Seattle City Council 982020

Colleagues, the September 8th, 2020 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is two o'clock p.m.

Well, I'm Lorena Gonzalez, president of the council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Moraes?

Here.

Morales?

Here.

Mosqueda?

Here.

Peterson?

Here.

Sawant?

Here.

Strauss.

Council President Gonzalez.

Here.

Seven present.

Thank you so much.

Looks like I see Council Member Herbold on the line.

Council Member Herbold, are you with us?

I am indeed.

All right.

Let's make sure that the record reflects that Council Member Herbold is also with us.

So we have eight members present.

at the moment.

Thank you so much.

Council members, the City Council rules are silent on allowing remote meetings and electronic participation at City Council and committee meetings.

The City Council anticipates continuing this practice through at least October 1st of 2020. To allow the Council to conduct business remotely, the Council rules will need to be suspended.

So if there is no objection, the Council rules will be suspended to allow Council members to hold remote meetings and to participate electronically at City Council and committee meetings through October 1st of 2020. Hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and the council will hold remote meetings and participate electronically through October 1st of 2020. Presentations is next on our agenda.

I'm not aware of any presentations, so we will go ahead and move to the approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the special city council meeting of August 12th and regular city council meeting of August 17th, 2020 have been reviewed.

If there is no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes.

Adoption of the referral calendar.

Colleagues, we do have a couple of amendments to the adoption of the referral calendar, but we need to move it and have it seconded in order for us to consider those amendments.

So I will move to adopt the proposed introduction and referral calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

Again, there are some proposed amendments to amend the introduction and referral calendar to add two bills that are not currently included on the published introduction and referral calendar, nor were they circulated by 5 p.m.

on Friday per the council rules.

So before These motions can be made to amend the introduction and referral calendar.

The council rule relating to circulation of a bill for introduction will need to be suspended, so I will make that request.

If there is no objection, the council rule relating to circulation of bills for introduction not on the published introduction and referral calendar by 5 p.m.

on the preceding business day will be suspended to allow consideration of amendments to add two bills to the introduction and referral calendar.

Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended, and we will proceed with consideration of the proposed amendments to the introduction and referral calendar.

There are two amendments.

One is sponsored by myself, as I described this morning during council briefing, and the second is being brought forward by Council Member Herbold, and she also described her amendment during council briefing this morning.

So I will make my motion first, and then We will consider that, and then we will consider Council Member Herbold's amendment to the introduction and referral calendar.

I move to amend the introduction and referral calendar by introducing Council Bill 119878, entitled, An Ordinance Relating to City Employment, Authorizing Execution of a Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the City of Seattle and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 160, Local 79, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts and by referring it to the city council.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the introduction and referral calendar to introduce council bill 119878 for referral to the city council.

Are there any additional comments on this amendment?

Hearing and seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion does carry and the introduction referral calendar is amended.

Council Member Herbold, I'm gonna go ahead and hand it over to you to introduce your amendment to the introduction referral calendar.

Thank you.

I move to amend the introduction referral calendar by introducing Council Bill 119879, entitled An Ordinance Relating to the Operation and Maintenance of a New Regional 800 Megahertz Emergency Public Safety Radio Communication System, authorizing the Chief Technology Officer of the Seattle Information Technology Department to execute for and on behalf of the City of Seattle an interlocal agreement between the City of Seattle, King County, and cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond, Renton, and Tukwila for the purpose of creating a nonprofit corporation as provided under RCW 3934030 to own, operate, and maintain the regional emergency radio communication system that is being installed and developed under a separate interlocal agreement authorized by Ordinance 124685 and by referring it to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the introduction and referral calendar to introduce Council Bill 119879 for referral to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

Are there any additional comments on this amendment?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Thank you.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries, and the introduction and referral calendar is amended.

Are there any further comments on the amended introduction and referral calendar?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the amended introduction and referral calendar?

Chair Bold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

The motion carries.

The introduction and referral calendar is adopted as amended.

Approval of the agenda.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Public comment.

At this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda, introduction and referral calendar, and the council's 2020 work program.

I want to thank everyone for their ongoing patience as we continue to learn to operate this system in real time and navigate through all of its inevitable growing pains as time goes on.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this remote process and adding new features that will allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

It remains the strong intent of the city council to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

However, the city council reserves a right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that this system is being abused or is no longer suitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I'll moderate today's public comment period in the following manner.

The public comment period for this meeting is scheduled to be 20 minutes and each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I'll call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you've not yet registered to speak, but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash Council, that's C-O-U-N-C-I-L, and the public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and you will hear a prompt of you have been unmuted.

That will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to hit star six and begin speaking.

Again, when you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted, that is the speaker's cue to press star six in order to begin speaking.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda, the introduction and referral calendar, or the council's 2020 work program.

At about 10 seconds, speakers are going to hear a chime, and that means that you have 10 seconds left of the two minutes that you have been allotted to provide the council with public comment.

Once you hear that chime, I'd ask that you please begin to wrap up your public comment If a speaker does not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, which in this case is two minutes, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, We'd ask that you do so via Seattle Channel or any of the listening options listed on the agenda.

So the public comment is now going to begin.

I'm going to call on the first two speakers on the list.

Again, for the speakers, please remember to hit star six in order to unmute.

mute yourself and so that we can we can hear you.

So public comment is starting at 2 13 p.m.

and we will go until 2 33 p.m.

with public comment.

First up is Brittany Belay followed by Mari Delaney.

Hello, did it work?

Yep.

We can hear you now.

All right.

Sorry.

Hi.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Brittany Bush-Bollet.

I am the chair of CR Club Seattle Group, and I'm calling about Scooter Share.

We are really excited about the idea of bringing Scooter Share as a tool to reduce polluting and climate-killing car trips.

We know that scooters work well to reduce car trips, especially when paired with bike share, and we know that scooters will attract users that bike share and other modes will not.

We also know that scooters are generally quite safe, especially after the initial learning period, which Council has plans to address, and that they're certainly, certainly safer for both riders and pedestrians than cars.

We hope that they can be an important tool in reaching our Vision Zero goals.

However, we are concerned that a prohibition on riding on sidewalks could undermine this by pushing vulnerable users into dangerous roadways where safe bicycle infrastructure doesn't exist.

We also note the overlap between areas of Seattle that have insufficient bike infrastructure and areas where the population is more subject to disproportionate policing, and we're concerned about the equity concerns that this raises.

All in all, we are really looking forward to bringing scooters in a safe and equitable way to Seattle, and we thank you for your work for many, many, many, many months on this matter.

Thank you, Brittany.

Next up is Mari Delaney, followed by Cynthia Spies.

Hello, council.

My name is Murray delay.

And first I'm calling in support of scooter share.

Other cities have had great success with scooters, and we should definitely follow suit.

Second of all, I would like to ask council members to want where she was last Tuesday when the pigs were brutalizing homeless folks out in Cal Anderson, and why she continues to remain disconnected from the events in her district.

And finally, I want to thank all of y'all for the pepper spray y'all bought to be used on children once again yesterday at this fog rally.

I yield my time.

Next up is Cynthia followed by Don query.

Hello.

We can hear you.

Hi, I'm Cynthia Spies, an independent security researcher and Seattle resident.

My comments are about agenda item eight, the surveillance ordinance.

While a time extension is needed, there are important checks and balance the city council should apply before approving another extension.

First, during the group one and two public engagements, verbal public comment provided in person was never recorded or included in the previous surveillance impact reports, even if the verbal public comment was recorded on video.

No public engagement should occur during the pandemic unless the CTO specifically names the steps IT will take to ensure that public comment given only verbally over the phone will be recorded and included in the subsequent surveillance impact reports.

Not everyone has access to up-to-date technology and internet access for video conferencing.

So if public engagement won't be happening in person, the city council should require specific steps from the CTO for capturing all public comment before approving a time extension.

Secondly, the CTO's letter states that the group three surveillance impact reports are complete.

However, on December 3rd, 2019, the co-chair of the Community Surveillance Working Group specifically requested that the draft reports be provided to the Working Group as soon as they are done.

This would allow time for the Working Group members to read through and digest the frequently lengthy reports before the engagement period starts, which IT has also requested help from them in conducting community outreach.

IT withholding these reports from the Working Group is knowingly placing undue burden on and actively avoiding honest collaboration with the Working Group.

Lastly, the city has not hosted a working group meeting after March, 2020. This is supposedly due to reprioritization of work because of the city's response efforts to COVID-19.

The pandemic is not over.

What assurances can the city council provide to the public that staffing resources will be appropriately allocated with NIT to allow for complete, robust, and timely compliance with the surveillance ordinance?

If staffing assurances can't be made, then the time extension is unrealistic.

Please provide reasonable oversight.

The time extension should not be granted unless specific steps are taken to include phone-only public comment, timely handoff of the report to the working group, and sufficient IT staffing.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Dawn Query, followed by Megan Cruz.

Go ahead, Dawn.

Dawn, it looks like you are on mute.

Dawn, if you hit star six, we might be able to hear you.

There we go.

Are you there, Dawn?

Dawn, if you don't mind, if you can hit star six one more time.

Hey, folks from our technology department, looks like we're having some issues with Dawn Creary, caller Dawn Creary.

Hello?

We can hear you now.

There you go.

Go for it.

It's Don Curry, I'm with the Drivers' Union of TNC's Local 117. I'm calling about fair share legislation to raise pay for TNC drivers.

It has been, I believe now, about six years since I and many other drivers first met with the Seattle City Council.

about this issue, and in that six years, drivers have watched their income drop approximately 50% from what it was around 2014, 2015. So a year ago, drivers stood with Mayor Durkan when she announced the fair share legislation.

That was a year ago.

In that year, the city has reached out to over 10,000 drivers via surveys, teleconferences, and personal meetings with stakeholders, and in the meetings with these and data gathered from these 10,000 drivers, we've come to the proposal which the mayor put forth.

We at the Drivers' Union, for the most part, really like this proposal from the mayor's office.

We would like to see some modest amendments going forward in the weeks, and we'd like to be working with you on that.

We would like to see an increase in the mileage rate as well as the minutes rate, and an increase in the minimum fare.

Those are two very important things.

And some modest improvement would go a long ways to returning these to the middle class jobs they once were.

As it stands right now, the proposal approximately will raise driver's pay about 30%.

We're happy with that.

That sounds very good, but do keep in mind that over the years, driver's pay has been cut by about 50%.

In August, for example, August 2014, August 1st, diver's pay was cut 20% on that day via cuts to the...

Okay, so I think my two minutes are about up, so thank you very much.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Next up is Megan Cruz followed by Fana Abriha.

Hello, I'm Megan Cruz.

I'm calling to request an amendment to CB 119835, supporting the public process by keeping decision-making authority over conditional use of landmarks with the Landmarks Board.

I also want to address CB 119877, described earlier today as simply extending virtual meetings for design review and the Department of Neighborhoods.

This, unfortunately, is disingenuous.

The original COVID emergency bill allowed projects requiring public design review to opt for internal administrative review temporarily for, quote, the six-month duration of the ordinance or until such earlier time as the city has put in operation a system to hold such meetings virtually.

Thankfully, those online meetings started in early August.

I attended the first two, and they went very well.

Mission accomplished, SDCI, and good job.

The true purpose of this bill is to extend the same public free review for developers who aren't eligible and want the same treatment.

This legislation uses emergency bill to create long-term changes that benefit developers at the expense of the public, and developers don't need more incentives.

Building permits boomed after this legislation was passed, and it was led by big projects, the kind that exactly need and benefit from public input.

Please hold to your earlier pledge to make public participation the rule once again.

Extending and expanding this legislation shows Seattle is bound by a system so beholden to developers that it can't afford to let people speak publicly.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Fana, followed by Mohamed Youssef.

Okay, thank you Council Members.

My name is Fana Abraha and I am a part of a driver union.

My agenda today is about TNC fair pay.

We need a fair pay to sustain our personal life.

As we all know, the cost of living in Seattle is going up every year.

For example, our rent goes up yearly since our income is going down yearly.

I also mentioned that my husband drives for Uber as well.

Since we are expecting our third child, he's the only one who's driving right now.

In addition to that, he drives a very long, long, long hours to cover our expenses.

Because of that reason, our kids don't see him very often.

We also don't have a family time at all.

All we ask today is a fair pay, just to keep up with a price inflation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Mohamed, followed by Deb Barker.

Thank you so much, council members.

My name is Mohamed Youssef.

I'm with driver union community.

Drivers are facing a lot of restriction with with fair pay.

Personally, I'm a family person.

I don't get the time to spend with my family because we have long work hours with little pay.

For many drivers, we have been fighting together with driver union on behalf of thousands of drivers.

The need for fair pay that addresses racial equity is more important now than ever.

For immigrant drivers who are frontline during the pandemic time, the majority of them are full-time drivers and our issue is one, fair pay.

No one earns less minimum after expenses.

Thank you so much council members.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Deb Barker followed by Bob Golbrinson.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Deb Barker.

I'm commenting today on two separate council bills before you.

The 2020 Omnibus Bill, Council Bill 119835, regarding the proposed landmark language.

This is proposed to shift the authority of landmark sites from the Landmarks Board to FDCI.

The proposed language would affect only the Patel-Tolares Landmark property.

As a former Landmarks board member who voted for the landmarking of this distinctive Patel-Tolares property, I object to any non-Landmarks staff or board oversight of this property.

Sneaking a code change in through an omnibus bill is not the way to manage any Landmark property, be it a building or site.

It's a disservice to do that to the Landmarks staff and the board.

I urge you to support Council Member Peterson's amendment and stop this action of 119835 proposed landmark language.

Second, please support Council Bill 119858 West Seattle Bridge financing.

Go West Seattle.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for calling in, Deb.

Next up is Bob, followed by Mulyan Sharif.

Hello.

I'm Bob Gulbranson from the Drivers Union, and I'd like to talk about the fair pay.

We need fair pay.

The fares are going down and down all the time, more and more.

Let's see, it was 2014 I started driving for Uber.

they were pretty fair rate for them.

The base fare was $2.50, per mile was $2.70, and per minute was $0.50, and the minimum fare was $6.

Cancellation was $5.

And it's been going down and down every year, sometimes twice a year in the time I've been driving, and it's getting harder to keep up with expenses.

when things like this are happening.

And we sure do need that fair pay increase for our work.

We work long hours, and sometimes it isn't real comfortable work.

But a little bit of an increase with the fair pay would sure help us out a lot.

And I hope everything goes in our favor.

These rates that I just read to you were from 2014 when I first started driving.

And now it's just awful what we get paid now.

We have to work many long hours in order to make a halfway decent living.

Thanks for listening to me.

And thanks again.

So I'll say goodbye.

Thank you, Bob, for calling in today.

Next up is Mulyam, followed by Sheila Stickle.

Go ahead, Mulyam.

You have to hit star six.

There we go.

We can hear you.

Hello, my name is Mulyam Sharif.

I'm a member of the Drivers Union.

and I joined the union in this epidemic crisis because it just like, you know, it shows the reality of what I'm doing, my work and my life and my family with it.

I remember I was going to make a, you know, decent living a little bit, you know, and buy a few presents for my daughter.

I got only one daughter, but right now in this epidemic crisis, I'm coming back home and she's telling me, Dad, you're not making these magic tricks.

You used to bring me presents and you do the magic.

I can't do it anymore.

And I'm spending sometimes one hour, two hours before getting home and find her awake, you know?

It's so bad, really.

I'm not going to talk about any numbers, about anything that took off or the ad or whatever, but I'm just going to talk as a human being.

It's really hard to make a decent living.

Especially now in the epidemic, we are really struggling day after day.

We just want to have decent pay like everyone else.

We do hard job.

We're working in the front line.

We're helping other brothers and sisters doing essential jobs.

And at the end, when you come back home, you don't have that much to support your family.

I don't think it's reasonable these days.

So please look at our raise as a human being, you know, help us as brothers.

That's what we're hoping to do.

Please, look at it as a human being.

How are you going to live?

You're working hard every day, long hours, and you cannot make it.

Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you all have a great time.

Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Sheila Stickle followed by Ahmed Farah.

Good afternoon, I'm Sheila Stickle and I'm pleased to represent Wheels, which is a new kind of micro vehicle that shares the best attributes of e-scooters and e-bikes in a device that's safe, sanitary, and sustainable.

It's worth noting that half our riders are women and solely one-third of the riders are over 35 years old.

So I'm asking you to support the council bills today from the Transportation Committee related to the free floating scooter program.

At Weald, safety is a major priority.

Our device actually has a seat for low center of gravity and greater operator control.

We also have an integrated smart helmet system that walks into the roof center and a one-time-use peel-off biodegradable headliner, which protects people from germs, and a self-cleaning handlebar sanitizing system that was put in place with a partnership with the leader in that kind of technology called NanoSeptic.

On our website, we recently published a safety study showing that we have four times less injuries than bikes and three to 66 times less injuries than other devices and scooters.

So I'm going to just refer you to the email I sent earlier today to the council address that's posted.

I'm happy to send the safety study after I speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sheila, for calling in today.

Next up is Ahmed, followed by Walt Ellis.

Hi, thank you for having me.

My name is Ahmed Farah, and I'm also a part of the driver's union, and I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity Now, for someone who drove for Uber and Lyft over the years and experienced reduction in pay with this company, I would like to speak to the TNC Fair Pay.

I am very optimistic more than any other time to see what the driver's union voiced before being brought in front of the council.

We believe this would be a modest improvement towards fair pay, and it would help the drivers keep up with the, you know, living increases standards in Seattle.

Now, as a father with three school-age children who, especially with what we're going through, spending half of the day attending to their educational needs, this would help me work less time and be there for their educational needs.

And I am adding on to all the other voices that are calling today about this issue.

And I encourage you to stand with us and push forward for a change.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for calling in today.

Colleagues, we have reached the end of our 20 minutes of public comment.

It's 2.33 p.m.

If there's no objection, I would like to see if we can get through the rest of the list today.

There's about 14 folks left.

I think in order to accommodate both the need for us to get through our council business and the need to hear from additional folks, I'd ask that the IT folks reduce the time allotted to one minute.

And if there's no objection, I'd like to extend the period of public comment by an additional 15 minutes.

Hearing no objection, our period of public comment is extended for an additional 15 minutes at one minute each for The remaining speakers.

Next up is Walt Ellis, followed by Jonathan Hopkins.

Hi, yes.

Thank you very much.

I'm Walter Ellis calling on behalf of the driver union about fair pay and A lot of times people are hearing that drivers are supposedly the weekend warriors and we go out for a couple hours, take a couple of drives.

And while there are a number of people who do that, um, at least a third of the drivers on the road are full time drivers who are doing this as the primary ways to feed their family.

And these full time drivers, while we're only one third of the total number of drivers, we're taking more than 60% of the trips.

So we're, we're pulling far more than our weight and our, the most essential portion of the system.

Without us, the whole thing crumbles, and then nobody can get to work and nobody can do what they need to do.

So it's important that we make sure that drivers are respected and are continued to be paid similar to what we used to be paid, which was sustainable, and now it's not.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Jonathan Hopkins, followed by Katie Wilson.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

If you haven't hit star six, please do that, and then we'll be able to hear you.

Okay, it works.

Good afternoon, council.

I was recently speaking to an Auckland city council said due to climate change, If a city is not doing scooters now, they're doing it wrong.

We hope you'll take his advice today and approve immediate scooter launch of a program after years of preparation by the city.

Any delay means launching scooters when it's darker, rainier, and less desirable to take a safe first ride.

Seattle is one of the best cities in the country to launch a scooter program, given we have the longest experience in the country with fleet-filling bike share, and we'll be far from alone.

Because fewer cars also means fewer CO2 emissions, and fewer children contracting asthma in car-intensive areas.

It means more affordable options where people can ride a scooter for lower than the cost of a ORCA Lyft subsidized bus trip for an average ride for low-income riders.

It also means a strengthened bike-share system, allowing scooters enables us to expand the bike-share system from 500 bikes to 2,000.

This is why tons of local organizations are supporting this and have sent letters to the council.

We hope you'll support it as well and without any delay.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Katie Wilson, followed by Francis Kamau.

Hi, Council Members, this is Katie Wilson representing the Transit Riders Union.

First of all, we support the fair share plan and the amendments that the Drivers Union is pushing for, but mainly I'm calling in regard to scooter share.

We support moving forward with a scooter program.

Transit trips are inherently multimodal.

People walk, roll, and bike to the bus or train.

Scooters will be another useful option for people to get to and from transit quickly and efficiently.

We also strongly support a low-income fare requirement to ensure a deep discount for lower-income riders so that cost is not a barrier.

We do have concerns about scooters and bikes improperly left in the right-of-way, especially their impact on wheelchair users and people with mobility challenges.

So we urge you to work with contractors to minimize improper parking and ensure that people with disabilities are protected.

Also, there needs to be far more bike and scooter parking and bike lanes throughout the city.

Thanks for your work on this program, and please do move forward.

Thank you for calling in, Katie.

Next up is Francis, followed by Judith Benditch.

Go ahead, Francis.

Oh, thank you.

My name is Francis Kamau.

I'm a member of a driver's union, and I'll be speaking in support of Fair Pay for Drivers.

There are a few expenses which we in kind to people talk about them.

One of them is double insurance.

Before Uber and Lyft can let us drivers get on the road, we have to show them we have insured vehicles.

Then after giving rides, they take a cut from every ride, which they say goes towards paying for insurance.

So if you can help us take care of that problem, we will be very happy.

The other thing I would like to to bring to your attention is that we don't have health care.

We have to pay for it.

And we don't have any retirement benefits.

And we find it even harder to, you know, save anything.

Thank you, Francis, for calling in.

Next up is Judith, followed by Maria Batayola.

Hello.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Judith Benditch.

And I'm urging you to support Councilmember Peterson's amendment of CB 119835, the omnibus bill, because that bill should not be having substantive legislation in it.

And that's what's happened here with respect to sites that will be under the rubric of SDCI, these are historic sites, as opposed to the Landmarks Board, which is where it belongs.

And I've sent you a very long letter explaining why I think it's totally inappropriate among those that it appeared to be tailored to for the benefit of Tallis to Laris Patel which is repeatedly flouted and failed to follow the rules involving this landmark site.

But as Eugenia Wu of Historic Seattle has said this may have greater implications.

Thank you very much and please support the amendment that Peterson has drafted.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Maria, followed by Howard Gale.

Go ahead, Maria.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez and council members.

We at the Beacon Hill Council ask that you reject or amend Council Bill 119853, page 39, line 6 to 20, on the basis of race and social justice equity.

The amendment would permit the development of a historic site without approval by the Seattle Landmarks Board.

Beacon Hill has 47 sites identified as meeting the criteria for landmarking the city's historic resources survey.

Council last year asked the Department of Neighborhoods to look for resources to have it landmarked.

They informed us that the historic assessment resolution is non-binding which leaves us up a creek.

The amendment gives no consideration to landmark sites much less Beacon Hill's historic sites.

We would lose the diversity of source sites and we consider that as an egregious racist discriminatory act.

Please reject the amendment or amend it.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Howard followed by Colleen McAleer.

Hi this is Howard Gale from Lower Queen Anne District 7 commenting on urgent issues concerning police accountability that are part of the council's 2020 work program.

In recent months, we've seen the abject failure of all three of Seattle's police accountability bodies.

For nearly four months now, the Community Police Commission, the OIG, and the OPA have ignored the SPD murder of an African-American man, Terry Caver, murdered in Seattle just days before George Floyd.

Only recently has the OPA opened an investigation into this murder, claiming at first that no one had submitted a complaint, despite the fact I had back in June, and despite the OPA having the mandate to do so, independent of any complaints.

Just last Wednesday, to everyone's shock and dismay, the CPC abruptly and arbitrarily suspended public comment and fled into an illegal executive session to deal with this gross violation of transparency.

Here, the bottom line is there's an urgent need not to just defund and reimagine policing, but to defund and reimagine the current failed police accountability system.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Colleen, followed by Eric Salinger.

Go ahead, Colleen.

Just make sure you press star six so we can hear you.

You there, Colleen?

Good afternoon city council.

And thank you.

Welcome back from your well-deserved break.

Um, as you all know, the ominous bills are presented annually to correct typos, cross-reference, correct emissions, clarify existing regulations, and make other technical corrections and clarification quote.

They're not intended to be a vehicle for addressing significant public.

Policy issues.

I'm addressing, um, the ominous bill 1 1 9 8 3 5 and supportive council member Peterson's.

amendment to strike the language that inserts the word sites into section 17. It would allow the director to authorize a use not currently permitted in the zone as an administrative conditional use within a structure.

The landmark board members were not consulted and they were not told anything about this even through their September 2nd meeting when they found out about it through the public comment during their landmark board.

So I encourage you to reject the language that's in there by supporting Council Member Peterson's amendment.

And the DCI already has a decision-making power after the Landmark Board seized it in December.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Eric followed by Phuong Bui.

Hi, can you guys hear me?

We can go ahead.

OK, so my name is Eric Salinger and unfortunately I still live in District 7 and.

Honestly, I don't know why I bother calling anymore.

There was a march to Spogs HQ yesterday.

It wasn't a violent march.

There were families there.

There were kids there.

The march arrived at Spogs HQ, and speakers started blasting, save a horse, ride a cowboy, as tear gas and crowd control munitions started flying.

There are videos.

I know people who were there and got gassed.

Save a horse, ride a cowboy.

This isn't the attitude of an apartment that wants to be accountable to the community.

This is the attitude of a gang of thugs who react violently whenever their authority is challenged.

And they know they can get away with murder, just ask Dan Satterberg.

70 of you agreed to defund SPD by 50% and you chickened out.

The mayor vetoed the cuts you did decide to make.

Now you're going to come up with some sort of compromise?

Save a horse, ride a cowboy.

I don't know if you are going to do anything about this other than wring your fucking hands.

You want a council to say, oh, we can't protect children from being tear gassed right now, but maybe we'll do something later.

Or, oh, we can't stop the tactics of the nonviolent.

OK, next up is Phuong Bui followed by Tim Alborg.

Hi, my name is Huang Bui, and I'm a government partnerships manager for SIN, speaking on item 20. We urge the city council to move forward with the proposed pilot program.

SIN shares SDOT's mission to deliver a system that provides safe and affordable access to transportation.

We have a robust community engagement plan to educate users on local parking, riding, and helmet rules.

And it's given the opportunity to operate in Seattle, SIN would work closely with the city to provide service to diverse neighborhoods, including but not limited to West Seattle.

For example, SIN can help fill the gap created by the closure of the high-level West Seattle Bridge.

We know that closure has led to increased traffic on the South Park and First Avenue South Bridge and increased congestion and pollution in equity-focused areas.

So working together with Seattle stakeholders, alternative forms of transportation can speed the recovery of transit networks in the region.

And ultimately, we look forward to a future in Seattle where more people choose bikes and scooters over single occupancy car trips.

And we ask that you move forward with the pilot program.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Tim, followed by Alicia Ruiz.

Good afternoon.

My name's Tim Alborg with SPIN, and I'd like to speak on item 20 before you today.

The proposed scooter pilot program would provide residents of the city of Seattle with another convenient and affordable transportation option, especially to those with low incomes.

And we commend the good planning done by SDOT and the rigorous safety and oversight measures built into the program before you today.

Spain currently operates with an all W-2 employee workforce in Portland, San Francisco, L.A., San Diego, and now the Seattle metro area.

We recently launched our services here in King County at White Center for a pilot that we're partnering with the county on.

So we're very happy to be here now serving Metro residents.

We'd welcome the opportunity to provide our service to the city of Seattle as well.

And we share the city's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, SPIN is committed to being carbon negative by 2025 in cities where we operate.

So we ask that you approve the scooter pilot program today without delay.

And thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Charlie Latham.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the Council.

I hope you are all doing well and staying safe.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, and I'm the Seattle Government Affairs Manager for the Master Builders Association of King and Sonomish Counties, and I'm testifying today on Council Bill 119865 regarding street use fees.

Our association and our nearly 3,000 members stand in opposition to the new street use fee schedule as the increase in fees is yet another fee imposed by the city that is increasing the cost of housing.

During this time of COVID where the majority of the economy is still shut down construction is one of the few industries that is able to work and provide jobs.

Unfortunately the cost to build is becoming harder and more expensive in Seattle and several projects are just not getting built.

Townhome production is down 25%.

That means less jobs and less tax revenue for our city.

We're asking you to delay the vote until SDOT can go back to the table to consider input from other stakeholders to find fees that won't increase the price of housing.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Charlie followed by Braxton Baker.

Hi City Council and a late happy Labor Day to everybody.

My name is Charlie LaFamme.

I'm with MLK Labor Council, which represents King County unions and over 100,000 working people.

Today I'm speaking on behalf of the Fair Share Coalition, which is a broad coalition, more than 70 organizations from unions to transportation and housing advocacy organizations to the environmental community, faith and neighborhood organizations.

We all support the fair share plan to raise driver pay as a coalition because it's one of the most important labor protections we can do right now to improve people's lives.

Raising pay would address racial inequality and low wages in our community.

It would be yet another way for Seattle to lead the nation on progressive labor protections that we have done so many times in the past.

So let's finish the job and ensure that Uber and Lyft drivers in our city earn a living wage.

Thank you.

Thanks, Charlie.

Next up is Braxton Baker, followed by Valerie Schloret.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Go ahead.

Hi, I'm just calling on behalf of SGPA, Seattle Group for Police Accountability, and I wanted to speak on the CBA for Police Officers Guild and the SPMA CBA that's set to expire at the end of this year.

Back in 2018, when the contracts were initially opened for negotiations and passed, we saw that the CPC, along with 23 other community groups, that probably also signed with the consent decree actually opposed the passing of this contract, and stated that it went against a lot of hard-fought battles for police accountability.

And not only that, but Judge James Robart also opposed the passing of this contract.

And even with that being said, we see that city council passed the legislation with an eight-to-one vote.

with Councilmember Sawant being the only opposition.

So I just want to address the fact that in this current negotiation, we need community representation, we need to have the community involved, and we also need to be listened to.

Thank you.

Our last speaker is Valerie.

Hi, Councilmembers.

I hadn't planned on...

This is Valerie Schloret from Beacon Hill.

I hadn't planned on speaking today, but I was catching up with the news this morning, especially on Twitter, a reading about what happened at the Labor Day march about policing in Soto yesterday.

I'm really so curious about the behavior of SPD, the continuing behavior of SPD that I really, I can hardly speak.

Can you hear me?

I'm getting a beep.

Everything that I see about SPD's behavior yesterday is absolutely infuriating.

They are very highly paid city employees, and they are behaving as if they are running their own private war against protesters.

This is completely unacceptable.

It's really a form of theft of public money.

I suggest that anyone who wants to catch up on this news, look at the strangers report, look at reporter Rich Smith.

Thank you so much for calling in.

Colleagues, that is the last speaker I have that is both pre-registered and showing up as present on my public comment sign up sheet here.

So we're going to go ahead and close out the public comment period and begin on the items of business on our agenda of which there are many.

So let's go ahead and dig into this afternoon's work.

We will begin with payment of the bills.

There are three bills.

We will consider each one individually, but have them all read into the record.

So, payment of the bills.

Will the clerk please read the titles?

Payment of bills, Council Bill 119872, an ordinance appropriating money to pay certain audited claims for the week of August 10th through August 14th, 2020, and ordering the payment thereof.

Council Bill 119873, an ordinance appropriating money to pay certain audited claims for the week of August 17th through August 21st, 2020, and ordering the payment thereof.

Council Bill 119874, an ordinance appropriating money to pay certain audited claims for the week of August 24th through August 28th, 2020, and ordering the payment thereof.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119872. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Hearing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Herbold?

Aye.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

I move to pass Council Bill 119873. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Hearing no comment, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

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?

I move to pass Council Bill 119874. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Hearing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Herbold?

Aye.

Moraes?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Okay, committee reports of the city council.

We'll start with item number one.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one into the record?

Agenda item one, appointment 1603, the reappointment of Duane Chappell as director of education for the Department of Education and Early Learning for a term to January 1st, 2024.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to confirm appointment 1603. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointment of Director Chappelle, a sponsor of this appointment.

I am thrilled to be the first one to be able to address it.

And then I will, of course, open it up to comments amongst my colleagues.

So again, I'm very excited to bring this appointment before you colleagues.

It has been a pleasure and privilege to be able to work with Director Chappell as a council member over the last several years since I became chair of the City Council's Committee Responsible for Issues Related to Education and Early Learning.

I've also had the pleasure of working with Director Chappell on As a co-chair of the Select Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy Committee, which was responsible for looking at the potential renewal of the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy that was set to expire, and proud to report that that was successful.

And we now indeed have a renewal of that levy.

And under Director Chappelle's stewardship we've been continuing and enhancing our investments in early learning and education on behalf of all of the kids of the city of Seattle.

Director Chappelle is an incredible leader who understands the long term and necessary work of shifting for whom our education system is centered on and what we must transform for students furthest from educational justice.

and those that are impacted by the opportunity gap at the deepest level.

He has worked as a teacher.

He's been a champion for students and he has served as leadership at schools as assistant principal and principal both in Texas and here in Seattle.

He has a deep understanding of classroom dynamics in our K through 12 system.

but has also been a great champion for early learning and being part of the leadership that has brought Seattle preschool program as well as as well as a fantastic champion for post-secondary opportunities through our new relatively new Seattle promise program.

Director Chappelle brings with him the gravity and levity necessary to work with Diehl.

Proud to say that Diehl is one of the, if not the most diverse department in the entire city family.

And I know that Director Chappelle is always very proud to talk about that representation within his department.

And I know that he's gonna speak to that once we take a vote here.

But he again brings so much value to the work that DEEL is undertaking for Seattle students and their families by working strategically with the Seattle Public Schools and the network of community-based advocates and stakeholders.

And of course, his Dwayne and Donuts is legendary.

It's a legendary program with DEEL staff.

It is a reflection of the culture and relationships he builds as a leader and the care that he has for his team members at the DEEL department.

I am honored to be able to bring this reappointment forward for consideration by the full council.

And as you all can see, Director Chappelle is on the Zoom call with us.

Assuming that his appointment is confirmed, we will go ahead and suspend the rules and offer Director Chappelle an opportunity to address the City Council and members of the public after his appointment is considered.

But first, I will conclude my remarks there and offer my colleagues an opportunity to make comments on the proposed appointment before we call this to a vote.

Thank you very much, Council President.

I am very much looking forward to supporting this nomination of yours today.

Director Chappell, it's been really an honor to be able to work with you in my short term on council, and not only on the issues, because you, under your leadership, you have helped to advance and expand access to early learning opportunities, but the way in which you bring people to the table as well has been incredibly inspirational.

And whenever there's been a problem, even in the COVID times where we've had to meet remotely, you've been very quick to jump on the phone, to jump on a Zoom and to help identify solutions to any of the issues and problems that have come up.

And you've done it with urgency and a huge amount of integrity.

Appreciate the way in which you've worked with this body and more importantly, the way in which you've worked with families across the city to make sure that people can access I want to thank you for your leadership and please extend our appreciation via your confirmation today to all of the hard work that your team is doing as well.

We appreciate all of their work and your stewardship of the department.

So thank you and early congratulations.

All right thank you.

Well I want to congratulate you in advance Director Chappelle.

We haven't had a chance to work together.

I do know that your leadership at Rainier Beach High School resonated and is missed in the community.

I did have a chance while you were still there to be part of some of the conversations around Black Male Achievement and the work that has begun to really try to support our young people And I think that's really important.

I just to let you know, we'll also be interested in following up to have conversations about how we can also begin to add in support for programs that support young women.

There are lots of organizations that are providing important resources for girls.

There's Brown Girls Write, Delta Gems, You Grow Girl, Young Women Empowered, lots of organizations, particularly I think we have a lot of people who are interested in making sure that our young black women get the support they need to be successful in life as well.

I look forward to talking with you about that down the road and I want to congratulate you on what is to come.

those remarks.

Colleagues, I see Councilmember Strauss has his hand up as well and would like to make comments for any of my other colleagues who I can't see on the video or for those of you that I can, if you want to make comments, please do let me know.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Director Chappelle.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you in particular for all of the work that you have done on behalf of the city of Seattle.

You continue and are consistently approaching your work in a thoughtful and focused manner that betters everyone here in our city.

It has been an immense pleasure to work with you, and I look forward to continuing that work.

So, job really well done.

It's great to see a Seattleite doing good work for Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Customer Stress.

Any other comments from my colleagues?

Okay, seeing none, we're going to go ahead and close out debate.

I just want to once again say how happy I am that we have you as our Director of the Department of Education and Early Learning.

Director Chappelle, I've had such a great time being able to work with you, and you've always been transparent and proactive.

and responsive to the concerns that I have expressed.

And we've had some tough and difficult conversations over the last almost six years where I've really asked tough questions.

And you've never shied away from having those difficult conversations, including how to more holistically approach issues related to students who are furthest away from educational justice and who continue to experience the opportunity gap in a disproportionate And I look forward to seeing and hearing about the conversations that you can have with Council Member Morales on the issues that she has raised.

And of course, I know that at the end of the day, based on my experience with the department and you, when we were dealing with the renewal of the FEPP levy, one of the things that was most surprising to me in all of these in-district, in-community public hearings was how much people wanted more of what Diehl was giving.

And usually when we're going out for public hearings and the public were being told about all the things people don't like.

And in this instance, many people reiterated how important the work of Diehl is to making sure that we are delivering on our promise and our commitment to educational justice.

And to do that in across the spectrum from you know prenatal care to birth to child care to the K through 12 system and now in the post high school area.

So I really want to thank you for your ongoing partnership and for the way in which you choose to lead and in the way you choose to engage with us as council members in the legislative branch on many of these important issues that that are going to continue to be significant and important issues, particularly in the context of the realities of how we learn and how we need to care for our children in a COVID-19 pandemic.

So really, really appreciate all of your ongoing commitment to that work.

So colleagues, we're going to go ahead and move on now to a roll call on the confirmation of the appointment.

So I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointment.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Yes.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

outstanding.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Council members, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chappelle is present to provide brief remarks to the council and I will move to suspend the council rules to allow him to address the council.

So if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow Director Chappelle to address the council.

Hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended.

Director Chappelle, welcome once again to our virtual remote full council meeting.

And of course, congratulations on your reappointment as the fearless leader of the director of, as the director of the Department of Education and Early Learning.

I'm gonna go ahead and hand it over to you to allow you to address the city council and members of the public.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez and all the council members for your support in this confirmation.

It is my honor to actually appear before you all today as the proud director of the Department of Education and Early Learning.

African history and culture, by the way, of Ghana teaches us the concept of Sankofa and the idea of reaching backward to pass knowledge to inform how we move to the future.

And as I think back on my nearly five years as DIL's director, I am so compelled to practice Sankofa.

And that is just in addition to the experiences that I just draw on as a father or a community member, a black male educator, I've continued to grow and learn during my time as DIL director.

And, you know, I mean, I'm just taught lessons daily from the community, from our educators and school administrators, from our youth, from our DEEL staff, and mainly from our, I shouldn't say mainly, but also from our many partners in city government, philanthropy and business.

And so I just thank you all for this opportunity.

And, you know, in my time with DEEL, we've done a lot of critical work of community engagement, right?

Like listening to families, or should I say, listen to the voices of families, of partners and educators, and those with deep experiences supporting young people.

And as you mentioned, you know, the engagement really informed our work to develop the Families Education Preschool and Promise or FEPP levy.

And but it also helped us as well to develop key programs such as like Seattle Preschool Program or the Promise.

And as a department, we invest roughly about $100 million annually through FEPP, through the Sweetened Beverage Tax, through General Fund, some other grant revenues.

But it's all to benefit our children, youth, and families.

And I know you all are aware of it, but we've conducted, what, numerous funding processes, right, that included the $100 million in FEPP school and community-based investments that was really announced a few weeks ago.

And I'm just so proud to continue to serve in this role, you know, under my leadership and through the hard work, as you all mentioned, of DEEL staff.

partnership with our amazing community partners and community-based organizations, Seattle Public Schools or to Seattle Colleges.

DEEL really has provided many important services to the community and you know this year in response to the COVID pandemic we were able to launch the Emergency Child Care Program.

And it met the needs, or should I say, it met the childcare needs of our essential workers, and including the first responders and other workers, healthcare and food industries.

But through it all, our work is singular focus.

Council President, you just mentioned it.

And that's to partner with families and communities to achieve educational equity and close opportunity gaps.

to build a better economic future for our Seattle students.

And I want to say as we move forward in this work to eliminate race-based opportunity gaps I am going to continue to be informed by the wisdom of Sankofa you know by this history of service and the voices of the community.

And of course indeed you know much of the focus of our work moving forward comes directly from community, right?

But the need for greater access to affordable childcare, the need for more multilingual diverse educators in our schools.

And most recently just really the need to eliminate the digital divide and expand access to reliable Wi-Fi technology for our students.

So I'm resolved or determined to help bring alignment to all of our city's educational investments from child care infant toddler school age kids preschool K-12 or after graduation.

post-secondary and beyond.

So that at no point along that journey that I just mentioned, um, our young children are left without access to a caring adult or some type of, uh, competent or culturally relevant, uh, educators, um, and the critical basically resources and opportunities that is needed for their success.

So, um, as a black father for our, I have four beautiful black children, right?

And I think frequently about the world and like my children growing up in this world.

And I just think about like the current events and the recent demonstrations, community demonstrations that have strengthened my belief in education as is really the key driver that's gonna have a positive social change and justice.

So I'm proud and this is why I'm grateful to be a part of this work.

because as I just mentioned, the city's investments, the city and DEEL's investments are making a difference in our young people's lives, both within the larger educational ecosystem, but also, as you mentioned, on a school-by-school basis.

So, you know, recently I just read something by John Dewey that said education is not like a preparation for life.

It is, you know, education is life itself.

And I know as we all link our arms together, and take our cues from our young folks and listen to our young people and continue to focus on eliminating opportunity gaps.

That's going to be key to this.

So I'll say this in closing.

I just really want to, I definitely want to thank Mayor Durkin for her continued support of me as a member of her cabinet.

And also to you, the City Council, for your continued partnership.

And as you mentioned, Council President Gonzalez, all the questions you ask that make us sharper, you know, we appreciate it.

Thanks Seattle Public Schools, the Seattle Colleges, our FEPP Levy Oversight Committee, my amazing colleagues at DEEL.

Literally wouldn't none of this happen without without their key input my Rainier Beach community as you mentioned and all the community members and parents and aunts and uncles and Everyone that stop and chat with me at the grocery store or if my kids tell it people I stop and talk to But most importantly, you know my wife my children and my family members and so, you know as the proud the director of the Department of Education and Learning I continue.

We have my pledge to demonstrate everything that I've said through my words through deeds that this city Seattle that this city believes in that we invest in and is committed to cultivating the brilliance and excellence of our children and youth.

So thank you.

And I appreciate this.

Thank you so much Director Chappelle.

We're all we're all.

We usually, if we were in chambers, we'd be giving you a little applause here, but we're doing it virtually and really, again, appreciate your service, not just as a educator before you came to the city, but as a servant leader here at the city of Seattle that really is focused on delivering on that critical mission that you just described.

So thank you once again for taking time out of your really busy day delivering those important services to be with us here and to and to share some remarks with us about what you hope to do in the future.

I know we'll I think have you in committee on Friday and look forward to more discussion then as well.

So thank you so much Director Chappelle for all your work and congratulations once again on your reappointment.

we all look forward to working with you for the next several years.

So thanks so much.

Bye-bye.

All right, colleagues, we're gonna go ahead and move through our items of business.

We are gonna do items two through six.

If the clerk would please read items two through six into the record.

Agenda items two through six, appointments 1609 through 1613. The appointments of Shelby Cooley and Jennifer Matter as members, Families Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy Oversight Committee for terms to December 31st, 2020, and appointments of Princess Sharif and Erin Akuna for terms to December 31st, 2022, and the appointment of Stephanie R. Gardner for a term to December 31st, 2023.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to confirm appointments 1609 through 1613. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointments.

A sponsor of these appointments.

I will quickly address them first and then I'm happy to open up the floor to any comments if there are any.

Again, I'll make these really brief.

Today we are considering these five appointments for the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy Oversight Committee.

The FEPP Levy Oversight Committee is a civilian oversight body for the city's education levy investments.

They are responsible for making sure that we are being good stewards of taxpayer dollars, but also making sure that we are delivering on outcomes related to the renewal of the levy.

It's a very important committee.

It is very well attended and has robust engagement.

And oftentimes if there is going to be a change in how we invest dollars that are received as a result of the FEPP levy, it must first be considered by the oversight committee.

So it is a diverse set of stakeholders.

and they do important work on behalf of the people of the city.

So today we are considering leaders who are dedicated and made careers in supporting students and shaping a responsive education system for students impacted by the opportunity gap.

First up is Dr. Shelby Cooley.

She is a research director at the Community Center of Education Results with a long list of publications, lectures, and awards to her name.

She grew up here locally and is excited to expand her work in education systems by joining the Levy Oversight Committee.

Jennifer Matter is the current president of the Seattle Education Association.

She brings nearly two decades of teaching experiences with her into the classroom with certifications in elementary education as well as arts and Spanish.

Princess Sharif has 35 years and counting of experience as an educator.

She has volunteered and led efforts for SPS African-American Male Think Tank and continues to support African-American male achievement.

She also teaches a course on community engagement at Antioch's Urban Environment Education Program.

and supports the University of Washington's Danforth Program for Educational Leadership.

Aaron Okuno is the Executive Director of Southeast Seattle Education Coalition.

CSEC brings together a coalition of community-based organizations, schools, educators, community leaders, parents, caregivers, and residents who are working collectively to improve education for all children.

Prior to CSEC, Aaron worked on developing K-12 and early learning policy.

She has two kids attending Beacon Hill International Elementary School and Mercer Middle School and is inspiring a love for libraries and reading with the next generation.

Lastly, is Stephanie Gardner.

Like the other appointments, she is also an educator with a passion on working on educational access challenges for those who have been underserved in the US.

Stephanie is a mayoral appointee and brings higher education and workforce development perspectives to the table and has worked with Year Up as well as the state's Washington Student Achievement Council.

Those are our four appointees.

Colleagues, happy to open it up to any comments if any of you have comments on any of the four appointments we're about to consider.

Hearing and seeing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointments?

Herbold?

Yes.

Moraes?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strouse?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Agenda item seven.

Will the clerk please read agenda item seven into the record.

Agenda item seven, appointment 1614. The appointment of Emmanuel Dolo as member Seattle Immigrant and Refugee Commission for a term to January 31st, 2022.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to confirm appointment 1614. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointment.

A sponsor of the appointment, I will address it first and then invite comments if there are any.

Emmanuel is a mayoral appointee to the Immigrant Refugee Commission.

He is a refugee and survivor of trauma and civil wars.

He is committed to helping and serving immigrant and refugee communities in Seattle.

Emmanuel founded the Population Caring Organization in 2014. This is a humanitarian organization that started in a refugee camp in Ghana, which then extended to Liberia.

Emmanuel came to Seattle in 2012 and has worked with institutions to support entrepreneurs in local African communities.

Some of the work that he has led resulted in the formation of the African Community Alliance, for example.

As of today, Emmanuel continues to work to support African-owned small businesses through business development strategies and operational support.

Colleagues, any comments on this appointment?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointment?

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Agenda item eight.

Will the clerk please read agenda item eight into the record.

Agenda item eight, clerk file 314455, Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six month extension for the filing of surveillance impact report due on September 1st, 2020. Thank you so much.

I will move to approve and file clerk file 314455. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve and file clerk file 314455. Councilmember Peterson, you are the prime sponsor of this item and are recognized in order to address it.

Please.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, I'll be brief.

As I mentioned at council briefing, due to various delays associated with the COVID pandemic, our Seattle Information and Technology Department is filing a six-month extension for the surveillance impact reports.

We will receive these no later than March.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any comments on the clerk file?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the approval and filing of the clerk file?

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

The motion passes and the clerk file is approved and filed.

Items nine through 11. Will the clerk please read items nine through 11 into the record.

Agenda items 9 through 11, appointments 1595 through 1597. The reappointment of Mary Ellen Russell as member Seattle School Traffic Safety Committee for a term to March 31st, 2022. And the reappointments of Margaret McCauley and Leland Brunch, Bruch for terms to March 31st, 2023.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to confirm appointments 1595, through 1597. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointments.

Councilmember Peterson, you are the sponsor of these appointments and are recognized in order to address these items.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll be brief because these are all reappointments to this Traffic Safety Committee.

The three folks are qualified to be on this committee, have served on this committee already, and I recommend their approval.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any comments on these appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointments?

Herbold?

Yes.

Moraes?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Items 12 through 16. Will the clerk please read items 12 through 16 into the record?

Agenda items 12 through 16, appointments 16.04 through 16.08.

The appointment of Brianna S. Holland as chair, Seattle Design Commission for a term to February 28th, 2021. The appointments of Elizabeth Connor and Azura Cox as members for terms to February 28th, 2022. And the reappointments of Justin Clark and Mark Johnson for terms to February 28th, 2022. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to confirm appointments 1604 through 1608. Is there a second?

Councilmember Strauss, you are the sponsor of these appointments and are recognized in order to address these items.

Thank you, Council President.

These five appointments are all mayoral appointments to the Seattle Design Commission, including one appointment as chair.

Brianna Holen was unanimously nominated for chair of the Design Commission by her fellow commissioners, and she is currently serving her second term on the commission.

Brianna is the development manager in the Seattle office of Gemdale USA and has worked on a wide range of public and private sector development projects.

Elizabeth Connor is a public artist specializing in integration of art into buildings, landscapes, and sites.

She has served as a board member on the Washington State Arts Commission, the Vashon Allied Arts Commission, and the King County Metro Public Art Commission.

Azura Cox is a landscape architect and urban designer with Gustafson Guthrie Nichols.

Azura has worked on a wide range of projects, including the Washington State Convention Center expansion, Hazelwood Park in Pittsburgh, and India Basin Park in San Francisco.

Justin Clark is a senior structural professional engineer with the WSP firm.

He has over 10 years of experience in the design, construction, and inspection of transportation structures.

Mark Johnson is a licensed architect and owner of Signal Architecture and Research in Seattle.

His experience includes unique collaborations, including the rehabilitation of historic structures at Fort Worden in Port Townsend, to Zuni Art and Cultural Center in Zuni, New Mexico.

I'm excited to bring these appointments forward, and thank you for your consideration, colleagues.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any additional comments on the appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointments?

Roll?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Okay, moving on now to committee reports of the Land Use Committee, item 17. Will the clerk please read the short title of item 17 into the record?

Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, agenda item 17, Council Bill 119835, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments.

The committee recommends the, excuse me, the committee recommends that council pass the bill as amended.

Thank you.

Sorry about that, Madam Clerk.

I got ahead of you.

I apologize.

Okay, item number 17, Council Member Strauss is chair of this committee.

You are recognized in order to provide the committee report, please.

Thank you, Council President.

This is the land use omnibus bill, which is considered roughly annual, roughly once a year.

It makes technical and clarifying amendments to our land use code.

The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee made several amendments to this legislation, including removing confusing language regarding unit lot subdivisions in response to resident communication.

We made a change that will make it easier to include decks and patios on attached dwelling units, and a compromise amendment regarding long-term bike parking requirements for affordable housing and senior living facilities.

There are there's a substitute amendment to consider today.

Before we consider the base legislation and that substitute makes several technical corrections and clarifications.

The substitute also makes minor changes to the bike parking requirements to clarify the allowance for up to five steps.

to access bike parking only as applied to exterior stairs and to allow a waiver from that step maximum for townhomes and row houses that are built steeply on sloped sites.

I think that there might be a little bit more work to do here and understand that it's important to move forward today.

I can address the Council Member Peterson's landmark amendment as it comes up.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much Council Member Strauss for addressing the base legislation and the substitute.

I'm going to hand it back over to you to formally move the substitute version of the bill.

Thank you.

I will move proposed substitute to Council Bill 119835.

Okay, colleagues, we are entertaining a motion to amend Council Bill 119835 by substituting version three for version two.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 by substituting version three for version two.

Council Member Strauss, you already addressed the substitute.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Not at this time, other than it made some technical and clarifying changes, all technical in nature.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any other comments on the substitute?

Council Member Peterson.

Council President, would this be the time where I would move to amend the substitute?

No, we, the substitute is not formally adopted yet.

So once we, we have to adopt the substitute before any amendments to the substitute can be considered.

Thank you for asking that procedural question.

Any other comments on the substitute?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the substitute?

Yes.

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Aye.

Nine in favor and none opposed.

The motion carries, the amendment is adopted, and the substituted bill is before the council.

Council Member Peterson, I understand that you have an amendment, so I am going to hand it over to you to formally introduce the amendment, and then we will open it up to discussion.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Chair Strauss, for shepherding this bill forward, this omnibus land use bill.

At the most recent Land Use Committee, I had introduced an amendment to cancel the request from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to take the authority from the Landmarks Board regarding landmark sites.

That amendment tied in a vote of two to two in the Land Use Committee and was therefore not incorporated in the version of the bill that and we just talked about the substitute.

Since the time of our committee vote, we confirm that the landmarks board has not officially weighed in on this move to take authority from them.

In addition, Historic Seattle opposes that change to strike the word cites from the bill, so, or to, you know, to add the word sites to the bill.

So this amendment that I have recirculated this morning gives councilmembers a chance to consider this amendment if they weren't on the land use committee and those who might have been okay with it previously to reconsider it.

This amendment was crafted by central staff and approved by the law department.

And so I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 119835 as presented on the amendment, amending section 17 of the bill, which was distributed earlier, basically striking the word sites so that the authority for sites would still stay with the Landmarks Board.

And it's something that SDCI can come back with later if they want to.

Is there a second?

was that you Councilmember Herbold?

It was.

Okay, sorry.

We accidentally spoke over each other so I appreciate it.

It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 as presented on the amendment.

Are there any additional comments on the amendment?

Councilmember Strauss followed by Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson for your robust work on this amendment.

I will be voting no on this amendment as I did previously in committee.

And my office has spoken with our central staff and staff from Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program and Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

Many of the concerns I've heard over email seem to be describing changes that are not proposed in this bill.

And I understand that confusion in this manner is not helpful.

So everything is working quickly, and we're trying to work together.

So that's why I really commend Councilmember Peterson.

for continuing to work on this.

The proposal that this amendment seeks to remove is simply a technical correction that would not have a wide-ranging impact that has been thought.

Specifically, these changes would not remove or weaken any authority the Department of Neighborhoods or Landmarks Preservation Board currently has.

The Landmarks Board currently does not have jurisdiction over use, and so that is how the building is used.

that already belongs with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

The Landmarks Board would continue to have authority over any physical change to the designated features of a landmark structure or site.

That does not change with this amendment.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections already has the authority to grant non-conforming uses.

So they already have the authority to grant this non-conforming use to landmark structures.

if they meet the criteria.

This includes the proposed uses compatible with the existing structure.

The uses that are allowed within the zone are impractical to provide in the landmark structure or do not provide inadequate financial support to maintain the landmark and that the use is not detrimental to the surrounding uses or public interest.

So they have to already be allowed in this area.

This change would not.

change the existing authority other than to clarify that it applies to the landmark site as well as the structure.

So the reason that the site, we're focusing on this word site versus structure is because the existing authority already exists within the building.

And so now we're talking about what is occurring outside of the building on the same property.

the exclusion of sites from the code seems to have been a previous oversight and co-drafting rather than a policy choice.

I understand that there are policy implications, and that's why Council Member Peterson, rightly so, has brought this forward again.

And I think that we could and should have that policy conversation if warranted.

The current distinction between sites and structures leads to weird constraints in these land use decisions.

For example, SDCI could approve a childcare center inside a landmark structure as a non-conforming use.

However, if that structure has a parking lot outside or an outdoor area for kids to play, SDCI could not approve using that parking or outdoor space to support the childcare facility because it is part of the site rather than the structure.

So to kind of sum all of these changes up, there's no changes to how the landmarks board authority operates.

The board will still have authority over any physical changes to designated features, just an addition of sites to SDCI's existing authority.

I also understand that SDCI first consulted with Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation staff last year, but that does not mean that more robust conversation needs to occur.

So unfortunately, it sounds like we have crossed wires in working remotely as virtual meetings can be difficult.

And I hope that my comments clarify the proposal.

This is not something that I'm going to fall on my sword about.

I think that there are important conversations to have about how we use the sites of our historically designated buildings.

I just wanted to clarify that what we're discussing here about the site, the wall in the parking lot, the space around the buildings, is already within the code for the building.

And it impacts only use and not the structure.

And so, again, I really want to thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing this forward, continuing this conversation, and thank you, colleagues, for your time.

Thank you, Council Member Struss.

Council Member Herbold.

Let's see here.

Okay, thank you.

So, you know, I think really, for me, this hedges on this question of whether or not this is a technical amendment or not.

And, you know, we have a longstanding practice of how we handle legislation that is part of the omnibus bill coming out of STCI for the land use code.

And to my knowledge, the understanding is that because it's a very large bill, it covers dozens of different code sections.

In this case, this bill is 121 pages long, that we have an agreement that we handle only technical amendments in the omnibus bill.

and that we have an agreement and a commitment from the executive that bills that have impacts on policy and that aren't technical in nature are bills that we hear separately because of a heightened interest on behalf of the public and because of the existence of stakeholders.

In this case, stakeholders that we have chartered to give us advice on properties such as the incentive program that zoning code relief for historic sites.

And so I don't believe this change is technical in nature.

One of the things that Eugenia Wu said is adding the word I'm sorry, with Historic Seattle, adding the word site or sites may seem like a minor thing.

It is not.

One word can have a lot of meaning when it comes to legislation and land use and zoning.

The proposed addition of site or sites is not a correction of a typographical error.

It does not correct section references.

It does not clarify a regulation, and it is not a minor amendment.

Again, this is not a, distinction or discussion on whether or not this is a good amendment or a bad amendment.

Merely that we have an agreement and a commitment with stakeholders, with ourselves, with the executive of the types of changes that we will consider in on-the-bus legislation.

And then just wanting to also quote Deb Barker, who's a former Land Works board member, when she said to basically shift authority from these sites from our landmarks board to the executive through this bill.

She says it's a disservice to the hard work that the landmark staff and the volunteer landmarks board perform.

And I really think that Landmarks Preservation Board input would be invaluable in a discussion around what may be useful and appropriate zoning code relief as an incentive to provide more flexibility for existing landmarks, whether or not they are properties or sites.

So thank you.

Colleagues, any other comments?

I see Council Member Lewis, then Council Member Mosqueda, then Council Member Morales.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

So I agree with everything that Council Member Herbold just said in terms of really queuing up the posture of where this lands for me in terms of the context of what the change is and how it's packaged into the omnibus legislation.

And I do want to hear, especially as someone who like many of us formerly served on a city board or commission from the landmark board, on the impact of this change, especially given Eugenio Wu's email from Historic Seattle earlier really underscoring that Historic Seattle does have some concerns.

with this legislation.

And really, for me, I was one of the council members in the committee that did vote for this amendment before.

I was certainly open to potentially changing my vote in the committee today.

I do think the email from Historic Seattle was really impactful, given that they are a very critical stakeholder on our mission of Historic preservation, especially as relates to the critical work they've done around placemaking.

I mean, Washington Hall and the Good Shepherd Center and just a lot of the organizations they put a lot of investment in gives me a lot of respect for what they do or don't think is important in this world of historic preservation in the city of Seattle.

and I would certainly like to work with them more, as they said, not necessarily to oppose this change forever, but to queue up a more deliberative process to discuss some of the implications around the potential change of the site and sites language that could have bigger implications.

So for those reasons, I am going to vote for this amendment again today and appreciate Council Member Peterson bringing it forward again.

I think Councilmember Mosqueda was next and then Councilmember Morales.

Thank you very much, Council President.

I want to underscore the comments that Councilmember Strauss made today and as chair of the committee what he has brought to light in the last few conversations that we've had.

So to add to the conversation that we had this morning, I want to reiterate that this omnibus change only applies to single family zones.

So this will not apply to, for example, the Beacon Hill Garden House, which was mentioned earlier today from our friends in Beacon Hill.

This is not within a single family zone.

So that is not going to be affected.

Furthermore, nonconforming uses may be approved on landmark buildings already.

This is already a practice.

So this is a technical change in nature.

The omnibus change would extend this to include sites and approving nonconforming uses through the administrative conditional use process.

is the jurisdiction of SDCI after consulting with the Department of Neighborhoods.

The Landmarks Preservation Board does not have jurisdiction over this use.

I just want to say that one more time because I think there has been some confusion out there.

The Landmarks Preservation Board does not have jurisdiction over this use.

This is not shifting any role that they currently have.

Additionally, any physical change to the designated features of a landmark building or site is the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Preservation Board, and that authority is not changing within the Omnibus Building Code.

So Councilmember Strauss said this already, and I'm just lifting this up.

to underscore the importance so that this doesn't get lost in the discussion around this, because I know some of these topics can be somewhat contentious.

We're very interested in preserving landmarks.

We want to make sure also that we're looking at opportunities for the best use of public spaces or other spaces to serve the public.

But this, again, this does not change the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Preservation Board.

within this code.

This is a technical change.

Department of Neighborhoods and SDCI treat landmark buildings and sites the same.

D.O.N. has authority over physical changes and over buildings.

And SDCI, again, I want to reiterate, The non-conforming uses may be approved on landmark buildings already.

The omnibus change would extend this to include sites, and approving non-conforming use through the administrative conditional use process is, again, the jurisdiction of SDCI after consultation with the UN.

I'll be supporting this.

That wasn't clear from my earlier comments and just now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Vizquerra.

Council Member Morales.

Just to clarify, I'll be supporting the bill as is.

And I'm sorry, Council Member Peterson, I'm not supporting the amendment.

I just want to make that clear.

Sorry about that.

OK.

So as I understand it, this is, as an omnibus bill, supposed to be technical in nature.

And I will say that it does sound like it's getting sticky because there is a deeper policy issue being addressed.

And what seems like a minor word change in me leaves more questions about unintended consequences.

We did have a conversation today with central staff who pointed out that there are no pending applications would be impacted by this change.

But it is also my understanding and maybe Council Member Strauss can clarify this.

There is one property that would benefit from this right now from this kind of a change.

So I think for me the question is, that clarity around what would be impacted by this beyond just one potential project and how that relates to, you know, does a policy change being made for one purpose or if there is a deeper or a broader implication here as we're trying to make this decision.

Councilmember Strauss, that question was addressed to you, so you're welcome to respond.

Great, thank you so much, and thank you, Councilmember Morales.

My understanding is, as I explained before, the deeper, the long-term benefits of this are that a building's use and the site's use could both be considered by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, rather than this situation which we have today, which the use is only The decisions can only be made within the building.

And I think that childcare really is a great example because the State Department of Children, Youth and Families requires both parking and outdoor space.

And so when we're looking at it from that type of a technical change, allowing a department to make a decision based on an entire facility is important.

Now, when it comes to the one site that I've heard repeatedly also brought up, I don't, it's not my understanding that there's an application and maybe Council Member Peterson can enlighten us more about that site because it's not within my district and it's not something that I've had my fingertips right on top of.

And I hear that there is a bit of confusion regarding whether this is a policy change or a technical change.

And that's why I said earlier, it's not the end of the world.

It's not something that I'm going to die on my sword for.

Because if there is a policy change, if this is a policy implication that people need to have a conversation about, then that's fine.

And that's something that we should do.

When we're looking at especially historic buildings and single family zones which comprise the majority of the city of Seattle.

this could create cumbersome red tape that could be unnecessary in places.

Now, if we need to protect certain aspects of our historic sites and buildings, I think that that's really important.

And that's why the Landmarks Board's jurisdiction over this does not change, because the look and feel of The historic site will not be altered by this one word change.

It is simply the use.

So child care facilities is why I keep going back to that example, because child care facilities do require parking, drive up, load, unload, and outdoor use, whereas most other uses are able to be confined into the building.

I do believe that the site that has repeatedly come up has a restriction for educational uses, but I'm not going to wade into those waters because I don't have enough information to discuss it appropriately.

Thank you.

Hey, all right.

It's your amendment, so you get the last word.

Council Member Peterson, I'm gonna just make a couple of brief remarks before you do that.

So my understanding of what we're voting on now is in fact an ominous bill.

It is designed to reflect technical corrections to the land use code.

as a cleanup effort.

And frankly, I feel like we're making a mountain out of a molehill on this one.

And I do think and believe that it is a technical correction.

We have heard language both from Council Member Strauss and Council Member Mosqueda, and I have not heard any concrete citation to specific language that proves otherwise, that SDCI already has the authority to make these sorts of decisions.

And if that is true, and I don't have a reason to believe it is not true, then this language is clean up and simply designed to make sure that the decision making by SDCI is consistent as it relates to the site and use issues that Council Member Strass has highlighted.

So I intend to vote no on this amendment, and I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Peterson to close out debate on this amendment so that we can go ahead and call it to a vote.

and address the underlying bill accordingly.

So Council Member Peterson, sorry, no, we're gonna close that, we're gonna close that debate, I'm sorry.

Council Member Peterson, please.

Thank you.

And I want to thank everybody who did call in and who wrote to us with their concerns about this from the different communities across the city.

And, you know, there it's whether it's about a use or not, because it talks about configuration of the site, which is is more than just use.

Configuration of the site is is what STC wants to put in there and have authority over.

And so It's precisely because of this confusion as to whether it is substantive or not that, in my opinion, should be pulled out, which is what this amendment would do, to enable SDCI, if they really feel that this is necessary change, that they can just come back and we can daylight everything and have a full, robust discussion about it.

But it's just not appropriate in an omnibus bill traditionally to have what could be considered substantive change.

And so I just asked my colleagues to consider approving this amendment and then we can discuss this at a later date about the use and configuration of various sites and open space, et cetera.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

We're going to go ahead and again, close out debate because we've had a long conversation about this during council briefing.

We're having a long conversation about it now, and there was a long conversation about it in the committee.

So we are, I think, at the end of the road here, and it's time for us to make a call one way or the other.

So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the amendment as proposed by Councilmember Peterson.

Roll?

Yes.

Warren.

No.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

No.

Mosqueda.

No.

Peterson.

Yes.

Salant.

Yes.

Strauss.

No.

4 in favor, 5 opposed.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Council Member Mosqueda and then Council Member Strauss, you'll have the last word since you're the sponsor of the bill.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Madam President.

Again, thanks to Councilmember Strauss for shepherding this omnibus bill through.

I want to say thank you for the work that you did to include amendments, technical in nature, to make sure that we codify the intent of what we passed through the ADU and DADU legislation last year.

This is going to go a long way to making sure that unenclosed decks and rooftops over patios can extend to make sure that there's more ability for people to enjoy their ADUs and DADUs with rooftop areas.

Because as we create a greater density in the city, we know that we want to create a city that's livable and walkable and accessible for all ages and abilities.

I know that we use our rooftop as our backyard because we don't have a backyard.

And this is where we have our dinners on our patio and our kiddo plays and we visit with our elders.

So looking forward to supporting this legislation for a number of reasons, but especially I want to thank you for working with our office to include that technical amendment to make sure that we were clear on that effort.

And I hope that that will go a long way for the livability of this city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Are there any other comments on the bill?

Councilmember Strauss, last word is yours.

Just again want to thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing this amendment forward and other amendments forward.

Councilmember Herbold also spoke to the importance of omnibus bills making technical and not policy changes and I know that in days of working virtually and remotely that it can be confusing what is technical and what is policy and I appreciate everyone's willingness to work together.

Some of the other, as I said previously, some of the other confusing language that we removed was regarding lot unit subdivisions, which again could be viewed as either technical or it could be viewed as policy.

Already discussed was the patios and decks for ADUs.

And also I want to highlight the, there was a lot of work put into one amendment regarding long-term bike parking, and I know that there could be some additional work to clean it up in the future.

Just that in this moment where we continue to hear how divisive everything is, this was a moment where people came together and really were able to compromise and find a solution that works as best as it can for everyone engaged.

And so I want to thank my colleagues on the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee and thank everyone, all public stakeholders and city departments who weighed in on this very long bill.

Thank you, Council President.

I look forward to the passage of this omnibus bill.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strauss, for all your work on this particular bill.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended?

Roll.

Yes.

Yes.

All right, Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

No.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Okay, committee reports.

We are now going to hear from the Transportation and Utilities Committee, agenda item 18. Will the clerk please read agenda item 18 into the record?

The report of the Transportation and Utilities Commission, agenda item 18, council bill 119745, an ordinance granting the University of Washington permission to maintain and operate five existing pedestrian sky bridges located around the perimeter of the UW campus.

The committee recommends that city council pass as amended the council bill.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Peterson, you are chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm pleased to present this agreement for your adoption.

At the last meeting of the Transportation Utilities Committee, this was presented for adoption.

However, concerns were raised about failure to include an explicit provision regarding compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA.

As a result of those concerns, an amendment was prepared by SDOT and University of Washington, and that amendment was adopted by the committee at its August 19 meeting and is now a part of the ordinance before us.

So I recommend approval of Council Bill 119745, which would provide permission for University of Washington to maintain and operate five existing pedestrian sky bridges.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any comments on the bill?

Hearing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Higgerson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

In favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Agenda item 19. Will the clerk please read agenda item 19 into the record?

Agenda item 19, council bill 119865, 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, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are more than welcome to be recognized first, unless you would like to hand this over to Council Member Strauss to address the bill.

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, Council Member Strauss has done a lot of work on this, and so I'd like to turn it over to him if he would like.

Otherwise, I can address it as well.

All right.

I just want to thank you Councilmember Peterson, Chair of Transportation and Utilities Committee.

This bill was intended primarily to address sidewalk cafes and street cafes permitting.

I did hear during public comments some other concerns and I would have like to be able to address those earlier on.

And again, anyone who's engaged in land use, please don't hesitate to reach out to our office.

We look forward to working with all stakeholders.

And Councilmember Peterson has done some really great work on this and we work really well together.

So all that to say is that sidewalk cafes and and cafe streets are really going to be the way that we create an economic ability for our economy to exist during COVID times because outdoor transmission is lower than indoor transmission.

And so the ability to use our public rights of way for economic activity is incredibly important.

And this bill not only allows that, but also allows that to be free of charge so that we are ensuring that our economy is able to restart as quickly as possible in an outdoor setting.

We've seen these sidewalk cafes and street cafes and Seattle Together streets popping up across our city.

And it's a really amazing feature that I think will have a lasting impact in a positive way for the city of Seattle and how we eat, dine, shop, and speak to one another, whether it's in COVID or once we're out of this pandemic.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Would you like to add anything on to that?

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Well said.

And also, just to remind everybody, this did pass unanimously out of the committee with all five members of the committee.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Councilmember Mosqueda, I see your hand up.

And colleagues, if anyone else would like to make comments, please do let me know.

Thank you council president for the chair of transportation and for the prime sponsor of the bill actually just a quick question if you don't mind to catch us up.

I wondering if you can talk about the timeline of some of these street cafes and the permitting process.

I saw some comments.

online about the short duration of some of the permitting and a desire to either see the duration extended or, in some cases, to make these locations permanent so that we can have some super block spots across our city as a possible positive outcome of this policy change.

Can you comment a little bit, if it's appropriate, Madam President, just on the duration and the possibility of extension or permanent nature?

Sure, Council Member Peterson, would you like to take that question?

Yes, it is for just a few months.

It is supposed to be about during COVID pandemic.

And first we need to collect the data on how it's going, what the impacts are to other businesses who might not be getting these permits, who might want more parking nearby or bus routes, et cetera.

So we're collecting, SDOT's gonna be collecting data on this so that we can determine what to do on a more permanent basis, if at all.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

I would say that these permits were set up as quickly as possible by SDOT, working to respond to the COVID pandemic.

So much like some of these other emergency responses, there was a short timeline associated with them.

I think that with any pilot project, this one included, we will see the benefits and we'll also see what doesn't work so well I am going to champion that we make these permanent features within our community because I think street cafes and sidewalk cafes are, even before the pandemic, I was a very large fan of these.

And to your point, the super blocks where we're able to really create a pedestrianized space that still allows for deliveries, operations, people with all ages and abilities are able to access that space.

And, you know, the three minute, to go orders as well.

There's a real opportunity here.

I'm going to champion to make these permanent and I would hope that my colleagues would join me in that.

And with that, I want to thank SDOT for working as quickly as possible to get this temporary permit available free of charge.

Thank you both very much.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other comments by my colleagues?

Okay, I would just say that I did reach out to the Seattle Department of Transportation related to some concerns that we received sort of in the 11th hour here about, and we heard a little bit about this in public comment, about the impact of this bill on street use fees on construction of affordable homes.

And unfortunately, my understanding is that SDOT did, in fact, do a presentation for the organization that reached out to us via letter and in public comment today, and that they received no concerns or feedback at that time.

Again, that doesn't mean that there weren't concerns.

It just means that there was an opportunity, and the opportunity was not taken at that time to provide any concerns.

And again, the Department of Transportation believes that the intention of this proposal is to actually reduce the cost for townhouse type development, and that projects outside of urban centers should remain pretty even.

The increases proposed in the street use fees will primarily be in the downtown core.

So directors of Bob Way and his team are happy to connect with any of us colleagues that continue to have concerns about this particular issue.

And I look forward to supporting the bill as it is introduced today with the understanding that obviously there could be, there will be more to come on this policy issue as flagged by Council Member Strauss in terms of the potential long-term nature of this kind of a program.

So with that being said, let's go ahead and close that debate.

And I would ask that the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill.

HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.:

: Or both.

Yes.

HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : Whereas HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : I HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : Lewis HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : I morale is I HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : Was gonna I HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : Peterson.

Yes.

So what HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : Yes, Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

I None in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Agenda item 20. Will the clerk please read item 20 into the record.

Agenda item 20, council bill 119867, an ordinance relating to the city's traffic code, amending sections 11.46.010 and 11.46.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code to revise permissible areas of operation in the right-of-way and other public pathways for electric personal assistive mobility devices and motorized foot scooters.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez.

So items 20 and 22 on today's agenda 20 is Council Bill 119867 and 22 is 119868, both deal with the scooter program.

Council Member Strauss, who's vice chair of the committee, is the sponsor on those two bills.

So I would recommend that we at least discuss those as a group, as a couple, and then we can vote on it however you want, but those two items go together, 20 and 22.

Yeah, Madam Clerk, can you please read into the record item 22 so that we can have a conversation about both, but we will take up the bills separately and instead on the agenda.

Agenda item 22, Council Bill 119868. an ordinance relating to use of the city right of way by free floating scooters amending section 15.17.005 of the Seattle Municipal Code, adopting a free floating scooter share program fee schedule, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts the committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay, Council Member Peterson, back to you as chair of the committee to provide the committee report.

Yes, so the committee recommended adoption of both of these council bills.

However, if Councilmember Strauss would like this, I'd like to turn it over to Councilmember Strauss, who's the sponsor of the bills, who could speak more eloquently in favor of them than certainly I could or would.

Councilmember Strauss, please.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

We've had robust discussion.

We had a robust discussion this morning at council briefing about the scooter legislation.

And first, I just really want to thank SDOT, the mayor's office, especially Joe Miller, for presenting at the last Transportation and Utilities Committee meeting.

As I've said before, we've been engaged in a very long intellectual conversation for 18 months or longer, and I still have concerns about safety, parking, equity, how this program is used, how it will be rolled out and implemented.

I feel that SDOT is working in good faith with us, and I feel that any changes that we need to see made to the permit structure will be made.

And if we don't think that The scooter legislate scooters are appropriate for Seattle after we give it a try, we can we can in the program.

I guess my problem is is that we for so long we've continued to circle around questions that can only be answered if we try it in the real world.

It is important that we start now as I said earlier today.

Even right now, sunset is at 730. We had sunset at 930 just two months ago.

We are heading into the darker, wetter parts of the year.

And it's important for people to learn how to use these devices in good weather.

Another one of the features as part of the pilot program is that the first ride will only allow a user to travel at eight miles an hour.

That is the speed that some people can run.

I can't, but some people can run at eight miles an hour.

And so looking at this, you know, one of my concerns was about equity.

One of my concerns was about safety.

And especially within this eight mile an hour issue that was brought up, I asked SDOT if we could, if when we saw users using these devices that they needed more learning time, could we make that change in the permit and they said yes.

And so I believe them.

And so I do think that if we are going to continue having a good discussion about scooters.

We need to have that discussion rooted in real life data, in real life experience.

And that's why we need to move forward at this time.

I did talk about indemnity earlier today, and there is robust indemnity within the program.

I do want to just cite, though, that that doesn't mean that the city will be free from any suit ever.

People sue for all sorts of reasons, for cars, for bikes, for all sorts of things.

I do want to highlight the fact that if the issue is with the scooter's operability, if the scooter malfunctions, then there is robust indemnity that would ensure that the city is not liable for us.

That's different than user error or if the city's infrastructure is not up to It has has a problem that we've seen before with people using cars or bikes that sue the city because the city's infrastructure is not set up.

And that doesn't have anything to do with scooters that has everything to do with how we create the built environment that we want to see here in the city.

We're going to continue seeing additional electrified micro mobility choices we have.

Rad Power Bikes in my district and District 6. Rad Power Bikes has had, I believe, a very large back order during the pandemic because people are starting to move around their spaces and cities using this micromobility that is charged with electricity because it allows you to move as quickly as you need to without exerting effort that will make you sweaty when you appear at the destination that you're going to.

And so this will call for a need for more bike lanes and more spaces for people to be able to travel safely with micromobility.

And the reason that we need to move forward today, and thank you, Council Member Herbold, for raising your concerns this morning.

I do appreciate that we need to be thinking about this in a robust manner.

But a delay today would make the launch of this less safe because of the changing changing weather, changing daylight as we're moving into fall and winter.

And having had an academic conversation for so long, if we're going to find the answers to these questions, if we just continue having them in an intellectual fashion, we'll just continue circling around these questions.

We are at a point where we need to try this in the real world to get the answers that we need to these questions.

And while I have concerns, I believe that those concerns will be alleviated by SDOT should we bring them up from the city council to the department.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any other comments on item 20 or 22?

Council Member Herbold, please.

Thank you so much.

Um, as mentioned this morning, um, I did have some, uh, concerns.

I still have concerns.

Um, I would have appreciated, um, an additional week.

Um, but I do, um, understand the position of the executive, um, as it relates to the, uh, late date of council's consideration.

Um, it would have been really great if we had received the legislation earlier.

Um, and I also want to, um, note that the, um, the draft permitting requirements.

We only received as of the date of the last committee meeting.

And these are permitting requirements that as Council President Gonzalez said this morning, we hope to continue to influence those permitting requirements even after the council acts on these two bills.

I'm willing to vote in favor of this of this legislation at this time, despite my concerns, because I feel that through the work that my office has done checking in with various advocates about the legislation, that hearing from advocates from the disabilities community who are the most vulnerable users of our sidewalks, the fact that, for instance, Anna Zievart of Rooted in Rights says that they were in touch with Joel Miller from SDOT as the legislation was being developed.

They're not opposed to the legislation.

They're interested in seeing how the end trip voter requirement, one of the things I'm interested in as well, could help resolve some of the sidewalk access issues.

Marcy Carpenter, another disability rights advocate, also conversed with my staff about her interactions.

She said it's been an open and collaborative process.

and they kept insisting on a place at the table and they're happy with the requirements that SDOT has developed for scooter use enough to support the program pilot going forward.

She's still worried about having too many scooters on the sidewalks and the sort of squishy nature of wording around who decides whether or not there's a viable alternative to one riding on the sidewalk.

But nevertheless, in voting in favor of these two bills, I do want to make note that there are some important things I believe we need to continue to emphasize to SDOT.

I think it's really important that we closely monitor the Alki Trail.

It's already extremely crowded.

We have heard from the West Seattle bike connections, about their concerns about using scooters in parks or on bike trails, and really not only feel that we need to closely monitor trails like the Alki Trail, but I'm concerned that the permit requirements that allow for two hours to address blockages is not acceptable, and am interested in learning more about how we can entice vendors to do geofencing in areas where it is unacceptable to drive a scooter.

And then lastly, I just want to highlight, you know, again, that I appreciate Councilmember, I'm sorry, Council President Gonzalez's mention this morning, that we can still influence the permit requirements outside of the legislative process.

And I hope we find that to be true, because I think a number of us have some changes that we would like to request that SDOT make to those permitting requirements.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, for those comments.

Really appreciate it.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

And thank you for Thanks to Council Member Strauss for shepherding this legislation, and you make a really good point about needing to try it to see what's actually going to happen.

I do support improved mobility options by encouraging environmentally friendly alternatives to gas-powered single occupancy vehicles.

And ideally, electric scooters, e-scooters will provide an alternative for some trips for some travelers.

At the same time, the city government is essentially authorizing a new mode of transportation, thousands of scooters traveling within our streets and other rights of way.

So this is a big change that warrants a careful tracking of the results.

I had been looking forward to a standard pilot project that would measure results for scooters as we are seeing elsewhere in King County.

But in my opinion, this SDOT legislation is not a detailed pilot.

In my view, the legislation itself does not explicitly or fully address safety, financial liability, infrastructure costs, and measures for success.

made a compelling case, this legislation is time sensitive, so I fulfilled my role as transportation committee chair to facilitate discussion, ask questions, and enable us all to vote on it.

And while a majority of my colleagues approved it at committee, I was personally not willing to vote yes for something that I believe lacks these details.

both Council Bill 119867 and 119868 total only two pages in length.

The legislation essentially cedes all the details of the program to the executive branch.

So as chair of the Transportation Committee, I'll be sending a letter to our SDOT director asking SDOT to return to our committee by next June and next December to report on the results of the first six months and first 12 months of the new program.

Those dates will give them time to assess those results for those periods of six months and 12 months.

Having SDOT report back to the committee on specific metrics of success, which would normally be standard for a pilot program, it'll enable SDOT to give us consistent, thorough information to us as council members and to the general public on the pertinent details and results so we can truly evaluate this new program.

And my conversations with Director Zimbabwe have been assured that the Durkan administration also wants to measure these results of the new scooter program.

I believe we need to measure the results to truly assess whether the program is safe, equitable, and effective in getting people out of their cars, and doing this without requiring tax dollars to cover injury lawsuits or to build special infrastructure that would basically subsidize the profits of private companies headquartered outside of Seattle.

I want to thank Dr. Fred Rivara, founding director of the Harborview Injury and Prevention Center, for writing to express his concerns about scooter safety.

He provided several studies from around the country about this.

Just last week, Dallas, Texas halted their scooter program due to safety concerns.

this letter will encourage ESTA to get back to us within six months and 12 months, but I still have serious concerns about introducing this new mode.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Mosqueda and then Council Member Lewis.

Thank you very much, Council President.

I am really excited about this piece of legislation.

As folks have said, this is a few years in the making.

But first, I want to publicly acknowledge the important questions that Councilmember Herbold asked this morning.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your questions and your comments.

And I also want to publicly say I'm sorry that this morning I defaulted into a defense of the policy versus really hearing what your question was about waiting a week to hear the impact of the lawsuits and the impact here in Seattle.

So I want to say thank you for that and acknowledge that I defaulted into debating the merits of the policy instead of really hearing what you were saying.

So thank you for all of your work on the issues to get to the heart of the questions that are being asked of us today.

And also for the Council President for sending that email to Estat so quickly and for Director Zimbabwe to answer those questions.

I think that was all very informative in our debate today.

I think that Council Member Herbold, your points around wanting to see the policy impacts and really the work prior to deployment of scooters about how folks can continue to maintain safe trails and sidewalks is going to be very important.

So I look forward to working with you on that.

And I want to thank you for You're highlighting that issue and I absolutely support it.

I also think that it's important as we look at that data to see how this can further inform our efforts to fix our broken bike system and make sure that there's more areas that have protected bike lanes, truly protected bike lanes council.

I appreciate that you also outlined your concerns and the letter that you'll be sending.

I would love to potentially work with you to include a few items in that letter as you think about ways to ensure implementation moves forward.

As I mentioned, one of the things that I've had that was a concern in the past was how workers have been treated in the industry.

But there are some really great examples out of Chicago for example on how to make sure that workers in this arena have the protections and benefits that places like Seattle have really fought for.

So I'll look forward to potentially working with you if possible to include a few questions in that letter as well.

as you draft it moving forward.

And then lastly, I just wanna thank Council Member Strauss.

You came in dedicated to this issue.

I know I had been working on it for quite a while.

I'm really excited to see this effort move forward even in this pilot sort of initial stage.

Thanks for all of your work and your previous office as well, working with Council Member Bagshaw and of course, Council Member O'Brien.

in their previous roles.

I think this has all taken a thoughtful approach to making sure that we're advancing on this multimodal transportation option.

And I'm really excited about the work that you've done here to move this part across the line.

I also want to thank Representative Macri.

She was the prime sponsor of House Bill 1772 to enable more clean and equitable mobility options in the era of climate change and mobility challenges.

And we received a letter from her outlining how she appreciated this piece of legislation, especially as we're dealing with multiple challenges at the same time.

It's really important to bring people to a position and circle around a bill that creates greater stability and sustainability for our local environment.

So really excited about the work that she did in Olympia and that this piece of legislation follows other cities, neighboring cities like Tacoma, Spokane, Portland, and cities from across the globe who have advanced efforts to try to make sure that there's more micro-mobility shared options.

And as she said, we're taking a small but important step to implement a program that will help support the city's commitments to mobility, equity, and reduce congestion.

And I'm excited about the work that is in front of us yet to do.

So thank you so much, looking forward to supporting this.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda for those remarks.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam President, and thank you, Council Member Strauss, for bringing this forward.

As someone who currently does not own a car and has not owned a car actually for almost a decade now, which is sort of interesting to reflect on since I was an undergrad, I am happy to support this legislation today.

The future of a lot more people coming up in the world who do not own cars are arranging their lives specifically in a way to be multimodal and transit.

oriented is going to depend on having more options and more micro-mobility options like scooters and like bike shares.

And I think it's time that the City of Seattle tried this out and went through the process, as Council Member Strauss has said, of essentially literally having the rubber meet the road to see how this can work in the City of Seattle.

I do continue to have concerns about safety, but I want to be clear, I have concerns about safety all the time as someone who bikes regularly and has been using biking as my main method of commuting and getting around the city during COVID, as somebody who the impact that myself and similarly situated bikers and pedestrians are put into by a society that over relies on single occupancy vehicles for transportation.

Safety is a conversation that goes beyond just our conversation right now on the pilot.

And I think it's important to center that as we continue to work towards Vision Zero and continue to work toward not just enhancing micro mobility, but also increasing I'm also encouraged by some of the safety measures that are baked into the plan that ESSTOD is going to be pursuing in terms of the maximum speed setting.

The banning of riding the scooters on sidewalks.

to make sure that they're not blocking or obstructing sidewalks.

These are really important functions that give me confidence that the pilot can return with meaningful data to shape and guide how scooters can work in our transportation environment.

I continue to be concerned as I'm concerned with lots of other the city of Seattle.

We have had a number of different mode discussions.

But it is definitely time that we tried this.

It is definitely time that we expanded the options for getting around the city of Seattle that are not single occupancy vehicles.

And this pilot will hopefully

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Are there any other comments on the bill?

Either of those.

Council Member Strauss, please.

Great, and I will close it out if that's all right with you, Council President.

I just also want to highlight what Council Member Herbold had said about ensuring that this program works for folks that have different ages and abilities, who might be experiencing disabilities, that we ensure that the program is set up so that we're not creating clutter on our sidewalks.

I really want to thank Council Member Peterson again for his letter to SDOT, because the concerns that we have need to be monitored, and that's what he's requesting.

And we need to see what the real world data reports, because we'll just continue circling around these questions these intellectual questions until we have that real-world data.

We need to ensure safety, equity, and proper use are retained and that we provide people a new way to move through our city that ensures that we are transitioning away from gas-powered cars and that we are able to get people the last mile between the transportation systems that we have and their homes or destinations where they're going.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, and thank you, everybody, for that robust conversation.

Really appreciate both the committee conversation, the conversation this morning in council briefing, and the conversation we just had now, as indicated before.

And as I voted in committee, I intend to vote in favor of both of these bills.

I do think it's time for us to advance the pilot program and and and begin to have conversations about the future of this mobility device in our city at a at a greater scale.

And that is only possible in my mind.

by moving from the theoretical and hypothetical to the real world.

And so this is an opportunity for us to do that and to learn more while still having our ongoing concerns addressed.

I believe that the Seattle Department of Transportation does want this program to be successful.

And I think that that is common ground with many of us on the council.

And as a result, I think that they are at least based on my interaction with them, very receptive to ongoing conversation and engagement and cooperation with us as council members to continue to address some of the remaining concerns that exist in the permitting, in the permit requirement document, which is, I think, well over or close to 50 pages.

if I recall correctly from the time that I looked at it before we went on recess.

So I think that's where the details are, and that's where I think there is great opportunity for us to continue to engage with SDOT around some of these lingering concerns and look forward to doing that.

So without further ado, let's go ahead and close out debate.

And I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill, which is agenda item 20.

Yes.

Moraes.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Yes.

Peterson.

No.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Yes.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you so much.

The bill passes.

Chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Agenda item 21. Will the clerk please read the short title of agenda item 21 into the record.

Agenda item 21, council bill 119858. An ordinance relating to the financing of the West Seattle Bridge immediate response project, creating a fund for depositing proceeds of taxable limited tax general obligation bonds in 2021. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This is agenda item 21. In the previous conversation, we had a conversation about agenda item 20 and 22. As I mentioned, we will vote on items 20 and 22 separately and in the order that they were published on the agenda.

So we have this minor interruption of item 21 to have a conversation about this particular item before we take up the second scooter-related bill.

So item 21, Councilmember Peterson, you are chair of the committee and are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, so Council Bill 119858 is for the West Seattle Bridge, and it's authorizing two interfund loans that SDOT needs to have sufficient funding to conduct the preliminary work on the bridge.

The total is $70 million.

The loans will be repaid with a bond sale in 2021. So obviously lots of choices that will be coming up later in terms of repair or replace, but this money is needed now just to do the shoring up work.

And I wanna thank Council Member Herbold for her leadership on this issue as well.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to make some remarks?

I would very much.

I just want to really uplift how important this funding is and for what it's actually going to be used for.

Not only is it going to be used for stabilization work and the monitoring, That has to be done, regardless of whether or not there's a decision to repair or replace the bridge, but it's also being the funds are also going to be used for repairs and enhancements to the lower bridge, which we're also reliant on in this time.

during the closure of the upper level bridge for priority transit use, freight use, and emergency vehicle use.

In addition, this funding is going to be used for the traffic and mobility mitigation projects, including the West Seattle, the ReConnect West Seattle project that SDOT is circulating a draft set of recommendations for all of the communities that are most impacted by the closure of the bridge with a really strong equity focus on focusing on making important transportation investments to mitigate the impacts of having all of these vehicles going through their neighborhoods as part of the detour routes, specifically in neighborhoods that have suffered from lack of investment over past years.

The funding is also being used for the planning and design of a long-term replacement.

Again, we're working on designing a long-term replacement because even if we choose repair, there will be a need for a replacement sometime in the future.

And so it makes a lot of sense, I think, to do that design work on the front end.

Also included in the funding package is a preliminary two-year work plan with an emphasis on broad community engagement efforts.

This includes emergency repairs, bridge stabilization work, monitoring, planning and design, and enhancements to the Spokane Bridge, as I mentioned earlier, and traffic and mobility mitigation projects.

That is all contained in this two-year work plan.

I also want to thank Chair Peterson for his work in stewarding this legislation, my colleagues for their consideration of passage of the legislation, the West Seattle community, as well as the South Park Georgetown and Soto communities have been deeply impacted by the closure of the bridge through at least the end of next year.

Many have lost convenient access to the rest of the city and the region, and others are seeing increased traffic in the southern portion of the peninsula near access points in Highland Park and South Delridge, while South Park has seen increased traffic as has Georgetown as well.

I'm looking forward to continue to work with and the technical advisory panel and the community task force on that cost benefit analysis to inform that decision in early October on whether to repair or replace the bridge.

This is all really important work, not just for folks on the peninsula, but for the region.

This is a major thoroughfare that serves the entire region and is really important for freight and other economic development needs for our entire region.

It's really, I think, important to emphasize that the decisions we make are broader than the needs of just West Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, for those remarks.

Are there any other comments on the bill?

I just want to say thank you to Chair Peterson for the Transportation Utilities Committee and of course to you Councilmember Herbold for your ongoing work and advocacy on addressing the regional impacts of the West Seattle Bridge Safety Project and know that there will be a lot of tough decisions coming before us about the bridge and financing and addressing the long-term needs and impacts of that failing infrastructure and really do appreciate your all's attention to the details and ongoing advocacy on behalf of not just District 1 and portions of District 2, but for the entire region.

Just think that's absolutely worth emphasizing one more time.

Thanks again for all of your work.

Looking forward to supporting this particular council bill.

If there are no other comments on the bill, I will ask the clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Herbold?

Council Member Herbold?

She's working on it.

Give her just a minute.

Yes.

Thank you.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Skrouse?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Okay, item 22. This item has already been read into the record, and we have also addressed the substance of this bill and had debate.

I will make one last call for any other comments on this bill before we call it to a vote.

Okay, seeing no other comments on the bill, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Item 23. Will the clerk please read agenda item 23 into the record.

Agenda item 23, council bill 119866, an ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities, creating a restricted cash account for depositing donations and gifts, authorizing the general manager CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept donations and gifts into the account for the purpose of providing financial assistance to its low income customers.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you, Council President.

So I'm pleased to present and support this bill from Seattle Public Utilities to set up a donation account.

This is similar to the one that Seattle City Light has, so they can accept donations to help their low-income customers pay their bills.

And this is Council Bill 119866, which was approved by committee.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any comments on the bill?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Ripple?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Items 24 through 26, will the clerk please read items 24 through 26 into the record.

Agenda items 24 through 26, appointments 1598, 1599, and 1601. The appointment of Maria Sumner as member of Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board for a term to March 31st, 2021, and the appointments of Bianca Johnson and Esty Mintz for terms to March 31st, 2022. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address these items.

Thank you.

All three of these new appointments to the Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board visited us virtually at our Transportation Utilities Committee on August 19. They went through their backgrounds and their interest in serving on the Pedestrian Advisory Board.

It was a real treat to have them there.

I'm looking forward to working with them if the rest of the council appoints them today.

These were approved, these three, unanimously by our committee.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any comments on the appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointments?

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Sprouse?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Aye.

Madam Clerk, did you get Council Member Sawant's vote?

Yes, I had her as a yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Aye.

Final value is nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Other business, is there any other further business to come before the council?

Okay, hearing none, we are at the end of our agenda for today.

Colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda.

Our next city council meeting is on Monday, September 14th.

2020 at two o'clock p.m.

Thank you all for your hard work.

It was a long one right after recess.

I really appreciate it.

I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.