any of these are us. And they come from all over Denver for Emanuel High from West High School, which is my personal favorite. From South, even though she's wearing a cowboy orange from D.C., she's from Greenlee. Where were you from? I forgot. And this is Fairmont. Right. So they are kids from all over the place. And these after school programs are essential. They're essential because nowadays families work and they're working one or two jobs and they're switching off back and forth. And they're essential also because these kids just love homework and they love school and they just cannot get enough of it. And they even told me, perhaps we should pass an ordinance that creates more homework. Right. Didn't you guys told me that?
Speaker 8: Oh, yeah. Oh, okay. Well.
Speaker 7: It might have been the opposite. It might have been the opposite. It might have been the opposite where I was being lobbied really hard since they were here. So we know that we won't pass that ordinance, but it is amazing. It's a great program. The city has been a member of the Denver Afterschool Alliance for a long time, already under the leadership of MAXINE Quintana, who's in the Mayor's Office of Education and Children and DPS. And I'll have John Albright come up here, along with Enrique Garcia, who's a a young, young man and a participant in the Boys and Girls Club activities. So without further ado, I'd like to have them come up afterwards, um, to, to get this proclamation after we do the vote.
Speaker 3: So thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And and thanks to Councilman Lopez for bringing this forward. You know, I say this time and time again, but the most important work that we can do in this city is with these with these young folks. And you're looking at our future city right now. And it is a distinct pleasure and honor to have you guys here in this building. I know you're bored out of your minds, but we need we, as decision makers and policymakers, need to continually be reminded of of what's the most important asset in our city. And that's you guys. And yeah, you know, I'm so supportive of this and I hope that we can continue to work with DPS and work with other stakeholders in other sectors, business sector, to to figure out how we can continue to make our afterschool programs a little bit more robust and interesting and diverse for all of the different needs that we have in the community. We know that we're cutting many different programs within our educational system, especially the arts. And we know that the arts is what engages our young people. Right, and shows them like, wow, this is this is what I was created for. I was born to do this. And all of a sudden they start seeing their grades go up because they're engaged and they're ready to go and they have a vision for life. And so I hope that we can continue to invest in that, and I hope that we can continue to support programs like that. And I hope you guys are reading your shirt and you're reading it deeply because each of you matter and man, you're beautiful, godly, good looking kids. But we appreciate you. We support you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I remember fondly when I was a little girl that I participated in Girls Club programing, and it was really I just remember it being really fun and really cool and I really looked forward to it and I looked forward to participating. So I really support the programing. And then later, as an adult, when my son was born, I did a lot of volunteering in the after school program at Lake IB. They have an after school gardening program and we worked to help get vegetable and flower beds built there so that the kids could participate and learn how to grow some of their own food, which they later used to sell in a farmer's market program at the school. And like got to learn how to start a business and learn some entrepreneurial skills about marketing and interacting with customers and customer service. And I think that that the skills that children can be exposed to and learn in these afterschool programs really go, you know, above and beyond what might be taught in the curriculum at school. And I sort of want to echo what Councilman Brooks was saying, is that with all the cuts to our education systems, so much of the the core curriculum is really being narrowed into very specific bands of learning. And through the after school programs, I think you can really get exposed to, you know, a whole range of things that you might not have the opportunity to learn about. During your regular school days. So I'm a huge fan and very supportive of the programing and of this proclamation. Thank you so much, Councilman Lopez, for bringing it forward.
Speaker 3: Then Councilwoman Schaeffer. Councilman Lopez, you have another comment? You know.
Speaker 7: I forgot to mention something and the reason why and I further mention the reason why there was sit in the front and there was a particular reason why they did. And I think we had a little discussion earlier, and they they realize that there's so many people around this world, so many kids their age in this world that would do anything at risk their lives to do anything just so that they can come have an opportunity to learn and to be at their same schools. And I don't think they'd be sitting in the back now, would we? It'd be sitting up in front. And there are so many people who fought throughout our history so that they could sit in the front and not the back. And I, I think I heard them say something about I mean, I asked them where they were going to sit when they were going to go to college. And I forgot, what are you guys going to sit in the front? Were they not going to sit by? And when they go back to Greenly, where are they going to go in the front? So I wanted to provide some context. I'm just blown away by these kids. And you're right, Councilman, we are going to have a bright future with these children. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, do we have any other comments from members of council seen on Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 8: LOPEZ Hi.
Speaker 5: Montero. NEVITT Hi, Rob. Shepherd Hi. SUSSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. Brown. I thought I can eat. Lemon Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi. Councilman Ortega. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. 3939. 866 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, is there someone you like to come to the podium to receive the proclamation? Yeah.
Speaker 7: Two amazing individuals I like that have come up. One is John Albright, who was co-chair of the Denver After-School Alliance and from DPS school district number one. And then also Enrique Garcia, who a participant in the Boys and Girls Club activities. And Cesar headed to what's cool. USC, right? Yeah, USC. All right.
Speaker 8: Good. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you. City council. And want to express just a few words of appreciation for on behalf of the school district and also the Denver Afterschool Alliance board for the city council, the mayor, Mayor Hancock support and the support of Denver residents for the work we're doing across the city to improve the quality and access to very high quality afterschool programs for all of Denver's youth. So, Councilman Lopez, you know, piggyback a little bit on what you said they were telling me earlier. They're coming to the school board Thursday night and they're advocating for a policy for more homework for for at the board level. So maybe we'll be hearing more about that. I think everybody's really excited. So a couple of words about the Denver Afterschool Alliance. It's a collaborative of stakeholders, including the city and county of Denver, Denver Public Schools, many of Denver's community based funding groups, as well as afterschool providers. And the work we're doing is focused around a vision that every child in Denver who needs afterschool programs has access to them so that we create a city where kids are safe, they're inspired to learn, they're prepared for success now and in the future. What we do in the Denver After School Alliance is we serve as an intermediary. What that means is we're a group that provides insight and technical assistance, and we are driving improvements across the after school space that are focused around data driven decision making, quality improvements, and the use of tools that allow us to chart access to high quality programs across the city and improve outcomes for kids. So that's really what our work is about. Don't to just say it's an honor to receive the proclamation. As the co-chair of the Denver Afterschool Alliance Board before you, you have a packet of material that's about the work we're doing. You have information in there that you may share with your constituents about how to find access to afterschool programs. In the city and county of Denver, we have an online locator system that can be found conveniently on the city's website at WW dot Denver Gov Dawg Slash Denver Afterschool Alliance. So again, thank you very much for the recognition of National Light's on after school day. We're proud that Denver is one of 7500 communities across the country celebrating this. And I would like to introduce someone who has been attending the Boys and Girls Clubs here in Denver for a long time now and wants to tell you a little bit about his experience. This is Denver Center for International Studies senior Enrique Garcia.
Speaker 9: Hello. I am Enrique Garcia. I am a senior at the Denver Center for International Studies, and I've been a member of the Boys and Girls Club for about six years now. The Boys and Girls Club is the Boys and Girls Club is a place where I go to, where I go after school and in the summer to participate in many programs. Without the club, I wouldn't be the person I am today. The club helped shape me. The club gave me social skills, confidence, leadership and happiness that I didn't know I had with all the opportunities that arose from becoming a member of the Boys and Girls Club. I attend the club on a regular basis 3 to 4 times a week because it gives me a chance to relax, hang out with friends, play basketball. Stay on top of all my schoolwork. And it's also a safe place to call home. The first word that comes to mind when the Boys and Girls Club is brought up is family. That's what the Boys and Girls Club means to me. It means coming together as a community, disregarding race, age, gender, and any differences that make us human. With the Boys and Girls Club, we come together as a whole to better ourselves and our community so that we are able to get something out of life. The second word that comes to mind is future. And that's also what the club means to me. It means preparing yourself for the future in the real world so you don't have to struggle throughout life, all with the helping hand to guide you there, of course. I started at the Boys and Girls Club looking for a signature from Marcus can be former Nuggets player. I did not expect to walk out with a great future ahead of me. I participated, accomplished and done so many things with the club, from sports to the team leadership program to community service to homework help to to being a role model to the younger members. I've done it, and I'm glad to say that it is only a little part of what I've done. Without the club, I. Without the club, I don't know where I would be. And probably I'll run in the streets or at home sleeping, probably doing something that I shouldn't be doing. So I have to thank the Boys and Girls Club and the director, Julio, for that, for being there, taking me in and helping me realize what I want out of life. Quality afterschool programs really do make a difference and are important for kids and teens like me. If you don't believe me, look at Smokey Robinson, Denzel Washington, or even Shaq, all alumni of the Boys and Girls Club. I would like to close this off by saying A great future starts off with the positive attitude to stay positive and productive, and you too shall have a great future ahead of you. Thank you for listening and have a good evening.
Speaker 3: Great job. Thank you both. And thank you. Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward. We are moving on to Proclamation 917 and we will have Councilwoman Sheperd, will you please read a proclamation 917.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 15th Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10202014_14-0850
|
Speaker 0: . We've talked a lot about affordable housing in these chambers, and we talk a lot about our most vulnerable residents are homeless and are low income residents. But we also have, you know, expressed our concern for middle income residents who can't afford to stay in Denver. This is one of those programs that is for those middle income, moderate income families who are interested in becoming homeowners. And so I just wanted to take a moment to make the public aware of what this is. The mortgage credit certificate basically allows you to get a credit on your federal taxes up to 30% of the interest that you spent in a year. So everybody across the United States, under current rules, gets to deduct interest payments from their income. It lowers your income and therefore lowers your tax liability. This program allows you dollar for dollar to deduct from your actual tax payment. So if you owe the IRS $500 and you are going to get, you know, a $100 credit from your interest payment, you get to take that off what you owe the IRS. So it's a really great program for helping to make homeownership work. Whether you put that 100 bucks back into a home repair or just making the next mortgage payment. So I wanted to just make sure folks know they can find out about it. On Denver Gov Dawgs search for mortgage credit certificate and it is mostly for home first time homebuyers, although you can also receive it if you're in a targeted area that's a little bit distressed in our city or for some veterans. And the income limits are are really for those middle income families all the way up to $95,000 a year for two to adult household. So it really does help folks in that bracket buy homes in Denver. And it's actually out of funds right now. So we're really, really thanking my colleagues for their anticipated vote in support of this to keep helping homeowners buy homes in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Canete. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, can you tidy up the next one, which I believe was 828, called out by Councilwoman Fox and Councilwoman Fox. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: I would like to put on the floor for a vote, and it is the same thing as 867. So if you could put both of those together.
Speaker 3: Certainly, Councilman Ortega, we make the motion for us this evening.
Speaker 11: I'd be happy to.
Speaker 3: Could you put 828 and 867 on them for final consideration and do pass in a block on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving (i) the use of an amount not to exceed $45,000,000 of Private Activity Bond Volume Cap Allocation for the purpose of making a mortgage credit certificate election; and (ii) the MCC Program Administration Agreement and the MCC Program Guidelines.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the use of approximately $45,000,000 of private activity bond volume cap allocation for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) and approves the Program Administrator Agreement and the Program Summary and Guidelines for the 2015 MCC Program to provide qualified first-time homebuyers a federal tax credit of up to $2,000 per year. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-7-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10202014_14-0828
|
Speaker 3: Could you put 828 and 867 on them for final consideration and do pass in a block on the floor.
Speaker 11: And move that council bills 828 and 867 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Fox this is the these are the two ordinances I talked about last week that restructure D-I a indebtedness and extend two issues for six more years. And I am not in favor of doing that. You have to pay additional interest on that. And the purpose for doing it gave lopsided help to one airline, I think far more than others.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Thoughts? Do we have any other comments from members of the council? Seen on this is on eight 2867 for final consideration do pass in the block, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: But no.
Speaker 5: Carnage. Layman Lopez Montero. Nevitt Hi. Ortega Hi. Rob Shepherd. Sussman. Hi. Brooks. Hi. Brown.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 5: Lopez. Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary. Please, for the vote in the House. The results.
Speaker 5: 12 one nay, 12.
Speaker 3: Hours, one nay, 828 and 867 are placed on final consideration. Do pass in a block. Seeing that those were all the bills called out, all the bills for introduction are ordered published and we are ready for the block votes. Councilman Ortega, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
|
Bill
|
Amends the Series 1992F and 1992G Airport System Supplemental Bond Ordinances, No. 643 and 644, for the purposes of extending the bond maturity of the Series1992F-G bonds, deferring principal on the 1992F-G bonds, and grants the Manager of Finance the authority to enter into a renewal/replacement structure for the 1992F-G bonds.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10202014_14-0669
|
Speaker 3: During the public hearings, we are going to start with Council Bill 669. Councilwoman Ortega. Would you please put the Council Bill 669 on the floor.
Speaker 11: I move that council bill 669 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: The Public Pelican for Council Bill 669 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Sara Showalter with Community Planning and Development. The property that's in question is located in Council District nine, very close to the area of Colfax and 25. It's in the Lincoln Park statistical neighborhood. This aerial zooms in a little bit more. The site is outlined in a yellow dashed line. It's immediately south of the Colfax Viaduct with the area campus that people commonly think of, of the campus already being developed to the north. It is part of about 13 acres that has been planned for some years and is currently under development as a ballpark and athletic complex for the campus just south of Colfax. This is just one small piece of that larger 13 acre site. And there is a light rail station just north of the site along Fifth Street, which is this property highlights the site in blue. The current zoning is I am x are industrial mixed use five with the U oh to use overlay. It's about 28 acres in size and the owner is requesting to rezone just to bring this property into the same zoning as the rest of the site as well as the rest of the larger campus. The proposed athletic complex that's growing on the site is allowed per the current zoning. So this rezoning is really just to bring this parcel into conformance with the zoning for the rest of the campus. The proposed zoning scheme. P.E.I. is a special context. Our campus context is what the CMP stands for and the EEI stands for Education Institution. So this is a district that's specifically designed for large campuses such as the area campus, and then it will retain the use overlay of UO too, which is to allow for existing billboards. There's one existing billboard on the site that will remain in place. This map shows the existing zoning of the site as well as the area around it. It has the IMAX five zoning I mentioned earlier. You can see that gray area is everywhere with the campus zoning. And then there is some more industrial zoning on the perimeter of that 13 acre area that's being developed for the athletic campus. These images show give a little flavor of what the areas are like around the site. So the top image is looking north from the site with the Kovacs Viaduct there. And then you can see some of the higher density campus buildings to the north. The image in the middle shows the site again with the in this case, Colfax Viaduct is on the left of the image and the billboard. There is the existing billboard on the site that will remain. And then the image on the bottom shows the kind of typical development in this area, which is the one story warehouse kind of industrial flex type uses. I'm in terms of the process that this rezoning request has been through. It went to planning board on August six. They voted unanimously to recommend approval. They went to the Neighborhood and Planning Committee September 17th. And now we're here tonight for the city council public hearing. All of the notification requirements have been met, which included posting the property 21 days prior to this hearing. We did receive a letter of support from the affected R.A. in this area, which is the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association. And I'm very quickly walk through the review criteria that apply to all rezoning requests. First, the consistency with adopted plans in this case, comp plan 2000 Blueprint Denver apply as well as to small area plans. So in terms of comp plan 2000, there are three main areas where we find this rezoning is in compliance with the plan strategies that relate to promoting infill development in areas that already have infrastructure and development, promoting mixed use communities as well as quality development that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. And it also supports goals in the plans that relate to promoting high quality educational institutions like the Area Campus Blueprint. Denver was adopted several years before the campus engaged in the master planning process to consider moving the athletic fields to the south. So it actually shows this area as an industrial and yes, it does show this entire area as an area of change. And since Blueprint Denver, we've adopted to local area plans that are more up to date with the campus plans. The first one law, Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan. This was adopted in 2010. And you can see the site has a blue star there. It is shown as a recreational use. So this proposed use is in compliance with that plan. And the other applicable city adopted plan is the area west station plan, which also shows the site as recreation and open space use. And this is not an adopted city plan. But I did want to note that the Area Higher Education Center does have a master plan. They updated it in 2012 to show the concept of the athletic complex here, expanding south past the Colfax Viaduct that is shown here and per the zone district that's proposed when zoning staff does development review. The master plan, as well as the design guidelines that have been adopted by the Education Center for this campus will be considered as part of review in terms of justifying circumstances, we do find that there have been changed conditions. The ownership for these two pieces have changed, as well as newly adopted plans that show this land becoming part of the Ariah Area Higher Education campus. And we also find that there's consistency with the neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The campus education institutions own district are intended for these types of campuses, and as I noted before, the rest of the campus has the zoning that the applicant is requesting. So based on compliance with these criteria, we do recommend approval.
Speaker 3: And that's why. Thank you, Michelle Walter. We have two speakers for this public hearing and you all can come up to the front pew. Sean Nesbitt and Paul Galan.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Sean Nesbit and the director of Facilities Planning for Metropolitan State University of Denver. And I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Nesbitt. Nesbitt. Paul Galan. Paul Garland with DAVIES partnership architects and hair supporting. Any questions?
Speaker 8: Sean may not be able to answer.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Well, it is now time for that concludes our speakers is now time for questions of members of council. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. This is probably for Paula. I was just wondering if you can talk about what the pedestrian connectivity will be to get across Colfax, whether there are, you know, existing safe crossings or whether that's part of planning that you're talking about with the city. Great use. I'm just concerned about the safety of students crossing Colfax, and I realize we're under the viaduct and it's lower traffic. But I still feel like it's a it's a pretty hairy some some hairy spots down there. And just wondering what this one looks like.
Speaker 8: Yes, I'm used to going to the capital capitol of iniquity and they so whenever I see in the we are the pedestrian connection from campus to that area was already pretty strong as far as the sidewalks we've connected them as well with, you know, accessible curves up and down there. We've added ADA parking to the area, we've added pedestrian lights along the side as well. Then there's street lighting around the facility. We've added emergency call centers like we have around our campus as well. So that has been incorporated within the campus. I think we still probably have some work to do on on lighting from the fields into campus, but that's something we need to look at with the the other three institutions as well. But it's been pretty well incorporated to be a part of campus and not an island separated from campus.
Speaker 0: And if I may, Mr. President, one additional question.
Speaker 3: Go right ahead.
Speaker 0: I was just wondering if you'd had any conversations. It's great. You have good neighborhood support. Do you anticipate that the field will be available or are there any intentions to try to make a community connection? I think, you know, it's it's a big move south of Colfax. And I think it's great that you've built the trust with the community to have that support. But is there any connection possible?
Speaker 8: Yes, there is. We've been we hired an associate athletic director this summer who is specifically in charge of the facility operations. And in those few months, the athletic director and associate athletic director have been working with Denver Parks and Rec on how to program the site. So they just had a meeting last Friday. I haven't gotten the download yet, but we are reaching out to the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association and believe it, their November board meeting or neighborhood association meeting to discuss the plans moving forward. This complex will come online in the spring. It'll be substantial completion right at the end of January or early February. And so the athletic department has been working with Denver Parks and Rec and other grants that they've been getting from baseball for tomorrow, which is returning baseball to the inner city program. And Denver Parks and Rec are working on types of programs that we will have when we're not using it for intercollegiate athletics or academics, the summertime, the weekends, the evenings and things like that. So that partnership is really important to us, and we've stressed it every time we go to the neighborhood associations on how to make this open to the public. And so that will be really important. One of the connections we want to look at a year ago and want to continue to look at is that that pedestrian connection from our site to the park, which is a little rough on 13th Avenue. So whatever help we could get from the city, planning on that would be great. But we've walked it a few times on how we can improve that.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. No further.
Speaker 8: Questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Isn't there a memorandum of understanding that meets you or your area? Foundation has with llama Lincoln Park.
Speaker 8: Correct. There is.
Speaker 11: Yes. Utilizing the campus new facility in Memphis.
Speaker 8: There is an IOU that was signed when they purchased when the campus purchased the property at the end of 2008. Right. And that's this relationship. And the special staff that we've hired is staying with that MSU that we make sure we are reaching out to them.
Speaker 11: And we're will that MSU that will be between the neighborhood and and the area. But will you have that on file and in the neighborhood group.
Speaker 8: Correct.
Speaker 11: Okay. Mean, I just have two more questions. Can you tell me what? So this is for two addresses, right? For 1550 West Colfax and then for 1400 Cottonwood Street. Correct. So what's going to be the address?
Speaker 8: 1600 West Colfax Avenue is the complex address.
Speaker 11: Okay. So so these addresses will go away.
Speaker 8: Yes. Yes. We just want one address for the for the site. We do have one on a restroom facility now, because that was part of phase one. And it's on Shoshone and it's 1310, I believe, right around there for the restroom. Now, phase two, we want everything to be under the one address to 1600 West Colfax that these two addresses. So I'm not mistaken were the the addresses on the parcels may purchase them they were separate parcels. One was Denver Housing Authority and one was from Beth Go. Both were purchased in 2013.
Speaker 11: Okay. And then I just have one other question. So it's my understanding that you guys were going to install the B bike stations. Did that happen near the BALLFIELDS?
Speaker 8: No, that wasn't in our design. The Prairie campus was looking at installing them near the westbound light rail station, and I'm not sure where that is in development.
Speaker 11: Can you follow up on that?
Speaker 8: Absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 11: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Are there any other questions from members of council? Seen none public 9669 is closed time for comments from members of Council.
Speaker 11: Councilwoman Monteiro Thank you, Mr. President. I want to let the public and my colleagues know that we've been working on this for quite some time, and there's been an intensive community outreach effort by the by the property owner. And there is a great deal of support, especially by llama Lincoln Park neighborhood, who states that MSU is a vital institution in Denver and a very valued neighborhood, neighborhood neighbor. So what I want to say is that all of this looks pretty simple, but there's been a lot of work that's backed this up and a lot of steps that have taken and it's gone through all of the proper mechanisms, including following the law. The Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan and the planning board vote, which was August 6th, approving this. So I, I am supporting what we have in front of us and encouraging my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Do we have any other comments from members of council seeing? None. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Raquel Montero. Nevitt Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Sussman Brooks Brown. I forgot. I can eat lemon LOPEZ. All right. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I have been Lopez. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 669 as in place of one final consideration and does pass. We are now moving on to the second one for Council Bill 709. And Councilwoman Ortega, would you please put 709 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1550 West Colfax Avenue and 1400 Cottonwood Street.
(NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones the property located at 1550 West Colfax Avenue and 1400 Cottonwood Street from I-MX-5 (Industrial, Mixed Use, 5 stories), UO-2 (Use Overlay allowing billboard) to CMP-EI (Campus, Urban Edge 12,000 lot size), UO-2 (Use Overlay allowing billboard) in Council District 9. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-17-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10202014_14-0709
|
Speaker 3: I have been Lopez. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 669 as in place of one final consideration and does pass. We are now moving on to the second one for Council Bill 709. And Councilwoman Ortega, would you please put 709 on the floor?
Speaker 11: I move that council bill seven and nine be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: The public hearing for council. Bill 709 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And good evening, council members. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. This rezoning is an application at 1520 Graves Street from U2 C to UMC to it's located in the current Council District eight in the South Park Hill statistical neighborhood, the south edge, just north of Colfax Avenue on Grape Street. The request is to rezone the property to to add more dwelling units to the existing structure. The structure sits on a 19,500 square foot parcel with an existing two story apartment building and under the current two unit t use zoning. Multi-unit uses are allowed as a conforming use, but they cannot be expanded to add more units. And so the applicant here is requesting to rezone in order to enable that. Although I'll note that rezonings do not prove a specific land use proposal or development project. So the request, as I mentioned, is UMC to that stands for the Urban Neighborhood Context. The M. S is for Main Street, which it is adjacent to along the Colfax corridor, and the two is for the two storey maximum height. Adjacent properties are also zoned in the UMC family UMC three along Colfax, and then you see a two unit district to the north and west and finally U.S. to be a single unit district to the east. As I mentioned, the existing uses, multifamily and along the rest of this block is also additional multifamily. On the 1500 block of Grape Street, there's commercial and retail mixed use all along Colfax and a mix of single family and multifamily further afield in the surrounding neighborhood. An existing context is generally of a 1 to 2 story in scale, a mix of residential forms, single unit two, unit multi-unit apartment buildings. As you see on the upper photo on this screen, the middle photo is the subject property, the existing two storey apartment building. And the lower photo is an example of the one story commercial forms you see along Colfax. This one is located immediately south of the subject property. In terms of process. The application was first for a different zone District two U-M's three the three story zone district. After receiving considerable feedback from the neighborhood, the applicant rescheduled their planning board hearing a couple of times and changed their application to UMC two, which is what is before you tonight. Ultimately, the Planning Board public hearing was held on August 21st of 2014, and following those revisions, there was one comment at the planning board and it was in favor of the application. And then the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. The application proceeded. The Neighborhoods and Planning Committee was moved out in September, and that is before you tonight at a at this public hearing. We provided written notification to the registered neighborhood organizations and four of them have provided comment on the application all in support as indicated on your screen. All of these, I should note that the Greater Park Hill community incorporated no letter of support was received following that change in the application to UMC two and includes conditions with the applicant that they are meeting outside of the zoning regarding the future of their property and what they can use it for. And the applicant has made those arrangements and can probably speak better to that since they are outside of the zoning. We also received some emails on this rezoning case. They are included in your packet, but they were all when the application was for U-M's three before it was revised to U-M's two. That revision happened as as a result of a community mediation that was orchestrated by the the Council District Office here with staff, the applicant and the registered neighborhood organizations and neighbors here. And so following that mediation, the application was revised and the letter from Greater Park Hill community and support was received. There are five review criteria for this application and I'll go through them quickly. The first is we find the rezoning application to be consistent with adopted plans, and there are three plans that apply on the site. First is comprehensive plan 2000. And generally, we find that this application is consistent with the strategies and the goals of Comprehensive Plan 2000 regarding promoting infill development in locations where infrastructure and services are in place, encouraging quality infill consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and continuing to promote mixed use development. This map amendment, this rezoning, would enable reuse of a multifamily structure in a neighborhood location near for high frequency transit where infrastructure is already in place. And so we find it to be consistent with comp plan 2000. Moving to Blueprint Denver, The Citywide Transportation and Land Use Plan Blueprint Denver identifies a concept land use of pedestrian shopping corridor for this site, as is one of the relatively uncommon sites where that pedestrian shopping corridor designation extends north and south of Colfax Avenue. So in this case, where Blueprint Denver advocates and a pedestrian shopping corridor land use, that means generally the same kinds of mixed uses of commercial, retail office or residential as a town center or neighborhood center, but oriented in a linear, linear pattern. It's also designated as an area of change in Blueprint Denver, which are the areas where the city has identified redevelopment possibilities and specifically along East Colfax. The plan calls for introducing mixed uses in order to support the major bus corridor along Colfax. And we find, again, the application to be consistent with those land use recommendations in terms of future street classifications. Colfax As a mixed use arterial group street itself is a non-designated local. But but the rezoning will further the mixed use nature of the Colfax Avenue corridor moving into the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 2000 before Blueprint Denver. The Neighborhood Plan doesn't have specific land use or building height guidance, but it does seek to assure that growth and development in Park Hill results in a balanced and compatible mix of housing types and densities, and that there be transitions between the development along Colfax Avenue and the neighborhood. The U-M's to Zone District is aptly selected to do this. It actually provides a height transition from the three stories on Colfax down to the lower scale buildings already found in the neighborhood. And of course, our main street districts across the board have up building form standards and new standards that ensure residential protection where adjacent. So there are additional if the building were to be expanded in the future, it would be subject to those residential protections in terms of setbacks and the like. So we find this application to be consistent with the neighborhood plan. We also find it to be consistent with the second and third review criteria that uniformity of district regulations will be preserved and the application will further the public health, safety and welfare of the city, primarily through the implementation of the adopted plans. The fourth criteria that there be a justifying circumstance for the application. This application is justified by the change in the surrounding environs. The significant redevelopment of the area along the Colfax corridor and the rezoning does recognize that change character in terms of adding more, more people who can live near the mixed use corridor and support the businesses that are thriving along Colfax. So we find it consistent with that. Finally, the application needs to be consistent with the neighborhood context, the zone district purpose and intent here. The UMC two zone district that is selected is consistent with the you urban neighborhood context that surrounds it. It's also designed again to apply primarily in areas served by local streets, embedded within a local an existing neighborhood where a scale of 1 to 2 stories is desired. Here we find that the existing building scale of 1 to 2 stories is existing and is desire to continue as indicated by the residents. So we find that that criterion is met. And so having found that all five criteria are met, CPD recommends approval.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We have two speakers for this for seven or nine, Jim Hartman and Bob Gulick. So, Mr. Hartman, you can come on up and begin your remarks. Thank you, Mr. President. Jim Hartman, manager of Hartman Neely Investments, 2120 BlueBell Avenue in Boulder. And we'd just like to say a few things about our building here and tell you a little bit about our reason for the rezoning. Our company specializes in sustainable community creation, mostly through the renovation of historic buildings through the decades in Denver. Other examples are recently in Lowery, Hangar two and Steam Plant Lofts and downtown, some of the loft buildings downtown. And we purchased this building in January of this year with the intent to reinforce some of the things that Kyle talked about. Blueprint Denver this being an area of change, creating workforce housing along a transit corridor, all the things that Denver is known for in terms of good learning, urban planning and land use. To date, we've put in a new accessible entry so the building is more usable for seniors. We've planted some street trees from the Denver Digs program, done some signage, lighting, bike racks, all to make the building a little bit more friendly. The important issues for our application are that, as mentioned, it's a blueprint blueprint Denver area of change. The current zoning is really for duplex use, and even though it's got a conforming use category, it's not so good if the building were ever substantially damaged or destroyed by fire. For lenders and insurers, that presents a problem. So the zoning will help with that. Again, would like to provide moderately priced workforce housing one bedroom for 750 or so a month, two bedroom for 950 a month. So that some of the folks that are working along the transit corridor in downtown have a really nice place to live. We also believe a lot in the mixed use nature and what Colfax has become. We know a lot of the business owners along Colfax and there's a lot of mutual synergistic support that good residential adjacent to Colfax can provide. The, uh, the pictures on your screen, the before and after give a good indication there are some not so friendly folks living here when we bought the building and we've transitioned that. Oh, thanks. Yeah. Okay. I should have kind of kept up with myself here. Um, one of the things that was important to just transitioning this building, as Carl mentioned, was the mediation put together by Councilman Brooks, his office, and mediated by Steve Charbonneau. That was very helpful. And thanks again, Councilman, for that. The part of the thing outside the zoning that was key for Park Hill was a deed restriction. And we've put that in place. And so the things that were important for them were the two storey and the residential use. And as Carl mentioned, we've got lots of support, so I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Hartman. Bob Garlic. Mr. President, members of council. Good evening.
Speaker 8: My name is Bob Garlock. My address is 609 South.
Speaker 3: Gaylord Street in Denver. And this evening.
Speaker 8: I'm here to respond to any questions you may have.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Garlock. It is now time for questions from members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, just a quick question for you. You talked about this quickly. Go over to Jim for questions. But you talked about adding units with the you you t you see zoning. You cannot add more units in that zoning, but you can add it in the u. M. S three. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And so so I guess my question now is for Jim. Is, Jim, how many units did this building have in their duty to you see zoning and how many will it have now? And you t you ams two and how many would it have had if it was umass three?
Speaker 3: It now has 17 units, councilman. And we we're thinking we had several more whether that's six, seven, eight somewhere in that range. And it's really more constrained by parking. It is by zoning. We want to provide the minimum number and then some four parking spaces. Okay.
Speaker 8: And you mentioned this is a restricted property. So can you give us an idea of the RMI number that that's for your units? Well, the deed.
Speaker 3: Restriction is really just for residential use as well as two storey heights. So it's not a no income restriction. Okay.
Speaker 8: So you don't receive any any like tax credits or anything like.
Speaker 3: That for this? No. We've just privately financed this and we're doing market rate units, but affordably priced. Okay.
Speaker 8: You mentioned workforce. So, you know, I thought that was the traditional. Okay, great. And then one of you guys can answer this. Did. Before you all switch this back to the units three two or switched it to the UMass two. Did you have the support of Fax Mayfair and DNA? We did. Yes. Okay. And so the only one who was dissenting was greater Parkfield community. That's correct. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Mr. Hurd, if you can just stay there for a second. I just wanted to ask about the size of your units. Can you just speak about that a little bit?
Speaker 3: They're small in the mid five hundreds for a one bedroom in the mid 600 square foot for a two bedroom.
Speaker 11: Correct. I want to commend you for your efforts in working towards creating some affordable workforce housing. We know that that price point really doesn't exist in the city of Denver anymore. And so for you to be able to do that without public subsidies is is a big, big deal. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Rob.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I guess I have really just.
Speaker 1: One question probably for.
Speaker 6: Kyle. When we created Main Street zoning and then subsequently mapped it, we were really careful to work with neighborhoods, to be sure what was the area change and what wasn't. But you're saying that this particular parcel in Blueprint Denver was noted as an area of change?
Speaker 8: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 6: And then my my second question is, can you think of any other cases? I can't. At least on East Colfax, where we have added adjacent property to the Main Street zoning since we passed it.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
Speaker 6: Okay. In the main reason is that this property is non-conforming or non-compliant with the you two. You see.
Speaker 8: Well, technically under the zoning code, it's a conforming use that just can't be expanded.
Speaker 6: Okay. That's all. That's all I needed. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other questions from members of council? Seeing none. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments from members of Council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, we have all been in these chambers when we've had very divisive rezonings, and this one certainly was headed for that with the greater Parkdale community in Mr. Hartman's group. But hats off to really both groups for for coming together and finding common ground. Not everybody got what they wanted, but I think at the end of the day, I think they could they could rest with a94 vote from the greater Park Hill community. So, you know, hats off to you for for coming down and your expectations of what you really wanted and desired in the end, and thinking about the community and thinking about parking and all of that and for the greater Park Hill community for working with a project in their neighborhood. You know, I want to say this. I think it is interesting that this this rezoning fits the plans at a at a UMass three and and also received some support from other other neighborhoods at that rezoning. You know, I am a pro density person, but it has to be smart development within the community and fit within the neighborhood. The shame in this is that I think we lose some units that we really need on Colfax. We just approved the facts partnership Business Improvement District. I know they they could appreciate some some more constituents and tenants there buying some of the things that they have there on their retail. And so but I understand we've got to we've got to come in the middle, but I think it's important for me to talk about that concern and to I'm going to point in this direction because this is going to be for this next council and for the end of this current council are going to be the issue. And it's parking, parking around zoning. And and we've just got to figure out we've got to figure out a plan. We've got to figure out these things because the density is coming. But there is going to become a rub with the number of parking spaces for those particular areas, especially an area of change right here where you have major transit. Should we be thinking in the old, old way or should we be a little bit more progressive in our mobility kind of conversation and rezonings? And so I'm excited that we reached an understanding here. I just wanted to just voice some concerns that I've have in the future. And maybe those five units of individuals who might find it affordable probably will be choosing Arvada or Aurora or some other city. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Brooks, Councilwoman Tuscany.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to reiterate how lovely it.
Speaker 5: Was for you to work.
Speaker 1: With the neighbors. This particular property is only one block from my district. And so Council Councilman Brooks and I often work together on this and certainly the Mayfair neighborhood I was interested in and Greater Park Hill.
Speaker 6: But I also want.
Speaker 1: To commend you with working with the neighborhood and coming to some compromises that were helpful to them.
Speaker 5: You have a great history of this.
Speaker 1: Having been a terrific developer for Lowry and glad to see you still out there and doing good things for the city. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Do we have any other comments from members of council seen on this roll call in Huntsville?
Speaker 5: 709 BROOKS High brow, high fives.
Speaker 6: I can.
Speaker 5: Eat lemon. LOPEZ All right. Montero Nevitt. Ortega, I rob Shepherd. Assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. Am Secretary. Please close the venue, announce the results. 3939, 79 as in place upon final consideration and does pass one pre adjournment announcement on Monday, November 3rd, 2014. City Council will convene as a ex-officio board of Directors for the 14th Street General Improvement District in order to act on the District's proposed 2015 work plan, budget and Mill Levy certification. And on Monday, November three, 2014, City Council will convene as a ex-officio board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District. At that time, a public hearing will be held on the District's proposed 2015 budget work plan and Mill Levy certification, and the board will consider approval of those documents. Also on Monday, November 17th, 2014, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill eight two to changing the zoning classification for 3301 to 3411 West Nevada Place and a required public hearing on Council Bill 841 Changing the zoning classification for land located at 6900 through 7100 East First Avenue. Any protest against Council Bill 822 or 841 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, November 10th, 2014. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your Source.
Speaker 2: Denver. Eight on TV and online. To stay connected to your community. Your city. Your source.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1520 Grape Street.
(NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones a property at 1520 Grape Street from U-TU-C (Urban, Two Unit, Urban Center) to U-MS-2 (Urban, Main Street, 2 stories) in Council District 8. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-17-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10132014_14-0856
|
Speaker 6: I would be happy to. Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation number 14 0856 is celebrating Colorado Communities and Towns Week with the Colorado Municipal League recognizing Denver's dedicated employees. Whereas the Colorado Municipal League has declared October 20th through 26 the first ever Colorado Cities and Towns Week. Whereas many of you have seen the Colorado Municipal League's video on Channel eight Cities and Towns program highlighting how improvements in our communities happen. And. WHEREAS, Designation of this week is intended to showcase all that cities and towns and their elected leaders and employees do to ensure the well managed, safe, attractive and livable communities continue to thrive across Colorado. And. Whereas, the success of cities and towns ultimately comes down to the hard work of many employees, some of whom have devoted several years, if not their entire working life, to ensure that their neighbors, families and fellow citizens benefit from everything it takes from basic municipal services to emergency protection and sound fiscal practices. And. Whereas, Denver has a total of 13,610 employees, which includes 2385 uniformed police and fire employees. And. WHEREAS, so many of these Denver employees have extensive years of service that this proclamation cannot list them all by name. But council recognizes and thanks the more than 125 with 35 or more years of service, over 250 with 30 to 35 years of service, and over 550 with 25 to 30 years of service and almost 1100 with 20 to 25 years of service. So you can see why we didn't want to bring them all here tonight. Whereas City Council heartily thinks all city and county of Denver employees for their dedication, hard work and service to make Denver the great place to live, work and play that it is now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the Council hereby recognizes October 23, 26 as Colorado Cities and Towns Week. Thanks many employees who daily take care of so many basic needs of the city, from mowing the parks to being prepared to provide emergency services, to managing the financial transactions, and encourages Denver residents to thank each city employee. Section two that the Clerk of the City and County of Denver show attesting to fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit copies to Mayor Michael Hancock and the Colorado Municipal League.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: I move for the adoption of proclamation.
Speaker 4: 856 is in and has been moved in seconded comments from members of the Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors of this proclamation. Many of you have attended from time to time some of the various events that the Colorado Municipal League sponsors. They do extensive training, especially for many of the newly elected local government leaders, to ensure that they understand their fiduciary responsibilities and understand a variety of things like zoning and land use, and they're just ongoing. We putting on different training programs that are extremely helpful and beneficial to elected officials, not only newly elected, but I know I've sat through some of the different discussions about fracking and what that means. That's a big topic for some of our neighboring communities, more so than it is for Denver. But just to have that knowledge and understanding is really important. How many of you have actually seen the Cities and Towns video that's done on Channel eight? You may want to see. That is very interesting because it helps the general public understand how their taxpayer their taxpayer dollars are utilized in delivering the the host of city services that local government provides to the citizenry. We have someone here that will address us in just a little bit. Many of you know Sam Elliott, who is the executive director of Cmll. And I just want to highlight in mention that one of the things that Cmll is working with us on is moving forward a proclamation that is going to the National League of Cities conference in November that will be working with many other cities to address the safe transport of hazardous materials on rail and and more specifically, a lot of the crude oil. I don't know if you saw the business Denver Business Journal article a couple of weeks ago that talked about the increase in the transport of crude oil because we have so much more domestic drilling that's happening in the United States . And as a result of that, we have seen various incidents that have occurred in different cities. And so this is an important issue that Cmll has sort of taken taken a lead role in, along with some of our other counterparts in different cities, to move that forward and make sure that the rule changes that are moving through the Federal Railroad Administration understands that there's strong local community support to make sure those changes happen. So with that, I will just encourage the passage of this proclamation.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega Council. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so happy to see Sam moment here. I think if you looked up and dictionary Colorado Municipal League, you ought to see the picture of Sam Mamet. He is the icon of this organization and I am going to be attending the next National League of Cities Convention, I guess, in a couple of weeks with and I'm very much looking forward to it and very much looking forward to the conversations about the sharing economy, which we're working on. And of course, many cities are throughout the United States. I look forward to sharing it with my other fellow city council people and look forward to a wonderful experience at the conference. Good to see you, Mr. Moment.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I would definitely like to certainly compliment Sameh and his leadership for the wonderful Colorado Municipal League and the wonderful resource that is for folks not only on this dais, but all around the state. But I actually want to say a few comments on the other part of this proclamation, and that is recognizing the 13,600 people that work for the city and county of Denver, so many of whom are unsung heroes and, you know, make the wheels of the city grind and probably don't receive thanks often enough. And I see a few of you in the audience there. So and then I'm hoping a few more are watching on television. So certainly on behalf of District one and Northwest Denver, I would like to thank all of you so much for the hard work and dedication that you do on a daily basis to make this city functioning and be well managed and to move forward. I know that, you know, often when we on this dais hear from elected officials, it's not often from people who are happy about something. It's usually from folks that, you know, have a concern or an issue and a complaint. And a lot of that gets directed at our city employees. So I don't want, you know, your I don't want you to go home at the end of the day thinking, you know, gosh, everyone's mad at me all the time and we're just not doing good enough. You guys are doing a great job. Thank you for all your hard work. Please relay these sentiments to your fellow coworkers when you get in the office tomorrow. Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Certainly, our city employees are extremely important, and I thank each and every one of them for the work they do. I also want to comment on the other portion of this this proclamation, because it's always important, as you look past for the work that you've done in government, people that have been with you a long time have a special place in your heart. And there is nobody in this chambers that I have worked longer with than Sam Mamet. He was. Front and center voice always for cities and how he was for cities at the state legislature. And now it's great to run into him constantly here at the city level. It just seems as if it brings everything together. Sam, to have you here tonight. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Fides. Councilman, I take it that okay if I go down and guess what, Councilman Brown?
Speaker 8: Oh, thank you, Mr. President. Well, thank you, Councilwoman Fox, for your comments about our good, dear friend, Sam Mamet. There's no one here that loves city government more than Sam Mamet. And that is why two years ago at the annual meeting, I nominated him to run for my seat. And maybe you're going to make an announcement tonight and when you come to the podium. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: No pressure. So there were two things I failed to mention. You have a brochure on your desk and it has the simple pin on it. So provide you information on the various services that Cmll provides to local cities and towns. I also wanted to mention that one of our very own David Broadwell, came from the Colorado Municipal League, and we've been very blessed that he continues to be one of our key players that participates in the Policy Committee during the legislative session and helps us look at the various issues that Denver is weighing in on that are moving through the state legislative process. I serve on that on the CML board and have thoroughly enjoyed my interface with counterparts from different jurisdictions. But the work that is done by the incredible staff from Cmll is extremely beneficial to especially many of the cities that don't have their own city attorneys and the resources to ensure that they are taking a thorough look at so many of these issues that move through the legislature that could have a very direct impact on their communities. So I just want to say thank you to David for his work on behalf of the city directly with Cmll and to the very competent staff at Cmll and again to all of our city employees. We wanted to list all the names, but we would have been here all night just reading through them. So this is just our way of supporting this new cities and towns week recognition of city employees for all the work they do. And I just want to say just a big thank you to our employees as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments from members of Council Team? None. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Raquel Ortega, Rob Shepherd, Sussman Brooks. All right. I thought I can eat. I Laman Lopez. Monteiro, I Nevitt. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi, Councilman Brown. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and not the results. 3939 836 has been adopted, Councilwoman Ortega. Is there anyone in the audience you'd like to bring up to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 6: I can't see him behind the podium. That's blocking my view of him. But we've got Sam there in the audience, who's the executive director of the Colorado Municipal League. Sam, would you like to come up and make a few comments?
Speaker 8: After Councilman Brown's comments. I'm not sure if I want to get drafted. It's one thing to say that at the CMO conference, it's another thing to say it on Channel eight. I have no interest in being grist for my own mill and. But I'm flattered. Anyway, good evening, honorable members of this council. I appreciate very much the resolution. The cities and towns week that the league is sponsoring coming up shortly. We've got over 30 cities and towns across the state that are very actively engaged in helping to promote this. And I certainly appreciate Denver's engagement. We're very lucky to have one of your colleagues, council member Ortega, on our board of directors, and we appreciate that very much. I do agree with Council member Sheppard on her comments about city employees. They are for all of us who serve in cities and towns across the state our greatest assets and at the risk of embarrassing one who I'd like to mention from Denver who will be very upset with me but I'm going to do it anyway, is your own Gretchen Williams, who of course, is retiring at the end of the year and I have valued her leadership. I think she represents a level of excellence in public service. Having served the council here for so many years on the staff and is just representative of the kinds of people that we all get a chance to interact with day in and day out. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Gretchen's service on this occasion when we're talking about the great employees for our communities across the state. I appreciate your leadership. I've been traveling around the state the last two months or so with regional meetings and visiting with all kinds of cities and towns across the state. But it's just great to be here with my own city council and and to be with all of you and celebrate this week. So I want to thank you very much, Debbie, for doing this. And I want to thank you all for your support for this week and for the Municipal League. And just for the record, I am not a candidate for anything except going home so I can see my wife and have dinner with her. But I thank you very much, and it's a pleasure to be with you all. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for bringing that forward. We are on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, could you please read the resolutions?
Speaker 5: Business Development 812 Resolution. Peru. The Mayor's Appointments. The West Colfax Business Improvement District from Safety and Well-Being 811 Resolution approving the Mayor's Appointment of the Denver Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Commission.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating Colorado Cities & Towns Week with the Colorado Municipal League and Recognizing Denver's dedicated employees.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10062014_14-0781
|
Speaker 3: No resolutions bills for introduction 692 Councilwoman Ortega 781 Councilwoman Shepherd, 712 Council Shepherd and Ortega and then bills for final 786 Councilwoman Monteiro I think I got them all right now committee have the first one bills for introduction 781 Councilwoman Shepherd, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 1: I just have questions.
Speaker 3: Go right ahead.
Speaker 1: So just so the public knows, the last two weeks we've been in public hearings for the budget. So a lot of the items that might have been discussed in committee were put immediately on the consent agenda. And we haven't had a chance to ask questions on some of these issues. So on 781, it says a bill for an ordinance approving a proposed master purchase order between the city and county of Denver for city wide traffic signal controllers. And then in the in the text that we have, it says for fully operating traffic signal controllers citywide, which sort of sends off alarm bells to me does that it makes it sound like either a we have some but they're not fully operational or B, we don't even have them. So I don't even understand what this means. Exactly. So I want you to clarify for me, if you will please introduce yourself. My name is Megan DeGroot. I work in purchasing. I actually facilitated the bid process for this purchase. So this purchase is for the basically the silver traffic control boxes that you see at every intersection. The reason I said fully operating is because the boxes have to come to us with full wires transfers, power. If there's power failure, it has to have the police. Which is so the police can open the boxes and control the traffic signals if need be. So that's why it said fully operating. So it leads me to wonder, do we have some that don't have these at all or are we have do we have some that are just half functional? No, they're fully functional. It's just. It's just the way it's worded. Yeah. And maybe I misuse fully operating is what I was going for. So the cabinets have to come to us fully assembled together, basically ready to put out everything that's out on the street. Controlling the intersections is working as it should be. It was because there's so many different parts and pieces. That's why it said the cabinets have to be delivered fully. Okay. So, okay, so are these replacing some? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Basically, any time there's an accident that hits a traffic controller box, anything like that, we need to replace an update if if anything goes down or anything like that. I don't I don't think anyone's here from the traffic department, but they're the experts on what all these traffic signal controllers do. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.
Speaker 3: Do you have any other questions come from several?
Speaker 1: Not on that, Bill.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, can we tee up the next one, which I believe was set? 692 Councilwoman Ortega, what would you like for us to do with that?
Speaker 8: I just have a question.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Master Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and AM Signal, Inc., for City-wide traffic signal controllers.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves a two-year $2 million master purchase order with AM Signal for fully operating traffic signal controllers citywide (0264A0114). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-27-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 9-25-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10062014_14-0692
|
Speaker 8: I just have a question.
Speaker 3: Go it.
Speaker 8: And I'm not sure who is here from, um, parks and Rec. It's, it's actually more of a budget question than it is an operational question. So we're spending three quarters of $1,000,000 on renovation of the old animal shelter, but yet we still have not been briefed on what the plan is for the 24 seven Reston Resource Center for the Homeless Community. And, uh, I see Sky over here from the administration wanting to answer the question when are we going to get briefed on what's happening with that in terms of timing and all of that? Because I understand it may involve acquisition of a different building. And I had raised questions about if we were going to be spending money to do major renovation, why wouldn't we be looking at this facility?
Speaker 1: Councilman Ortega Sky Stuart, Mayor's Office. We did actually look at all the existing real estate holdings in the city and they didn't work.
Speaker 8: Operationally for what.
Speaker 1: We're looking for. And that's why we're now looking for property that the city does not own. Evan Dreier and I are happy to come brief you at any time to talk about the 24 hour rest and resources. We are in negotiations to.
Speaker 8: Acquire a site.
Speaker 1: And when we have that site under contract will obviously be coming through to brief you on that site acquisition, but happy to come chat with you in the meantime.
Speaker 8: I appreciate it because I did send a note to Betty Milner some time ago when our last scheduled homeless commission meeting was canceled, expressing concern that we weren't going to be given the opportunity to, you know, allow the commissioners to talk about this and hear what was going on. So I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: We'll catch up some time with you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember two Councilwoman Robb, did you have a question?
Speaker 0: I just wanted to confirm with Mark Tabor or Skye, perhaps these are bond dollars. If people wonder, you know, that we're pulling $792,000 out of the sky, there's $4, I believe that was surplus from the animal shelter bond issue.
Speaker 6: That that's right, Councilwoman. There was a portion of the funding to do the initial demolition and abatement of hazardous materials that were part of the site. The the CIP.
Speaker 2: Program is the is the major component.
Speaker 6: Of this restoration final phase of actually re.
Speaker 2: Rehabilitating the building for use for our maintenance and our operational uses.
Speaker 6: So this particular contract.
Speaker 2: Is is all the AP dollars but but formally.
Speaker 6: The some of the demolition work and some of the previous.
Speaker 2: Work that went into.
Speaker 6: To prepping the building to be re restored and and.
Speaker 2: Abating some of the hazardous materials were bond funded.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Could you introduce yourself for the record?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. Mark Taber, Parks and Rec.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Sorry. With that, I'll have to run. Yes, thank you. So you know the questions on that one.
Speaker 8: I do have one other quick question.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Go right ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 8: So where are the maintenance operations now that are going to be moving to this site? Where are they coming from?
Speaker 6: They're coming from actually across the street. There's a there's a facility that has a forest, primarily a forestry facility park on South Jason. There's also Jason Street North, which is up closer to Pecos that houses are the mower shop, the athletic. Fields and.
Speaker 8: Consolidating everything into.
Speaker 6: One. And we're consolidating and and bringing them closer in a more central location.
Speaker 2: In in the south JSON property. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. You bet. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, are there any other questions on 692 scene? And remember that activity up to next one 712 but called out by councilmembers Ortega and shepherd and I just I'll start with Ortega did you want to call this out or do Councilwoman Shepherd did you want to call it out or did
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving an Agreement with Interlock Construction Corporation for renovation of the former animal shelter for use as a Parks Department storage and maintenance facility.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $749,565.42 contract with Interlock Construction Corp for renovation of the former animal shelter as a Parks Department storage and maintenance facility located at 678 South Jason Street in Council District 7 (201416785). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-27-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 8-28-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10062014_14-0712
|
Speaker 3: Thank you. You bet. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, are there any other questions on 692 scene? And remember that activity up to next one 712 but called out by councilmembers Ortega and shepherd and I just I'll start with Ortega did you want to call this out or do Councilwoman Shepherd did you want to call it out or did you have a question? Questions. Question. Councilwoman Taylor? GRENELL.
Speaker 8: My question is for someone from Public Works. Your final Q. So this bill deals with traffic signals. And what I'm wondering is if it involves removing any traffic signals from locations, because I know in a number of our neighborhoods where we have had lights, they've been removed and replaced with stop signs. So is this just for new lights or is it also for removing traffic signal lights in some areas?
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm Michael Pennacchio with Denver Public Works Transportation. This particular grant is for upgrading existing traffic signals, so it's going to upgrade the communications and the backup battery power to the existing traffic signals.
Speaker 8: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 1: So to go a little bit further with that, I am wondering, does it include any kind of upgrades that might have like pedestrian countdown signals associated with them?
Speaker 2: This again, this grant is more for aimed at communications and battery backup. So most of the equipment that we'll be replacing isn't seen by the general public. It's it's the way that the signal is going to operates, the way that we maintain and operate in.
Speaker 1: You mean how the brain, like the central brain communicates to these?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's the computer that controls it.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then how how are the. So are you saying that that the brain is getting updated or the individual signals the brain is being updated or the individual signals?
Speaker 2: It's it's the way that it communicates to our central system.
Speaker 1: The individual ones. So how are those chosen? Well, how do you choose which ones to upgrade?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have a well, we have the list of all of them that we take to. This is a grant that we apply for. And we received four years worth of grant money to upgrade regionally significant signals. So typically we'll see these programs along like Federal Boulevard along shared in a lot of state facilities, ones that reach outside of the extent of Denver.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Shephard. Any other questions on 712? All right. And thank you, Mr. Flynn. Okay. And that's 1786 called out by Councilman Monteiro. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call it out for a vote for the purposes of abstaining.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation, concerning the "Traffic Improvement Program – Denver TIP 2014 Signals" project and the funding therefor.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $1.344 million Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation to fund the 2014 Traffic Improvement Program for citywide signal system improvement and appropriates and establishes the capital grant fund for the program. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-27-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 9-25-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09152014_14-0795
|
Speaker 6: Proclamation 14 795 recognizing National Preparedness Month and National Day of National Day of Action on September 30th, 2014, and recognizing David Cook for being an honorable mention community preparedness hero as part of FEMA's 2014 Community Preparedness Awards. Whereas, National Preparedness Month is a nationwide community based campaign to increase emergency preparedness across the United States to help ensure that our homes, workplaces, schools, houses of worship and community based organizations are prepared for disaster events, helping to reduce fatalities and economic devastation following a major crisis. And. WHEREAS, National Days of action are set to encourage participation in drills, exercises, discussions to build community resiliency. And the second National Day of Action for 2014 will be held on September 30th. And. WHEREAS, Denver's Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security encourages Denver employees, residents, neighborhood associations, businesses and community organizations to participate in preparedness activity during this month, during the month of September, and to sign up for Denver's Emergency Response Training, otherwise known as CERT offered monthly at. W w w denver gov dawg backslash oem. And where. And these are free, by the way. Whereas OEM Homeland Security also encourages people with disabilities and their caregivers and people with. Spanish as their primary language to sign up for special offerings in September and October of the Denver Community Emergency Response Training Class to meet their specific needs. At again the Denver website. Denver gov dawg backslash OEM. And. WHEREAS, on September 8th, 2014, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, announced that Denver Cert volunteer David E Cook has received an honorable mention Community Preparedness Hero Award as part of FEMA's 2014 Community Preparedness Awards. By serving the Denver community as a trainer, facilitator and exercise coordinator. Training more than 4000 people over the last several years and volunteering in numerous emergency events and exercises, including the 2013 Colorado floods. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby recognizes National Preparedness Month , Denver's Day of Action in David Cook and encourages Denver residents to join millions of Americans in learning and preparing the steps necessary to stay safe before, during and after a disaster. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit it to the Denver Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. In taking your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I move for the adoption of Proclamation 795 Series 2014.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I don't know how many of you have actually done one of these trainings. If you have not, I would strongly encourage you to do this. I did mine, I think about two or three years ago, and the information that you learn from this is so vital to your family and your workplace, being able to just take care of yourself and not wait for the emergency responders because they're at the epicenter of where the disaster has occurred. And so it's going to be a while before they come to take care of you. So as prepared as we can have our entire Denver community, we will be so much better off. And I just want to commend our Office of Emergency Management and all of the volunteers. I know that Mr. Cook is one of many different volunteers and trainers that do this day in and day out to ensure that we have a safe community in Denver. And I want to congratulate you on your award and just strongly encourage that my colleagues adopt this proclamation and continue to get the word out to all sectors of our community about how vital this training is. You know, one of the issues that we've been raising is the the issue of railroad safety. And when you look at some of the incidents that we've seen occur, not only in this country, but in Canada, where a rail incident wiped out an entire community on a on a weekend night, it becomes real when it gets closer to home. And so for the work that you guys do at OEM and the volunteers that provide this service to our community, I want to say thank you and appreciate that. It's something that continues to happen and just reiterate that this training is free to our community. So please, for those of you listening, take advantage of it. Your family may depend on it at some point in time. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, do we have any other comments from members of council? Seen on Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: ORTEGA Hi, Rob Shepherd. SUSMAN Hi, Brooks Brown. I fights. I. And carnage. Lehman I. LOPEZ All right. Monteiro Nevett. Hi, Rob. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: So I.
Speaker 5: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Robin Brown, the perhaps not. All right, Madam Secretary, please close the venue, announce the results. 3939 is proclamation 795 has been adopted. Councilman Ortega, anyone you want to call up to the podium? That's already there.
Speaker 7: Sir.
Speaker 6: We are joined tonight by Pat from our Office of Emergency Management. And I'm sorry, Pat, I'm forgetting your last name. Pat Williams and Mr. David Cook. So, Pat, would you like to start off? I guess we just wanted to stand up front here at all, but thank you. Thank you very much for prompting us to do this again. It is very, very important that we all take some kind of action this month. We just ask you to do one simple thing, whether that's just going and making sure you have phone numbers of the people that you love in your in your cell phone. It can be just as simple as that. And I would like to express my thanks to Dave. Dave puts in a lot of volunteer hours for our organization, and we can't do it without the volunteers, and we can't do it without people like him. So thank you. Appreciate it. Dave, would you like to make any comments?
Speaker 7: Sure.
Speaker 6: If you can lift the mic up so we can. There you go.
Speaker 3: There you go. Certainly am humble. Having this proclamation as well as the award that was given, certainly could not have done it by myself. We have tremendous support with with the city county in Denver, with the Office in Emergency Management, but also the volunteers that we have, you know, supporting us as well. You know, one of the things that still sticks in my mind is the volunteers that we had to help out with the Red Cross there and their communication needs during the flood of last year. One third of the volunteers that was there helping the communications in the in the Red Cross were in the access and functional needs category. Those folks with wheelchairs, crutches and other disabilities, they wheeled right up and went elbow to elbow with all the rest of us healthy individuals and supplied a need to the Red Cross drivers that they were trying to navigate the roads that were washed out or blocked off. And so I am certainly am humbled and energized the fact that we have tremendous support in our training and in this organization. And thank you all so very much.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: All. Thank you both. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for bringing this forward. We are on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, would you please read the resolutions.
Speaker 5: From business development? 690 resolution approving the mayor's report and Lowry Redevelopment Authority Board of Directors from Safety and Well-Being 703 Resolution for the Mayor's Appointment to the Denver Gay Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Commission and 794 Resolution authorizing approving spend European friendly appropriation account designated liability claims sum of $42,253.61 for the city and county of Denver on behalf of
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing National Preparedness Month and National Day of Action on September 30, 2014, and Recognizing David E. Cook for being an Honorable Mention “Community Preparedness Hero” as part of FEMA’s 2014 Community Preparedness Awards.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09152014_14-0610
|
Speaker 2: It has been moved. And second, the public hearing for Council Bill 610 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening, Councilor Tina, Axel Rev, Community Planning and Development. This Council bill is pretty straightforward. We are going to try to put on the same playing field properties in the city of Denver that have zoning under our old code with properties that are zoned under the new code. We just want to apply the same rules consistently throughout the city on what in how you can grow marijuana at home for personal use. Jeannie Ras Councilwoman Jamie Robb is the ordinance sponsor. We've worked closely together with the councilwoman at KPD and with the city attorney's office to bring this bill before you. We have provided early notification to R.A. through posting on our website and through notice notifications throughout this public adoption process. The Denver Planning Board considered this ordinance request on July 16th and voted 10 to 0 to recommend approval to the City Council at this bill. Currently, we have in place in the City of Denver some standards for growing marijuana at home under the Colorado Constitution. These were adopted in 2013 and they are summarized on this slide. Generally, you're allowed to grow no more than six plants per adult and no more than 12 plants per total per household. Any marijuana grown at home must be grown in a completely enclosed structure. You cannot use common areas if you live in an apartment building or condo building. That marijuana that you do grow at home is only for personal use and cannot be resold or distributed otherwise offsite. And the key thing here is that these limited limitations apply only to residential properties with Denver zoning code zoning. Examples of those codes are shown above. The challenge is that inadvertently we did not think because we've got two codes and we often forget that we have two codes in the city of Denver. At the time we adopted these in 2013, we didn't extend the same limitations to residential properties with all codes zoning. Those are the are one or twos or twenties with waivers or pads with residential units in them. So what we have is a very unlevel playing field as far as the rules go. If you're in one of these homes under an old code zoning, you would still be limited by state law to no more than six plants per adult, but you'd have no similar limit on the total number of plants per household. In other words, it could be more than 12 plants, and there's no similar prohibition on growing marijuana outdoors. Some of the words you might be able to have it outdoors if you could grow it inside a lock fence enclosure. But that's all that the state law and constitution require doesn't require to be moved inside. Just at a glance. Here's a map showing you where we have all codes zoning today in the city of Denver. Everything you see colored is an old code zoning district mapped. Now, this includes all land uses, but it's approximately it's over 16,000 acres of land in the city that have all code zoning. In terms of the number of homes or residences in play, it's about 20%. Our best estimate of all the residential units in the city of Denver are still under old code zoning. So this does affect quite a few homes in the city of Denver. So the proposed change is simply to amend the city's municipal code. This is an amendment to the Denver revised municipal code, not to the new code, because that's not going to help us reach or code zone land. And we'll simply state the gardens are allowed as accessory to a home use and that if you have a garden with your home and you want to grow marijuana, that's allowed. But it's going to be subject to the same limitations in the new Denver zoning code. And it just point you to that direction to say, do that. This is the proposed language. I won't linger here, but that's what you'll see in your touch red line and what's in the ordinance before you. And then our review criteria generally is spelled out in more detail in the staff report. Staff has has conducted its analysis and has found that the amendment is consistent with the city's adopted plans, that the amendment will further public health, safety and general welfare and will result in regulations that are uniform in each zone district throughout the city. Whether your old code or new code zoned so upon two are finding that we that the that this ordinance meets the criteria we're recommending to you tonight that you approve the text amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Tina. We have one individual signed up to speak today. And Mr. Texter, you may come on up and speak when you're ready.
Speaker 3: Thad, Texas 4535. Julian Street, Denver, Colorado. I was pleased to learn last Monday that because of your actions, Billy the Elephant and all the other animals at the zoo will have plenty to eat this winter and a warm place to sleep. No elephants will be dying in our alleys or by our rivers. It's too bad the same cannot be said of our homeless citizens. I guess this means that Denver must be thought of as a city that thinks more of its pachyderms than its people. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. All right. We are on to questions. Any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. A question, please. When I saw the word garden as it relates to marijuana and I heard that the discussion of garden I'd like for you for people at home to mention whether we are talking about outdoor flourishing gardens.
Speaker 6: A garden as accessory to a home. Your home, for example, could be outdoors, and many of them are and maybe most of them are that we see around our neighborhoods. But it could also be enclosed inside a greenhouse that would be considered a necessary garden as well. And in fact, if you want to grow marijuana, you've got to it's got to be completely enclosed. So either you're going to have it inside your your greenhouse or inside your house like a container garden in your basement under lights.
Speaker 9: That was the clarification I was looking for because I don't want people hearing this and then immediately planting right along beside their lettuce. Right. Marijuana doesn't work that way, folks.
Speaker 6: Completely enclosed for four walls on a roof.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And this is sort of a clarifying question, Tina, on a technicality, I guess, but we are amending our municipal code so that this applies to the old code. So really see if I've got this right. We are amending sort of the enactment ordinance when we put the new code in place that told how we were going to transition between old and new and what things still applied and what changed.
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry. I actually had a comment, so I'll hold on to the comments.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Any other questions from members of the council? And seen none. The public hearing is closed for counsel ten. Now we're on to comments from members of Council Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I became aware of the need to make this change partially through conversations with the police. Although this is not a criminal act to grow more than 12 plants at your home, but rather is enforced through zoning in the administrative but in from both the police. In our in is inspectors a neighbor might call and complain about another neighbor growing an excessive amount of marijuana. And it's easy to say, oh, no, we don't allow that in our code. And then lo and behold, look and see that no in that house next to yours, because it may be a different PD than the one your house is in or just across the street, a different zone district that's under the old code. Yes, indeed. That neighbor has that right. So I think this is an important housekeeping measure to take so that the enforcement is clear to the enforcers as well as the people who are being enforced upon. Is that the right verbiage? I think it's really significant to look at the map that Tina brought tonight because 20% of the city's a significant part of the city. And if you look at that map, you do see how irregular the placement is. So it takes more than just a good guess about where our past measures apply and where the current. Yeah. And where it now it'll cover the whole area. So I urge my colleagues to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just I wondered why that Basil grown in the side of my house tasted funky and then my mouth really numb. No, I'm just kidding. Now I just miss. And I. I do think this is a smart catch and I am very supportive. I know that there was a lot of confusion in our district around that around this amendment. And I think this clears it up. I, too, got communication from the police department about this. So it's going to be good. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, any other comments from members of council? Scene. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Rob Shepherd I Susman I Brooks high brown i fats I can eat lemon high Lopez Monteiro I Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote. And now the results. 3930 916 has been placed upon final consideration and and does pass. All right. We are ready for the second public hearing, which is on Council Bill 665. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put six, six, five on the floor?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill six, six, five be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to Former Chapter 59 uses and limitations.
(NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Revises the Denver Revised Municipal Code, Section 59-2, to align with zoning limitations passed in 2013 to limit and control growing marijuana for personal use in private homes. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-6-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09152014_14-0665
|
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill six, six, five be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Has been moved and seconded. Public hearing four, six, six, five is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Savannah Jamison Community Planning and Development for the designation of 2 to 7 South Lincoln Street, the Glover Lynch House. The applicants are Terry and Gulliver. Gulliver and Nita Lynch, who are also the owners. This was brought forward by the owners and they diligently completed the application and did the research necessary for this designation. This may be a home that a lot of you are familiar with, as it does on the main thoroughfare to downtown Denver on South Lincoln. It is in the council district, number seven in the spear neighborhood, although it does border very closely the Baker neighborhood, as well as Walsh Park West. So it's in the little corner right there. And it is just for their property and their lot. Staff has reviewed this, as has the Landmark Preservation Commission at their public hearing and found that the application is complete and it meets criteria and two out of three categories. It is a distinctive queen and home designed by the prominent Denver architect William Leong. The home is recognizable from its prominent location on Lincoln Street and the West Washington Park neighborhood. Reconnaissance survey and history report listed the home as having architectural significance. 2 to 7 South Lincoln Street meets the criteria for local designation in the following categories architecture to a embodying a distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style or type. This is almost classic textbook Queen Anne, and it's a regular form. Has the asymmetrical facade that you can see here, very distinguishing front and prominent front turret turret and a stiff steeply pitched roof also meets criteria. To be is a significant work of a recognized architect. This is the work of William Lang, it says so in the building permits, as are eight other homes along this street, which is very rare. We have very few places where we have that many homes all together. By one architect. He was a prominent Denver architect from 1887 to 1895, and he was a partner in the firm Lang and Pew. He mostly did commercial as well as domestic and is mostly that eclectic styles. This is why it's unique that we have one where it's such a prominent just one style rather than a bunch of eclectic styles. Together by William Lang also meets Criteria three A having a prominent location or being established, familiar and orienting visual feature of the contemporary city. Many of us see it as an orienting feature. As you drive through the thoroughfare of Lincoln Street to downtown Denver, sense of public outreach went to the Landmark Preservation Commission before a public hearing, and the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to for the City Council with the recommendation of approval, also reached out to the registered neighborhood organizations within 200 feet and received a letter of support from the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. Community Planning and Development and the Landmark Preservation Commission are recommending approval as application is complete and the House meets criteria for designation, meeting criteria and architecture and geography.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms. James. And we have three speakers signed up today and I'm say all three names and you all can come to the front pew Anita Lynch, Gertrude Grant and John Paulson. So you can make your way up to the beginning. Pew and Anita Lynch can go ahead and start whenever you are ready.
Speaker 8: Council Members My name is Anita Lynch and I own and live at 227 South Lincoln along with Terry Gulliver. And we thank you for this opportunity to submit this application and to preserve this gem of a house. It was totally refurbished about three years ago, and the integrity is there definitely on the outside and much of it is retained on the inside. And it has some interesting history. I did a lot of research on the people who lived there, and one of the families was the Nicolet family. Who? They lived there the longest. If you get a chance to ever read some of the history, it's kind of fun. And I think it's interesting as we talk about marijuana today, they were there during prohibition and we learned that they were involved in a little bit of bootlegging. So there's some real fun history from this. So we thank you and we hope you will be in support of it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Lynch. Gertrude Grant.
Speaker 9: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Gertrude Grant. I live at 224 South Lincoln, and I'm here in support of this designation. I moved into my house in 1977, and ever since then I've looked across the street at the row of Lange houses. I didn't know they were lying. I just thought they had cool little turrets and I thought it would be neat if they could be saved. But I wasn't willing to undertake it because I had undertaken a bigger house with a lot more problems than any of those houses have. But it's just really exciting. Over the 20, 30, 40 years that I've lived there, to see the houses across the street be cared for and have people who really care about preserving the historical character. And some of Denver's history. And I hope you will vote for this or this council bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Ms.. Grant Olsen.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. My name is John. Also, I'm the director of preservation programs at Historic Denver. We're at 1420 Ogden Street. I'm very much in support of this designation. I first became in contact with with Nita and Terry when they were asking, along with other their neighbors about this block on 200 South Lincoln Street. They're not ready for a designation at this time. But I was very proud of Terry Anita going forward with a designation for their house, partly, of course, because it is a wonderful block. It has all of these wonderful William Lang buildings on them. Historic Denver has a great affinity for the architect, William Lang, as we are an owner of one of his more prominent and well-known one being the Molly Brown House at 1340, Pennsylvania. But as was mentioned in the staff report, this was when we were starting to do the research of this block of South Lincoln. We were very surprised ourselves to find out that there was this much concentration of William Lang buildings all together. He was very prolific architect, but he generally did buildings spaced apart all over the city and again in a very eclectic style. So this is a very rare case. We are also very proud of Anita and Terry for doing this, because designation, especially as a homeowner, is one of the most direct and long lasting things that we can do for our built environment here in Denver. And I think it really adds to the vibrancy and the richness that we have as an architectural climate here in Denver with that mixture of the old and new. So we're going to have this building for many, many years to come and hopefully they will be owners of that property for many years to come, but also for subsequent owners of that building and that block. So we think it's a great thing for you to vote for the designation of this property and add to the richness of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Olson. That concludes our speakers. So it's now time for questions from members of Council. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So I may have asked this question before. And John, I think you just alluded to this, but it would have been a nice block, too, to seek historic designation for the whole block. But why was that not there?
Speaker 3: Were there still some questions from the neighbors and homeowners about what designation means for their area? And so, you know, that's something that still has to play out. And we're still talking to the neighbors about if they want, that. They certainly are eligible for that for that block, because it is a great concentration, not only on the west side of the William Lang Properties, but also on the east side for some wonderful high end Queen Anne buildings. But it just wasn't the right time for them to go forward with a full designation. And because these these properties on this block are very significant in their own right, it was a definite option that Anita and Terry could go forward with the designation on their own. And they decided to do so not only because they wanted to save their own property, but also because they wanted to show their neighbors that, you know, it can be a wonderful thing for them.
Speaker 5: Since we have the ability to take a little bit of advantage of, you know, being on television. What might be some of the benefits to homeowners seeking a historic designation, say such in the way of tax credits or other things like that that might you know.
Speaker 3: Certainly, yeah. There's a there's a 20% tax credit for individual homeowners for any properties that are eligible or on a local or national or state register. And so the 20% tax credit is something that a lot of people actually aren't taking advantage of. But we're hopeful that more people will become aware of that the 20%. Tax credit allows for you to do investment into your properties for all kinds of different things. That's much more than just taking care of what people traditionally think of as, you know, historic elements of the property. It's also things like fax systems, plumbing, electrical things that make historic buildings livable are all eligible for tax credits. And that's a direct credit, not a deduction that you can take on your individual state taxes for that year and you can actually push it up for ten years. So whatever investment you put on your property, 20% of that comes off of your liability for your state taxes. There's also a much research that was done to show that property values actually go up at a greater rate, either from individual designations or from historic districts than do properties that are not historically designated. It's a something that allows for the stability of the real estate prices. And so historic designation has always shown to sell very, very well.
Speaker 5: And if I might ask one more clarifying question, the 20% tax credit that you referred to, is that also two contributing structures in the historic district, or does that need to be something that each individual homeowner applies for that historic designation individually?
Speaker 3: No, it's it does refer also to contributing buildings in historic districts. So if you are a contributing building in a historic district, you are eligible for that 20% tax credit. And that's something that can be handled through the Landmark Preservation Commission. And so you can put an application forward for tax credits and you can certainly talk with their staff about that as well as there's staff available at the State Historic Preservation Office, otherwise known as History Colorado, which you can find out all about what benefits the tax credits are for your property.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. And in full disclosure, I own a property in a district, a district that is in desperate need of some help. So thank you.
Speaker 3: No problem.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, any other questions from members of council? And seen nonpublic 39665 is closed time for comments from members of council. Councilman Nevett.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to see this this historic designation come forward. I'm happy to see you guys stuck to your guns after the attempt at the historic district. You're doing your own house. So Team Gulliver Lynch is to be to be commended for for for bringing this forward. And it it make I bet it comes as a surprise to some people that there are these beautiful old queen ends on Lincoln. We don't think of, you know, sort of, you know, the Denver's finest buildings being right on a busy thoroughfare. And it's sort of one of the tempers of our car focus built environment that, you know, you want the the the nice houses to be away from the thoroughfare. But back in the day, they built those nice houses there because they were on the thoroughfare. They were there to be seen as people moved at a more stately pace than we do today. And so it's nice to have these buildings, which many people whiz by on their way to downtown from I 25, and now they're being called out.
Speaker 0: So thank you for.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'd like to say a few words. So, you know, there's a tremendous amount of development happening all across this city. And there's a deep concern among many residents how we may be losing the character of our neighborhoods. And sort of the expression I hear over and over is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. And I just want to put it out there that folks it's for folks to understand that this is another tool in the toolbox for not only preservation of individual homes, but of neighborhoods. You know, if you do the proper research and have the proper input from neighbors and in the supporting evidence. And the other thing that is so interesting about that process is actually learning the history of your home and of your neighborhood. And I, I live in a small, historic district called Witter Coalfield in northwest Denver. It's three blocks by three blocks. But fortunately, my neighbors in the summertime, in the 1980s, went through the process for historic designation, and then they created a book about it that every one of us that who has a controlling structure in that district owns. And I cannot tell you the amount of joy, you know, that we get reading through that and, you know, learning about the old, you know, interesting characters that, you know, used to listen live in our neighborhood and who, you know, who visited and what, you know, terrible loss of fortunes befell some and, you know, some of the rags to riches stories. And it's just fascinating. And I think it really it really adds to the quality of our life today to have this kind of understanding of, you know, where we come from. So I just want to make it clear to folks that are listening that this is another tool in the toolbox, you know , for that very important historic preservation, especially in the face of such a, you know, such a rapid pace of redevelopment in our city today. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just want to add my thoughts as well. I want to commend folks in the neighborhood for working on this effort to sorry to hear that the actual district did not move forward. And I don't know if those efforts are still underway or not. But as we have seen development activity across the city, in my own neighborhood, the Highlands neighborhood, part of that community was created as a historic district a number of years ago under Councilman Sal Carpio. And. The development is not impacting the historic part of the neighborhood. It's impacting the area below that. So it's the lower highlands neighborhood. So it helps preserve the character of our neighborhoods because when it's all just open for, you know, the free market, if you will, you start to see drastic changes to the character of a community. And it changes the demographics, you know, the socioeconomic makeup of the community. And so by being able to create a of that kind of stability, it just, I think, preserves a lot of the quality that we have in our city of Denver. And so I just want to express my support for this application tonight moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, any other comments from members of council? Scene on Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Raquel Nevett I. Ortega from Shepherd Susman Brooks Brown. I. Fights I can eat lemon Lopez I. Monteiro, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Memories. Madam Secretary, please close the venue and the results. 3939 664 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Congratulations. Seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 1: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 0: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 1: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
|
Bill
|
Approves the designation of 227 South Lincoln Street as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the designation of 227 South Lincoln Street as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 7. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST ONE WEEK AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-20-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0763
|
Speaker 2: Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications?
Speaker 4: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Proclamations. We do have two proclamations this evening, and I'm going to start off with Proclamation 763 congratulating the Denver outlaws for their victory and winning the 2014 Major League Lacrosse, also known as the MLS Championship. And I will read Proclamation 763. WHEREAS, The Denver Outlaws kicked off their inaugural season on May 28, 2006 at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium, and are an organization committed to not only winning Major League lacrosse championships, but to growing new lacrosse fans and to making a positive impact on Denver communities. And. Whereas, since their inaugural season, the Outlaws are the only MLS L franchise to make the playoffs each consecutive season since their existence, and they continue to set new lacrosse records, attendance records at Sports Authority Field at Mile High. And. WHEREAS, on October 23rd, 2014, the Denver Outlaws outscore the Rochester Rattlers in a thrilling fourth quarter, win 12 to 11 to capture the franchise's first MLS championship and to receive the Steinfeld trophy. And. Whereas it was a team victory, John Grand Jr was named Coca-Cola Championship Finals MVP for his three goal four point performance that night , and Chris Brocklin made mellow history by making a goal 19 seconds into the game, the fastest goal in MLB history since 2005. And. WHEREAS, Head Coach B.J. O'Hara acknowledges that the team has been playing extremely well and finishing high in the standings since 2006, the team just gets better and better as they work together on offense and defense, a testament to their team commitment. Now therefore be a proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Denver City Council congratulates. Pat Bowlen, owner of the Denver Outlaws, head coach BJ O'Hara, and the entire Denver Outlaws team and staff for an incredible 2014 lacrosse season and for capturing the 2014 MLS Championship and Steinfeld trophy next year. Denver will be looking to the black silver and orange team to bring back a repeat of 2014 and Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test in affix fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Denver Outlaws franchise. So my motion to adopt this proclamation 763 be adopted. It has been moved in. Second, in comments from members of Council, I will start growing up in Kansas City, Missouri. Lacrosse was not a big sport, so it's not something that I became a fan of until my time at Army, where Army was big into lacrosse, and since graduating, the Army has continually done well at lacrosse. So it's been something that I have been paying attention to, and it was just exciting to hear about the Denver Outlaws and their success. So after winning their trophy, the championship last year, I was very excited to have the opportunity to bring forward a proclamation and get to meet some of the players and hold the Steinfeld trophy. It's heavy, but I'm sure they don't realize it when you're carrying it because you worked very hard to capture that. So best of luck. Honored to have you all here for this moment. We can recognize you as counsel. You deserve a parade, but hopefully you'll accept the proclamation because that's what I could do for you. Any other comments from members of council? Kathryn Lopez.
Speaker 1: Comment. Congratulations. I think a lot I think a lot of folks don't realize that the sport of lacrosse has been here before any other sport. This is something that is a Native American sport. This is something that, you know, I think one of the. The oldest sports. Yes, continent. And today it's still played. And I'm glad that here in Denver, we're bringing at least one championship home. And I could be I could proudly say that, you know, we have the outlaws. And, you know what what I really, really like is the work that you guys do in the community, the work that you guys engage with young people. I think supporting the programs for young people to become involved in this sport is big. It's a fun sport and is really hard and it plays pretty rough. So, you know, I in college I was messing around. I played with the intramural sports team at Metro, the girls team, and they whipped my butt. And I never realized how hard this game really was, the sport really was. So I have a lot of a lot of respect for that and hopefully we have a growing fan base and I start packing the stadium a lot more than what we see it because it's already packed, but one day we're going to fill every seat in that place.
Speaker 2: Thank you, government. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, thank you for bringing this forward. I'd like to ask that my name be added. It was just about a month ago, I believe, that we had the lacrosse tournaments in Culver City, and I had an opportunity to go out to a breakfast that was held during the same time with our our counterparts from Adams County . And to see how many young people that we had there playing in those fields was just amazing. I mean, we had people here from from different countries, and the crowd that it brought out was just incredible. So I just want to say congratulations as well. And thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 0: Well, as many of my colleagues know, I'm not that world's biggest sports fan. But I do want to say that I have two wooden and leather lacrosse sticks at home in my basement that are older than Councilwoman Sussman sweaters. And my husband played lacrosse in college in the East. I want to recognize what a victory it is to win over Rochester, because even though we all know the folks have been playing lacrosse in Colorado for a long time and it's a very popular sport here, a lot of people still see it as an eastern sport. So any chance we can get to claim it is great? And speaking of that, I don't know how many folks are aware of the fact that the NCAA college championships in lacrosse will be in Denver next May. Big win for Denver to have them here. And I'll be great sports fan time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Are there any other comments from members of the council saying none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Can eat lemon Lopez. All right. Montero. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. I'm Rob Shepherd. I Susman. Brooks Brown. I thought.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Councilman Brown, you're voting. There we go. Madam Secretary, please close the door and announce the results. 3939 763 has been adopted and we have several members from the Denver Outlaws. So we'd love to have you all come up, introduce yourselves and accept a proclamation at the podium.
Speaker 0: It got the word. Oh, my God.
Speaker 1: That. I'd like to say I'd like to thank the city council.
Speaker 7: It is a tremendous honor if we've got Matt Lockwood here.
Speaker 1: Jeremy Sieverts, Don Roy and myself, Lee.
Speaker 7: Zink, all players here.
Speaker 1: For the Outlaws. You know, we worked really hard this season. It's been nine seasons for some of us here with the Denver Outlaws. And this is just such an honor. And and thank you for recognizing for lacrosse.
Speaker 2: And and this.
Speaker 1: Championship. It's great. All right. Thank you. Awesome. Yeah.
Speaker 2: All right. We are now ready for proclamation. Seven 4745 and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 14 0745 is in support of the mile high behavioral health care and its miracle on Logan Street. Whereas, since 1960, mile high behavioral health care has been providing Coloradoans an accessible substance use disorder and mental health treatment.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation congratulating the Denver Outlaws for their victory in winning the 2014 Major League Lacrosse (MLL) Championship. A proclamation congratulating the Denver Outlaws for its victory in winning
the 2014 Major League Lacrosse (MLL) Championship.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.