Seattle City Council 9/3/19

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thank you for being here in City Hall.

The September 3rd, 2019 City Council meeting of the full City Council come to order.

It's 2 o'clock p.m.

I'm Bruce Harrell, President of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Beg Shaw.

Here.

Gonzales.

Here.

Herbold.

Here.

Juarez.

Mosqueda.

Here.

O'Brien.

Here.

Pacheco.

Here.

Sawant.

Here.

President Harrell.

Here.

Eight present.

Thank you very much.

If there's no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

And if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

We will make some changes to the agenda when we get to the items that require those changes.

So right now, there's no changes to the agenda at this point.

Hearing no objection, we'll proceed.

The agenda is adopted.

The minutes of the August 5th and 12th 2019 City Council meetings have been reviewed, and if there's no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

Presentations, I'm not aware of any presentations we have this afternoon, so at this time, we'll take public comment on item that appears either on our agenda today, the introduction referral calendar, or our 2019 work program.

And the public comment will be extended for 20 minutes, and speakers are limited to two minutes.

We'll call you out in the order that you signed up.

And thank you for being here.

And we'll start off with Marcy Carpenter.

Please take the middle mic, Marcy.

And Vanessa, if you're here, you could use the other mic and get you queued up there.

Yes, that's a good one.

Is Vanessa here?

We could share the middle mic too.

That might be easier.

So why don't we just share the middle mic for now?

One after the other.

So go ahead, Marcy.

Okay.

My name is Marcy Carpenter.

I live in West Seattle.

I'm a lifelong transportation advocate, former member of the Transit Advisory Board.

Hopefully you all received my email that I sent today.

I am speaking in favor of the mass transportation package.

and specifically want to call out a couple of things.

I know you're not concerned today, but there needs to be much better maintenance of our sidewalks so that people like me don't fall and get a cracked rib like I did earlier this summer in my neighborhood in West Seattle.

Estoc came out, by the way, and put little swatches of paint on all the places that are uneven, which really doesn't help me a lot.

I also would like to speak to bike and scooter share in Seattle.

I'm in favor of all alternative modes of transportation.

I'm in favor of educating the public and users of these share vehicles.

And I'm in favor of adding more bike lanes so that more people will feel safe riding and there will be more off-sidewalk options for riders.

However, the city also needs to look at creating some kind of fine for people who park illegally and dangerously.

The fine, though, needs to be set up so that it doesn't create an undue burden for low-income folks who might choose these options.

We don't allow rental car drivers to park illegally and dangerously with impunity, and we shouldn't allow shared vehicle riders to do that either.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marcy.

Vanessa will be our next speaker, and then Vanessa will be followed by Katie Wilson.

My name is Vanessa from Rooted in Rights.

I would just like to say that I support barrier-free access.

Thank you, Vanessa.

And I'm Clark Matthews.

I'm also with Rooted in Rights.

I live in Columbia City and I work in the International District.

And I think the City Council has a really exciting opportunity to do pass a win-win-win resolution here with all sidewalk, on-street bike parking.

I think it's really easy for folks with disabilities to be pitted against transit needs of others.

And I think, you know, because certainly I don't like having bicycles in my way on a sidewalk.

But what's been great and collaboration with the mass transit group is learning, you know, bicyclists don't want to have to leave their bikes on sidewalks either.

Scooters riders don't want to have to drive on sidewalks because there's no safe, you know, alternative in the street.

I think, you know, having infrastructure for bikes and scooters and other modes of transportation, not only is it better for those passengers and people who ride those, it's also better for People who don't ride those, it's better for pedestrians.

I think taking, you know, having off on street parking every block in front of the park stop sign is a great solution.

You're not taking spaces away from cars.

All you're doing is creating a safe environment for everybody.

So I absolutely can't wait to see you folks sign off and pass the mass transit bill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Councillor Baxter, I would like to comment.

I just want to say thanks to both of you for Rooted in Rights and also the video you did last year on blocking the box.

It was spectacular and we got very close.

We'll do it again and I think be successful this year down the legislature.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vanessa.

Katie, before you speak, I want to make sure I didn't mess up here.

There was actually several signatures of Vanessa's.

There was Vanessa, Clark, and Anna.

We're all covered.

Okay, everyone's covered.

Okay, so following you, Katie, will be Carl Alex Pauls.

Hi, council members.

Thanks for hearing us today.

So I'm here to express the support of the Transit Riders Union for the three pieces of legislation that you're going to be considering today about protected bike lanes and also bike parking.

I actually just want to speak for a moment as a person who rides my bike almost every day around the city of Seattle.

I love riding my bike, it's a great way to get around.

But I notice as I've been getting older that although I'm becoming a more experienced bicyclist, I also feel less invincible.

And, you know, biking around downtown, for example, I find myself on Fourth Ave a lot.

And frankly, it's scary.

I mean, that bike lane, which is not, doesn't feel particularly safe to begin with, just kind of ends.

And I've had some calls which are a little bit too close for comfort.

So I just like to say that everything you can do to accelerate building protected bike lanes in Seattle, both so that more people feel comfortable riding their bikes and choosing that option, but also so people who bike stop dying, super, super important.

Secondly, I know that as someone who parks my bike a lot around Seattle, I'm also guilty of parking in places that probably do create access problems for people in wheelchairs and with other disabilities.

And sometimes that's my fault, and sometimes it's because there's just nowhere to park the bike.

So strongly in favor of building more on-street bike parking so that we don't have that kind of conflict and everyone can use our sidewalks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Katie.

Following Carl will be Merlin Rainwater.

Pardon, I missed that?

Yes.

I seem to lost my script here one moment.

Hi, I'm Carl Alex Pauls.

I'm employed by a private video game company with many private affiliations.

I'm also your constituent in the Volunteer Park neighborhood, and I'm here to support all solutions to our climate problem.

With the few number of folks signed up for public comment, I'd like to invite the Council to ask questions, especially as I haven't seen a response on this topic from Councilmember Swant.

The last time I saw you, we were limited to one minute, and I hope to explore the problems in CB119571 before it's passed.

Seattle City Light has been working on entering the EIM for many years now, and I do not think we need to delay this vote unnecessarily, but there's an important requirement here.

That is, once City Light enters the high-speed trading market, the window of opportunity to create local constraints on the carbon content of our electricity supply will be constrained by the financial impacts of those decisions.

So I'd like to see the council move forward in establishing the oversight board related to the Seattle Green New Deal and only then pass 119571 contingent on the oversight of that board.

So perhaps we can also avoid the heartache of looking for funds to keep our grid clean if we have a statutory requirement for clean electricity.

Without such a legislative requirement for clean electricity, CB119571 will be a gift to the fossil fuel industry.

It's true that we have a wealth of clean electricity in Washington, and some of this is part of City Light's resources.

But operating in the EIM is contingent on our ability to satisfy our own power demand at any time.

This means operating dispatchable fossil fuel, hydro, or storage power around the clock, and unburdened by water use and habitat rules.

In California, that service is provided by fracked gas.

When we buy power on the EIM, it will be from cheap but polluting fracked gas, and we have no requirement to use energy storage instead.

Our state's clean electricity law, SB 5116, will not significantly impact City Light's power purchases until 2044, over a decade after the world inevitably fails to meet the IPCC's first emission targets.

So, to summarize, if unamended, Council Bill 119571 is a betrayal of the Seattle Green New Deal and constituents like me who fought— Okay, that thumbs up was not what I was looking for.

Just bottom line me.

What's your last sentence?

Go ahead.

Sorry, that was my conclusion.

Okay, I'm sorry, I spoke over you.

What was the last thing you said?

I fought unsuccessfully to pass initiative 1631, and I feel that this bill needs to include clean electricity.

Thank you, sir.

Our next two speakers will be Merlin Rainwater and then Kathy Tuttle, and then Alice Lockhart.

Merlin, Kathy, Alice.

Good afternoon, my name is Merlin Rainwater.

I live just off Madison Street on 25th and I use my bike for my main source of transportation.

I'm 73 this year and I hope to continue to use my bike that way when I'm 83. So I'm here to speak in favor of the three items related to accelerating and prioritizing the building of bicycle facilities in Seattle.

I particularly want to thank also the friends from Rooted in Rights who have highlighted the importance of working together with all modes of non-motorized transportation, non-car transportation, I had the opportunity to be temporarily disabled a few years ago and got around by wheelchair and transit.

And it was definitely eye-opening to experience the many barriers to mobility and also to be aware of how our current infrastructure does not adequately take into consideration the possible conflicts or the existing conflicts between walking, biking, and people with impaired mobility.

So I thank you very much for considering these the two resolutions in the ordinance.

We desperately need better bike facilities as a component of our commitment to a Green New Deal.

Thank you.

Hi, Councilmembers, I'm Kathy Tuttle.

I rode my bike here today.

I often ride my bike when I come downtown because it makes sense time-wise, and it makes sense from my pocketbook.

I mean, it's the cheapest, fastest way to get here.

As an expert in traffic safety, however, along the way, I'm looking all the time at places where people have been hit, people have been killed, and it's just not acceptable at this point.

It's something I've been doing for many years, and I understand that Progress takes time, but I think time's up here.

Four years ago, in November of 2015, Seattle voters overwhelmingly passed the billion-dollar Move Seattle levy.

And we worked hard to get this levy passed because, not just because we knew we were going to fix our crumbling infrastructure, but because we believed that our leaders were finally ready to step up and make streets for people.

Streets for people who walk, people who take transit and people who use the transportation networks.

But we were wrong.

In the past four years, most of our billion-dollar levy has not gone into streets for people.

It's gone into infrastructure for people who drive.

not building the better streets that we long for, not building the streets that we put a down payment on.

And we trusted our money to you to build these streets for people.

It's time to get these things built.

It's something that will improve our safety, our equity, our air quality, our economic vitality, and our climate.

Passing the mass coalition package is simply a down payment.

on the the levy that we passed and it's really important for people who walk, bike, use transit.

It's the start of a course correction towards a city that we really need now.

Please pass everything in that in that mass coalition package and then that's a starting point.

Get further.

Do better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following Alice will be Brock Howell.

Good afternoon council.

Um, I came down here today mainly to oh, i'm sorry.

I'm alice la carte with 350 seattle I came down here today mainly just to thank all of you so so much for your work on the mass transportation package Not just these three pieces of it, but the upcoming pieces We know you're super busy in this tiny period between the break and budget season and we so appreciate your effort the entire You know community of people who care about how we can get from place to place safely and comfortably in the city, as well as, in my case, about climate.

So thank you.

However, I'm really sorry about this.

I have grave concerns about the proposed amendment.

Amendment number one that adds the tagline, with an expectation that the final scope and design of the project reflect continued community engagement and input in the project development, including the engagement and input of the business district stakeholders on the impacted route.

My concern is that I would certainly hope that SDOT had done their homework and that by the time we get to repaving, community engagement has been completed.

It has been excellent.

It has included business district stakeholders as well as other stakeholders throughout the city who have a stake in safer and climate-friendly transportation.

And therefore, I would expect that final bit to be informational rather than to be in the nature of any kind of a decision point.

Furthermore, I feel that there's ambiguity here by basically, I'm sorry, by singling out business district stakeholders.

I think all stakeholders should be equal in this.

And certainly, you know, everybody has a tiny stake in every bike lane.

And that can't be overlooked at any stage in the process.

So I did, you know, can we amend the amendment to make it more informational or to make it more about all of us?

Without that I it's it's it's a discomforting amendment.

Thank you Alice Brock before you proceed.

Let me call two more names Andrew saying we'll follow Brock and then Stephen Vander Brock Andrew Stephen

My name is Brock Howell, and I'm representing Bicycle Security Advisors, speaking in support of the resolution to greatly expand on-street bike parking corrals.

First off, I'd like to thank Rutan Rice and Disability Rights Washington for making this a high priority.

Having more bike corrals will help get dockless bike share bikes off the sidewalks, blocking the way of people in mobility that need to use mobility devices or who have sight challenges or who are blind.

In addition, bike corrals help make our streets safer by acting as curb bulbs at our intersections.

They help make sure that driver sight lines are unobstructed, they tighten turning radii of drivers, and they shorten the pedestrian cross distance.

We can only have as many people biking as we have safe places for people to park their bikes, and the City Council and SDOT has done a number of things in recent years to help get us there, including in 2018 the update to the Land Use Code, the recent amendment to the DADU-ADU legislation, by Councilmember Pacheco of making sure we have bike parking in new buildings.

SDOT doing work in terms of designing bike racks in a better way that makes it more convenient to lock bikes and so that they're a little less expensive to procure.

And the expansion of the bike rack spot improvement program.

And so this is the next step and I encourage you to take it.

I have also been following the news quite a bit, looking at Hurricane Dorian.

This is the fourth Category 5 hurricane that's been coming.

Most of our greenhouse gas emissions are coming from the transportation sector here in the region.

And so we need to go all in into fixing our transportation system in order to address climate change locally.

I urge you to do as much as you can through the Green New Deal and the mass transportation package as you can.

Hopefully there's a lot more coming, but we really need to take this step for Vision Zero and for climate change.

So thank you.

Andrew, then Stephen, and then Mary Willie.

Hi there, City Council.

My name is Andrew Tsang, and I've come here today to support fully the Seattle GND along with the Mass Coalition's proposed package.

You know, I think that, you know, right now it's kind of a turning point for our city as, you know, the direction that we plan on taking, where our city wants to go.

You know, if we look at how Seattle's, you know, progress in the vision zero is currently it's actually negative you know we're looking at an increased number of collisions an increased number of people getting hurt on our streets we're just trying to go to work or go to go to school or do whatever it is that they need to do and if you look at you know in america the number one killer of people under the age of thirty five over the age of one that's motor vehicle accidents right so i think this is time you know it's like it's been it's already too late but seattle needs to really get in gear in order to try to take a look at the safety of all road users uh...

because as somebody who rides my bike to and from the University of Washington pretty much every single day, this is something that impacts me on a daily basis.

And it's just absolutely dumbfounding to me that given that the greatest source of emissions for the city of Seattle is, once again, transportation.

It's just kind of a no-brainer that we need to start addressing this and taking this issue seriously.

So I'm just hoping that city council can fully pass every item on the mass coalition transportation package.

in the spirit of the GND that you guys had previously supported, that you guys would be able to get this thing done.

Thank you so much for your time.

I really appreciate all the hard work that you guys have already done.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew.

Hi, Steven.

Mr. Chairman and members of the council, thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Stephen Vandor.

I live and work in the city of Seattle, have for 13 years, intend to do so for much longer.

I am a cyclist.

I'd like to speak to items three and five on today's agenda.

Council Bill 119601 and Resolution 31894, both concerning the five-year-old master bicycle plan of 2014. CB1-19601 runs diametrically counter to the needs of the city to continually assess impacts from and planning for continued growth and changes in travel patterns in our city.

It is anti-progressive.

It seeks to enshrine ideas that may soon be outdated in a bureaucratic prison of red tape It further restrains new transportation and safety technology to a rule that suggests that better alternatives must also be cheaper.

It's worth noting that CB1-19601 passed out of committee by a rump quorum comprising only two members, both of whom are lame ducks on this council.

Resolution 31894 received only one vote in committee, also from a member leaving the council, who will not have to deal with its aftermath.

This is legislation that only Mitch McConnell could love.

The Council should rise to its responsibility by putting responsive government ahead of a legacy of myopic and potentially useless infrastructure.

I urge the Council to reject CB1-19601 and Resolution 31894. Thank you.

Mary, just one moment.

Let me call three names to follow you.

Meg Wade, and then Pauline Van Sinus, and then Glenn Bollman.

So Meg, Pauline, and Glenn.

Thanks, Mary.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mary Wiley.

I'm here to represent the AIA Seattle in support of the mass transportation package initiatives that are on the agenda.

We feel that the mass coalition package aligns quite equally with our shared values and goals at the AIA Seattle.

Those being some of those bullet points being equitable transportation solutions for all, walking and cycling as safe and viable means of transportation, support of initiatives that maximize the movement of people over any specific mode or system, and promotes the equitable access to transportation options for everyone, including those who are currently underserved communities, as well as redesign of our car-centric roadways for greater multimodal safety.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Meg Wei and I'm with 350 Seattle.

And first of all, I would just like to say in response to an earlier comment that I really welcome all of you continuing to govern throughout the entire term for which you are elected and continue to represent us.

That's what we have you all here to do, not just until the next election cycle starts.

So thank you for continuing to do that.

That's what we need from our representatives.

Thank you.

I was going to say stop the clock because I'm talking.

There's nothing lame and there's nothing duck-like about anyone on this dais, but please proceed.

I want to say thank you for bringing that up.

I've heard it many times over the last few weeks and those of us who are working hard and will work hard through December 31st, I just want to recognize that there is no lame duck up here.

I also want to say thank you for the work you've been doing on these initiatives related to transportation.

I do think that they follow in the spirit of so much the council is moving around trying to make our city just and climate friendly.

And I think that we need to think about, as we're utilizing public resources, not just coming up with new revenue sources for projects that remake our city, but thinking about the right of way.

as a public resource that can be part of funding the Green New Deal.

So when we're talking about creating parking for alternative transportation that keeps pathways safe for our colleagues here, that is a resource that we can utilize.

And I think that's why that parking ordinance is really fantastic.

And I'm super appreciative of the ordinance around moving forward bike lanes once they've been in decision.

I want to echo some concerns around the exact language in that amendment, knowing that community engagement should be, especially with communities that have been most left behind and are suffering most from climate change, and I'm not sure that our business districts are always that.

There may be times that there are overlap, but I don't know if the wording as it currently stands gets at what we want out of community engagement processes from SDOT and around transportation safety.

So I'll just leave that comment there, but again, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Pauline Vance.

I'm representing the Transit Riders Union.

And I just realized while I was standing here that I am balancing on my right foot because my left ankle about five years ago stepped in a sidewalk hole in the U District while boarding a bus that was left there by the crew that moved one of Metro Transit's big, huge signs and they didn't repair it.

So who would I have sued?

the Metro Transit, or maybe you got the city of Seattle.

I don't know.

My family's not so happy, and I thought I'd be OK in four weeks.

Well, it still hurts.

Anyway, so the safety issue is really important to me.

There are a lot of holes and other hazards around for me.

But recently, I noticed a disturbing encounter between Metro Transit and a pair of 30-something bikers, a couple that should have known better, but they were kind of dodging in and out of the buses during the peak hours on 3rd Avenue.

And they waved alongside of us on the driver's side and then in front, and then they were kind of shadowing us down between the sidewalk and the buses.

And I'm thinking, like, if we'd hit them, not only would they have gotten hurt, but a whole lot of people's lives would have been disrupted for a while.

So I would say complete the...

the bike safety plans that are in place and they need to be expanded.

Don't try to avoid responsibility.

If the plan is there, implement it.

I know it can be kind of challenging, but I've noticed in West Seattle they're sort of following the model that's on Dexter Avenue that where there's the sidewalk and then a bike lane and then an island for the buses that kind of keeps people separate.

But I've had too many encounters on the sidewalk with either bikers or skateboarders or people just running for buses.

And because of my ballot problem with a sore ankle, it's sometimes because of a sore knee, I don't move that fast out of the way.

So anything you can do, thank you.

Glenn, before you proceed, let me call the last three names out.

Seth Esmussen, Bri Geinseld, and Clara Cantor.

So, Seth, Bri, and Clara to follow Glenn.

Please.

Hi, my name's Glenn Bowman.

I'm a father of two here in Seattle, and all of us get around by bicycle at least part of the time.

I'm here to speak in support of the mass transportation package and to thank you for all you have done will do, including up to December 31st, to keep moving this forward.

I would also like to speak on the reduction of bike shares recently over the past several months.

I think this is ridiculous.

I mean, I understand and agree that the parking of the bike shares is a problem, but the city, number one, hasn't provided enough spaces to park them.

We're removing the kind of transportation that we want to support and encourage.

Unless you're going to remove 1,000 cars every month that SPD writes 50 or more tickets, then please, stop it.

It makes no sense.

If you want to find the companies to encourage them to come up with a way to make sure that we as bike users, you know, park them correctly, fine, I support that.

But removing the bikes makes absolutely no sense.

We should be expanding that.

I would also like to, in relation to the bill that's requiring the BMP to be implemented for large projects, Thank you, but I would also like to ask that you need to do something about 35th Avenue Northeast.

This is a dangerous street.

Everybody knows it's a dangerous street.

Every one of you up there knows that every time somebody on bicycle rides down that street, they're putting themselves in harm's way.

Everyone in the mayor's office knows this, and I get that it's politically sensitive, We need to fix that one, not just make sure that it doesn't happen again, but you need to fix that one before somebody dies again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Glenn.

Hello, my name is Seth Esmison.

I'm here representing Cascade Bicycle Club, and I want to speak in support of the mass transportation package, particularly the two resolutions and the bicycle safety ordinance.

Regarding the BMP resolution, we just wanted to make note that the Council is echoing what the Mayor and the SDOT Director indicated, which is that they wanted to find funding for a lot of the pieces in the Bicycle Master Plan.

in the implementation plan and I just want to say that it's good to see the mayor and council on the same page and we look forward to working with both council and the mayor's office to find funding for pieces in the bicycle master plan.

Regarding the bicycle safety ordinance, I just want to say that the Complete Streets Ordinance already directs SDOT to design streets for all users, and this ordinance just strengthens that Complete Streets efforts so that we can have accountability and transparency for the routes that we already are promised to improve for our vulnerable users.

In addition to that, it's just a good practice to be doing things in a fiscally responsible way and thinking about these things when we're repaving streets as opposed to after a repaving project.

And then lastly, I just wanted to mention our support for the bicycle parking corrals, as well as for any potentially upcoming shared mobility.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Seth.

Our last two speakers are Bri and Clara.

Brie, I'm sorry.

Brie, yeah.

I'm Brie Geinkeld.

And I actually said a lot of what I wanted to say, but I wanted to just speak to the common sense characteristics of all three of these, the resolutions and the ordinance today.

A lot of people have spoken to how important the parking ordinance is for accessibility and also just for safety of people having visibility on the streets, keeping them from parking next to street signs, stop signs.

So yay that.

The other two I see really is about money.

The bicycle safety ordinance, which would really just put a little teeth into our existing complete streets policy, says let's use our money efficiently.

There's no more cost effective way to build the bike lanes that we have said we're going to build than to do it when we're already tearing up the streets.

And I completely agree with the concerns about how community outreach is done.

Those of you who know me know that I'm all about community outreach.

But it needs to happen early enough in the process so that it's meaningful and not be a way for somebody to throw a wrench into a project at the last minute in a way that's really disingenuous.

So let's do whatever you can to finesse that so that it's true community outreach.

And the third is about the areas that were left out of funding in the implementation plan.

which are the areas that have the greatest concerns for equity and have been disinvested in in the past.

They are probably the most critical areas to fund, so I'm strongly, strongly encouraging you to make sure those actually get funded.

And that's all.

Thanks.

Thanks, Shabrie.

Claire Bjarn, last speaker.

Hello.

I'll just hold that.

My name is Clara Cantor.

I'm a community organizer for Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

Sorry, you started it one by accident there.

I want to shortchange you.

There you go.

Go ahead.

Thanks.

My name is Clara Cantor.

I'm a community organizer with Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and I'm here to thank the council for all of your hard work on the mass transportation package.

both that you've already done and also what's coming up over the course of September and through the budget season.

I'm here to support the three pieces that are moving today, but also to speak a little bit more generally about the transportation package as a whole.

We've reached a point where we have 10 years to drastically change how we get around our city, and anything that we're able to do to help that is going to be helpful to our cause.

This package is not everything, but it's a set of steps and policy changes that we at the Mass Coalition believe can be done by the end of this year.

And each of those small steps will help us to make future steps that will help us to change how we get around as a city.

As Kathy mentioned earlier, and her studies have shown, this is something that Seattleites really want.

In respect to the bike pieces, 60% of Seattleites have said that they want to bike more than they currently do and that the biggest reason that they don't is fear for safety.

Our deaths on our street and serious injuries on our street are currently at a 10-year high.

that's a major problem, particularly for a city that's committed to Vision Zero.

This is also about our climate.

You know, transportation is the biggest piece of our climate emissions here in Seattle, and we're not really doing that much right now to change that, particularly in terms of helping people to get around by other modes, particularly with the new types of mobility that are coming out like scooters.

We have to be able to find ways to help people use those modes while also making sure that it's not getting in the way of mobility for other folks.

So I just want to thank you so much.

Thank you.

I thank all of you for your public comment.

Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas and opinions with us.

We're going to move to the section of the payment of the bills.

Please read the titles plural.

Council Bill 119611, appropriate in mind to place order in claims for the week of August 5th, 2019, through August 9th, 2019, ordering payment thereof.

Council Bill 119612, appropriate in mind to place order in claims for the week of August 12th, 2019, through August 16th, 2018, and ordering payment thereof.

And Council Bill 119613, appropriate in mind to place order in claims for the week of August 19th, 2019, through August 23rd, 2019, and ordering payment thereof.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We're going to vote on these individually.

And so I will move to pass Council Bill 119611. Move to second.

The bill passed.

Any further comments?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Bill passes and the Chair will sign it.

I'll move to pass Council Bill 119612. It's been moved and seconded.

Any comments?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herpold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Bill passed and the Chair will sign it.

And I'll move to pass Council Bill 119613. It's been moved and seconded.

The bill passed.

Any further comments?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Bakeshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Bill pass and chair will sign it.

Just one moment.

That's like a well-oiled machine there.

Just one second.

Okay, please read the first agenda item from the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee, and please read the short title.

The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee, agenda item one, Council Bill 119584 relating to residential rental properties conforming to the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member Herbold.

Fantastic, thank you.

So back in February of 2019, I sponsored Resolution 31861 that proposed certain legislative changes originating from recommendations from the Women's Commission and the Housing Justice Project report, Losing Home.

The recommendations in the report identified specific harms in our eviction system impacting tenants in marginalized communities, particularly women, the African-American community, seniors, and trans people.

Following up on Resolution 31861 passed unanimously by the Council, in the 2019 state legislative session, advocates at the state level and housing champions were successful in passing changes to the Residential Landlord Tenant Act.

Senate Bill 5600 was sponsored by Senators Patty Cooter and Mona Doss and House Bill 1440 sponsored by Representatives Juden Robinson and Nicole Macri.

These bills have been in effect since the end of July and SDCI, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, is already conducting outreach and education on the changes in this bill.

They've been working to notify landlords who are currently registered with the Rental Registration and Inspection Database, about 19,000 landlords, and they've been incorporating into future landlord trainings and curriculum the new requirements under state law.

This harmonization bill that is before us today makes consistent with our own unique city laws the new rights granted to tenants by state law.

It passed unanimously out of the August 13th Civil Rights Utilities Economic Development and Arts Committee.

What the legislation does is three primary things.

First, it extends what was a mere three days that tenants had to pay rent or face eviction for which a reason for not paying the rent would not be accepted by a judge.

It only looks at whether or not the rent was paid within three days.

The new law gives tenants 14 days for non-payment of rent.

This extends the amount of time a tenant has to access services, support, or the next pay period in order to potentially get caught up and avoid eviction proceedings.

Secondly, the bill redefines rent as, quote, recurring and periodic charges identified in the rental agreement.

The reason why this is so important is it allows a requirement that rent be applied, past due rent, be applied before other costs, like late payments, damages, legal costs, or other fees.

And so that makes sure that when a tenant is behind in rent and also has other costs owing, like late fees, that when the tenant pays the past due rent, it gets applied to them.

rent that is showing to be owed and ensures that the reinstatement of tenancy is based on that rent and not the other costs.

And then finally, the bill extends the minimum notice of all rent increases in the city of Seattle to 60 days.

And under current law, most rent increases can only go into effect after 30 days notice, with the exception in Seattle for rent increases greater than 10 percent.

They previously required a 60-day notice.

Under this new law, all rent increases, regardless of their size, will only be effective with a full 60 days notice.

And those are the main points of the bill.

We're going to have another couple pieces of legislation that we're going to be continuing to work through our committee.

Also, coming out of the Women's Commission Housing Justice Project, Losing Home, report, but we'll talk about that another time.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Any questions or comments on the legislation?

Okay, looks like we're good.

So please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Bankshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the Chair will sign it.

Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

The report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 119608 relating to the city-owned property located at 702 Roy Street.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I spoke to this briefly at Council briefing today, but I'm actually going to move to hold this because I've been informed that we should be passing this concurrently with the other piece of legislation related to the Mercer Mega Block, which will potentially come out of committee on Friday and would be before the council in two weeks from yesterday.

So I'd like to move to hold Council Bill 119-608 until September 16th, 2019. Second.

Okay, moved and seconded to hold agenda item number two until September 16th, 2019. Is there any questions or comments?

All those in favor of the hold say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it and that agenda item will be held.

Please read agenda item number three.

Agenda item three, Council Bill 119601 relating to the construction of protected bicycle lanes requiring major paving projects to include protected bicycle lanes as identified in the City of Seattle's Bicycle Master Plan and adding a new chapter 15.80 to the Seattle MSPA Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

Colleagues, this ordinance is really directed towards safety, specifically safety for bicyclists in our city.

And the ordinance is really intended to ensure that we uphold the commitments we made to the modal plans, in this case the Bicycle Master Plan.

to build the facilities, the protected bicycle lanes that have been laid out in that project.

What the ordinance would do would require that in repaving projects on arterials, major repaving projects, these are projects identified as being more than a million dollars, If that arterial is slated in the bicycle master plan as having a protected bike lane, that the expectation is that when they do that project, they need to include that protected bicycle lane.

A couple of things I want to speak to here.

One is the safety issue.

A lot of work goes into making and updating the modal plans and a lot of thought goes into how to building a network of of bike lanes in this case that allow people to safely get around the city.

Not so much folks like myself who may have been bicycling most days for the last 20 years, but for the vast majority of people who are interested in cycling but don't feel safe today.

We want to make sure there's a network for that.

Heard Council Member Gonzalez this morning speak to her experience in Copenhagen, which is vastly different than ours.

where, you know, depending on the day, a majority of people might be commuting via bicycle, and it's a place where, from a climate perspective and a human health perspective, we'd like to get to, but it requires a commitment to making those safe lanes.

If you're going to build the infrastructure, The most cost-effective time to do that is when you're already tearing up the street and redoing it.

And so by requiring that folks, when they're doing a repaving project, requiring that the department installs a facility at the point at which they're already doing the work, the marginal cost for that is minimal to make that happen.

And so it's the most cost-effective way to achieve the safety network we're trying to achieve.

What I want to be clear, we're going to talk a little bit about community engagement, I imagine, in the discussion.

And it's critically important that there's community engagement throughout this process.

We've heard in public comment today the desire for that to be early and the expectation is that Folks have those engagements.

My intent with this legislation, this isn't a community engagement process to say, should we do this or not?

Because the implementation plan, the bike master plan has already decided that this is a place where we need this facility.

But rather, how do we do it?

Does it make sense for the facility to be on the east side of the street or the west side of the street?

How do we deal with the intersections?

How do we make sure that in the case of business districts that they're proper load out zones so they continue to have access?

There are lots of very neighborhood specific questions that need to be addressed.

And frankly, the city has a really great track record of doing that really well.

There's a few exceptions, but in general, really well.

And the intent of this legislation is to just make sure we stick to that moving forward.

So I'll pause there, and I think there's some other discussions and potentially amendments.

Okay, I know that Councilman Herbold has mentioned and drafted an amendment for Section 1. and gave us the language.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to speak to that?

I'm going to speak to that.

I'm not going to move it because Council Member Bryan has a substitute.

But I do want to speak to my intent.

In the amendment itself, I refer to the need for continued community engagement and input in the project development.

And then I speak specifically, I speak generally first about community engagement and then I speak specifically about the need for business district stakeholder engagement.

The intent is not to suggest that one set of stakeholders is more important than any other.

The intent is to reflect a reality that we see and that I have actually worked with business district stakeholders in District 1 with bike lane and bus lane implementation in Avalon of how important it is to project completion to have these stakeholders at the table because of what happens when you don't and you're at 90% design and the engagement has not been deep about what those impacts are.

I chair the Council Committee with Oversight on Economic economic development issues, the Office of Economic Development, I think, feels really strongly as well that as it relates to Department of Transportation Construction Impacts, that the relationships that they develop in these business districts are really important to have, you know, when you're at 10%, 30%, 60%, and 10% of the design phases.

That was my intent.

It was, if you want to get the project done, The reality is that if folks who actually own property on the bike route and are doing business out of the property on the bike route aren't engaged early on and throughout, it's going to inevitably delay and sometimes derail the project itself.

All of that said, if people feel more comfortable removing the reference to the I'm okay with doing that.

And, you know, this amendment is about accountability, our desire, the council's desire to have accountability as it relates to both those instances when a project, when SDOT decides that a project is not moving forward, as well as those instances when it is moving forward.

And it's out of our desire, I think, to be good stewards of the council's Intense in plans And so I will if if the will of the council is to move forward with an amendment that doesn't call out business districts I'm just going to have faith that community engagement Writ large does include those business districts.

Thank you guys.

All right.

Well councilmember Juarez I

I'm actually disappointed that Council Member Herbold is pulling her amendment.

I saw your intent and those of us that have dealt with this bike lane issue understand that having the business district stakeholders in there doesn't mean that one group of stakeholders is more important or more heard than the other.

However, what we've learned and lessons learned in bike lanes and communities and what we've watched and I've learned since 2007 with the Bike Master Plan that has gone through five iterations, that each time we have paused when we looked at safety, ridership, equity, infrastructure, race and social justice issues, when we first passed the bike master plan, Council Member O'Brien, please correct me if I'm wrong, the first two ideals were in 2007 was safety and ridership.

And from that, five more important values became integrated.

They became integrated because community came together and said, you passed a law.

It's working.

Now there's some other ideas that need to be folded in.

And other councils agreed and passed it.

One of the ones that was most important to me, besides safety and ridership, was the whole equity, race, and social justice issue.

and that we needed more bike lanes south of the ship canal than Districts 1 and District 2. So when I read Councilmember Herbold's amendment, which I would have supported, it made complete sense to me that if you have, and we cannot pretend that the business community is not impacted, and Councilmember O'Brien, please correct me if I'm wrong again, but my understanding too is that bike lanes are also exempted from the environmental impact statement review.

from EISs, and somebody made that decision somewhere, and neither here nor there, good or bad, but my point is we make these decisions all the time, and that doesn't mean that one stakeholder group isn't more important, but it's recognizing that community is also includes and should have tee up the issues that business districts are concerned about, and a lot of them go beyond just parking, and I think we heard that loud and clear.

So, that's what I wanted to add.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Any other comments?

I think Councilmember O'Brien is going to address some of the pending comments.

One quick one.

Brie, if you're still here, I want to say thank you and acknowledge what you had said about genuine community engagement early on.

That's something I know Cascade Bicycle Club has been advocating for, as have all of us up here.

So I want to support this.

I really believe that real community input also will result in what we've heard from Copenhagen.

And what we know that the Bloomberg studies found in New York City is that getting community stakeholders involved and local businesses involved is that their businesses do better when they're giving a thumbs up.

They've got places where people can come and park their bikes that just based upon what we have seen in New York City and Copenhagen alone, we know that economically this works.

So I'm going to be supportive of this.

Frankly, if you want to keep the language in that identifies business districts, I'm fine with that.

Council Member O'Brien, if you prefer your amendment, I'm going to support it either way.

So thank you for the good work.

And again, I just want to acknowledge what you're saying is that the community engagement has got to be early, often, and real.

Thank you, Council Member Bankshaw.

Before we proceed, if we're to consider Council Member O'Brien's amendment, we don't have any amendments on the table right now.

We're going to have to suspend the rules because of the time deadline and a little bit because of the lateness of the amendment.

So, if that's your objection, I'm going to suspend the rules to be able to consider any potential amendments made by Council Member O'Brien.

So, Council Member O'Brien, you want to take it from there?

Yeah, thank you, Council President.

And colleagues, I'll just say to the public, I want to just acknowledge we're back from two weeks on recess, and so I apologize that we're playing a little catch-up here after our deadlines, and so I appreciate the flexibility.

Council Member Herbold, I appreciate your work on the language and I agree with everything you said.

I know that the intent is absolutely there to ensure that we do a stakeholder process, including the business districts.

One of the challenges I think that we heard from folks in the community and public comment today is the language chose to single out business districts as an area to do it because those are critical areas.

They said business districts, not businesses.

So anyone that's along those lines would be included.

And I also hear from community members that we want to make sure everyone's included, including folks that are historically left behind.

And I think that's important.

At some point we start to get into a a series of not to exclude but including these types of folks and the list gets really long and so what I'm proposing here is kind of broader higher level language that as Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Juarez said it's absolutely critical that businesses in business districts are consulted along with other folks and what the amendment would do is in under the requirements where it currently says under A, whenever the Seattle Department of Transportation constructs a major paving project along a segment of the protected bicycle lane network, a protected bicycle lane with adequate directionality shall be installed along that segment.

And the amendment would add, just extend that sentence to add, with an expectation that the final scope and design of the project reflect continued community engagement and input in the project development on how to implement the protected bicycle lane.

It doesn't specifically mention businesses, underrepresented communities, residents, but the intent is this inclusion and stakeholder engagement should be broad and inclusive.

So I will propose that amendment.

You have a copy in front of us.

I think there's a few copies on the podium if folks want to see it in the audience.

Again, I apologize for making this up in response to real-time.

I know this is not the ideal way we do business at full council, but I appreciate your indulgence, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member O'Brien, for what appears to be inclusive and expansive language, trying to meet the needs of meaningful community engagement.

Are there any comments?

I'm going to need a second on the amendment, so Council Member Hurd will have a second.

Any other comments or questions?

Council Member Gonzalez, you have the floor.

Thank you, Council President.

I appreciate the attempt to reconcile what seems to be conflicting language, but not necessarily actually conflicting in the sense that I think the intent is the same here.

But how will this is an ordinance, not a resolution.

So this is actual law that the agency will presumably refer to in the course of its work in implementing the intent and the actual letter of the law, how will the intent that we've been discussing for the last few moments be articulated to SDOT in terms of the characterization from the dais that the intent here is to do community engagement in the broadest, most inclusive sense, which would include those business owners and residents within our business districts?

So in my recent conversations, I say conversations over the last six months with staff at SDOT on what community engagement should look like around implementation of the Bike Master Plan, I would say that what I have heard is their intent is completely aligned with what we've all discussed here today, that they want to do engagement early.

They want to do it at a point where there's still opportunities to influence the actual design.

They want to be broad and inclusive.

That includes the obvious stakeholders that may own businesses or live right along a corridor, but also folks from the broader community who may want to have access to that corridor, whether it's they want to access the businesses or other facilities along that corridor or they commute through that corridor and that's the route they go to.

very confident in the folks at SDOT that their intent is to implement this.

And I think they have examples where they do this well.

And like anything at the city, there's also examples where they have fallen short.

And so, I'm not sure what other language to put in at this point.

But I think what it will require is a conversation, probably multiple conversations, to ensure that we understand what this looks like.

And the good news is that there are projects that meet this criteria that will be happening in the near future that we can start working on this together and say, let's come back with a model of what your engagement will look like on a project, say like the rapid ride corridor on East Lake as an example.

and how do you plan to engage stakeholders along that community on how to implement the Bike Master Plan.

I just I think that I appreciate that and I don't you know I'd like to believe that all of the agency employees and leaders are watching us on the dais now and have a full robust understanding of our legislative intent as we are having these debates but I know that that is not necessarily a reality.

I think there's an opportunity to potentially communicate in a more formal way to SDOT and the mayor's office about the intent around this community engagement piece.

I do think it's an opportunity of improvement for how we implement many of our infrastructure projects, including bicycle infrastructure.

And I think it's where we can lose the most in terms of credibility and trust in advocating for ongoing development of a bicycle network and infrastructure that works for everyone, primarily.

for those who are using them, of course, but I do worry that excluding a call out of stakeholders in this area can be interpreted as us wanting to exclude engagement of those very individuals.

And one of the things that was really impressive to me on my learning trip in Copenhagen is having a mentality and a culture around these infrastructure projects that really is centering the concept of going somewhere as opposed to passing through a place.

And that is really sort of essential to creating true public space and livability within our city.

And so I want to challenge us all urbanists to really think about how we are creating infrastructure, not just to pass through something safely, but to get to that place as well.

And that, I think, to me, includes our main street businesses within our neighborhoods that are essential to the vibrancy of the city.

I accepted Councilmember Herbold's language with that intent in mind and hope that we can find a way to effectively communicate that to the department and the mayor's office.

My preference would be to leave it in the ordinance because it is an ordinance and not a resolution.

But if that is not something that we can find agreement to at this moment, then I hope there will be an alternative way for us to make that communication and that intent clear to the agency.

So colleagues, I don't have, I believe what we're discussing here, the distinction, our intent distinction is, doesn't exist.

I think we're trying to go the same way, and I'm flexible to go either route.

I have my amendment before me, but if colleagues want to do something else, what I would suggest, because of your comments, Council Member Gonzalez, which I really appreciate, would be a committee sometime before the end of the year to work with the director of SDOT and the team that's leading the outreach and have them come to have a discussion with us about what their interpretation of this is, what our intent is, in a public forum where we can actually talk through that and hear how they plan to do that.

And we include Office of Economic Development as well in that conversation?

We'd love to do that.

That sounds great.

And that probably won't happen before budget, but we can do it shortly after budget.

It would be my guess on the timing on that.

With that, my amendment's out there and it has a second, but if folks feel strongly about going in a different direction, I'm happy to consider that too.

I don't think we're actually arguing up here.

What I'm hearing is we can proceed with the amendment.

It has been seconded, but there is a need legislatively perhaps to clarify and strengthen the intent of our language, and we have some opportunities this year to still do that.

So that's what I'm hearing at this point.

I don't know where the votes will fall, but I don't think one excludes the other.

So I think we could, at least I could support the amendment knowing that we may take further action to legislatively articulate our intent.

So we have a live amendment on the table we're going to vote for.

Is everyone ready to vote on the amendment?

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

And amendment number one is proposed by council member number two as a proposed by council member O'Brien.

You have it in front of you.

All those in favor of the amendment please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Ayes have it.

So that amendment passes.

Now we're ready to vote on the amended legislation.

Is there any further need to talk about the base legislation as amended now?

Council member O'Brien did you have any closing words you wanted to say?

We're good.

Okay, we're going to vote on the amended legislation.

Beg Shaw.

I'm sorry?

I'm sorry.

Please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.

Beg Shaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passed and the chair will sign it.

Please read agenda item.

Please read agenda item number four.

Resolution 31898 requesting that the Seattle Department of Transportation develop a budget proposal for creating on-street bike and e-scooter parking.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

I'll just speak briefly to this and give a chance to my colleague Council Member Pacheco to speak to it as he has done a bunch of work on this.

We heard in public comment today from a lot of folks and I really appreciate everyone here providing public comment.

both to the need to have more mobility options for everyone and for the need to ensure that we provide the infrastructure and the enforcement to ensure that people using the various mobility options do it appropriately.

This specific piece of legislation is a step in getting the infrastructure built so that there are places for folks to park their bicycles, scooters, or whatever comes along next in the mobility world.

There's continued work to do enforcement, and I really appreciate the comments.

Marcy, your comments in particular, you helped share with me over the last week in another jurisdiction where I believe one of the e-scooter share companies had created penalties for folks that are parking those, their customers who are parking the scooters.

inappropriately, and I think that is an enforcement step that we need to do.

We don't have e-scooters, but we do have bikes, and I think we should step up our enforcement and work with the companies that are on our streets to hold their customers accountable, make sure that they have a place to do it.

I also appreciate your comments, Marcy, about making sure that we're simply not penalizing low-income folks and making it so that they no longer can afford to have access to the type of mobility options that some communities may be in most need of happening.

So it's complex.

And the thing that gives me hope is there's an amazing group of advocates that represent a broad swath of our community that are thoughtfully engaged in finding solutions and we will work through that complexity as a city if we're going to be successful and having folks engaged is an amazing thing.

I'm so sorry I spoke too long but I want to hand it over to Councilmember Chayko to speak specifically to this legislation.

Councilmember Chayko.

Well, first I want to thank the community advocates with the Mass Coalition for doing so much work as well as advocacy here today as well as prior.

And my council colleagues, Councilmember O'Brien and Mosqueda, who have come with some recommendations and some amendments in committee.

So the resolution is to ask SDOT to come back to us with a budget proposal to double by the number of bike share and scooter parking spaces by next year, as well as include provisions for financial penalties.

to enforce proper parking of the bike share and scooters as we've heard today during public comment, the need for us to have better enforcement of these mobility options.

And so, I'm excited to get to have post, have voted this out of committee as well as hopefully be able to get this out of council today so that we can have our assignment before us before we get to the budget later this month.

Thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

Any more comments on the resolution?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I want to take a quick second to thank Council Members Pacheco and Council Member O'Brien for taking the first steps on this legislation to really help us get scooters into Seattle in a safe and responsible way.

I think we've been able to hear from a number of transit advocates or multimodal transit transportation advocates that there is a desire to help promote environmentally friendly transit options that create equity and also build healthy communities.

And I really want to thank Mary and others who testified today about the need to make sure that as we roll out any program or pilot that we're doing so in direct conversation with communities that could potentially benefit from the creation of scooters, for example, but also that we're taking into consideration all the unintended consequences.

And I think creating corrals and making those available for bikes and for scooters in the future help us to proactively respond to the concerns that we've seen in other cities.

We can do that in a way that learns from other cities and how that have been able to move those scooters off the sidewalk and out of the ramps that allow for people to have easy and safe access to our protected sidewalks.

And I think it's critically important for us to create these corrals now.

So that when we potentially roll out policy in the future, we have a place for these bikes and scooters to go in the future.

The other two things that I think are really exciting about us having this conversation is one Glenn mentioned, which dovetails with We want there to be more access to bikes and scooters in the future, not to necessarily penalize people for not putting them in the right place by having us not have as much access to those bikes.

But we have to have a place to put those bikes.

So creating the corrals is incredibly important.

And then the last thing I'll mention that I'm looking forward to is I think as we create more sound policies like this, it behooves us to take a look at what other cities have done, especially around labor protections.

What we saw in the city of Chicago, for example, is that they do not use independent contractors there.

They require the companies to have actual workers and employees.

So that can help us create more accountability and responsibility in terms of how these companies are both interacting with the built environment and with the the higher labor standards that we'd like to see in our city.

So I'm excited about these higher standards that we're putting into place now.

I think that it sets us up well to implement best practices from across the country.

And I think overall, I'm really excited about making sure that we don't just have a point in time check-in with key stakeholders, including from disability rights community, but also that we've built into future legislation how we're going to have the stakeholder engagement all along the process to make sure that these corrals and future legislation on transit options really do meet everybody's needs.

So thank you so much for taking this up, and let's get scootin'.

I had to say something like that.

Thank you, Councilmember Scala.

Any further questions before we vote on the resolution?

We're good?

Okay.

Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries.

The resolution is adopted, and the Chair will sign it.

Please read the next agenda item.

Agenda item five, resolution 31894 relating to the funding of priority projects in the 2019 through 2024 bicycle master plan and implementation plan.

Requesting that the mayor commit to building out the bicycle master plan, identifying funding for priority bicycle master plan projects in the mayor's 2020 proposed budget.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

One more as we work through these exciting issues.

This, go back a little brief history here, back in March, well, traditionally about this time each year, the executive presents an implementation plan for all the modal plans, including the Bike Master Plan.

But this time last year, that was delayed because of some of the work around the move Seattle levy and an ongoing interest to further engage with various stakeholders.

And so we did not get an implementation plan until March of this year.

At the time that implementation came out, there was a lot of concern amongst various community members that the implementation plan had missed the mark.

And I really want to say I appreciate that both the mayor's office and the Department of Transportation Heard those comments and took them to heart and immediately went out And very quickly turned around and did a I believe they did five community meetings to get stakeholder input on hearing those concerns and came back in June with a a revised implementation plan that attempted to address the concerns they heard in those community meetings.

And I thought they did a really good job, they were very responsive, but the reality was that even then, at that point, the fiscal reality of some of the challenges around the Move Seattle levy was such that there were some projects that really need to be built in the next few years that are not currently in the implementation plan.

But the fiscal reality being what it is, and I'm looking at the chair of our budget process who's about to start, is that the only way to build those projects with the current budget would be to cancel other projects that are also important.

So instead of fighting over a small pie, why don't we figure out how to make the pie a little bit bigger?

And so what this resolution does is it really focuses on a couple priority areas where there are currently some gaps in the network or in the region and asks that the mayor's office and the department find ways to prioritize and budget those projects.

So specifically, The current implementation plan, one of its major shortcomings is that at the end of the Move Seattle levy, if all we built is what's in the plan right now, there will not be a connection from Southeast Seattle to downtown.

And if after this billion-dollar levy is completed, we still are lacking a safe connection for residents who live in Southeast Seattle to connect to downtown, that will have been a failure.

So this calls on specifically names out some projects, three of them on Beacon Avenue South, a connection from Georgetown to downtown, a connection on Martin Luther King Jr.

Way that we want to find funding for and ask the mayor to find funding for.

Now the great thing is that the budget is to be presented to us in just over a couple weeks.

And so hopefully there's an opportunity to do that.

We're talking about some other revenue sources that may come up, including sale of the Mercer Mega Block, which hopefully we'll be approving in the next few weeks too.

And of course, when the budget comes to the council, we'll have opportunities to find transportation dollars and dedicate those to them.

In addition to Southeast Seattle, it also talks about a couple pieces of infrastructure downtown that are important pieces of the network to make sure we have a safe downtown.

a two-way bike lane on 4th Avenue, and also a protected bike lane on Alaskan Way between Virginia Street and the Elliott Bay Trail.

With that, I believe my colleagues have a couple amendments, have a couple projects that are very consistent with those to this.

One of those was presented this morning.

I believe one will require suspension of the rules because it came in a little after the deadline.

I believe Council Member Bagshaw that we'll take second will require suspension of rules but Council Member Herbold has a first amendment and will address first.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

I move to amend resolution 31894 section 2 by adding a new subsection H entitled Georgetown South Park Trail as presented on amendment 1. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to add a section H Georgetown South Park Trail.

Any comments or questions on that?

Council Member Hurdle, would you like to speak to a little more?

I would.

Thank you.

I just want to give a little bit of background on this particular project.

Under Council President Harrell's leadership in the budget for 2018 and in response to community requests from both of our districts in Georgetown and in South Park, the council added $600,000 to the budget in 2018 for the outreach planning and early design of the project.

SDOT's project website notes that the final design and construction are currently underfunded, and I met with the MAS coalition a couple weeks ago, received some support for this being a priority project, and just want to say that South Park is called out in the recitals of the bill, so I think it's important that we follow up with action as it relates to important projects to the South Park community.

Thank you Councilmember Herbold and thanks for your work on this.

Any other questions?

We'll just take, we'll vote on the amendment.

All those in favor, has it been seconded?

Yes.

All those in favor of the amendment as described by Councilmember Herbold, please vote aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it, so that amendment passes.

Thank you Councilmember Herbold and I believe to consider Council Member Bagshaw's amendment we're going to have to suspend the rules because of the timing and if there's no objection we'll suspend the rules.

Do I understand Council Member Bagshaw's amendment?

Council Member Bagshaw, you have the floor.

Thank you very much.

So do you want me to formally request that we suspend the rules now or have you just accomplished it?

I just accomplished it.

Very good.

So I would like to move to amend this Resolution 31894, Section 2, by adding a new subsection, which will be I, since Councilmember Herbold's amendment passed, to add Bynes Street, and then it's parenthetical, 2nd Avenue to Thomas Street.

And the reasoning behind this is similar to what we're speaking about, about making the connections.

We have in our proposed amendment in front of us on what is item F, a two-way protected bike lane on 4th Avenue and its main to Vine Street, and then it just ends.

And as part of our NODO map, our north downtown, mobility action plan, we had specified a connection up Vine Street and Taylor to connect with Thomas Street.

And thanks to a number of people, I saw Gordon Padelford here earlier, that we had a design shred on Thomas earlier this summer that would connect Thomas Street both on the east side and the west side of Seattle Center.

And what this proposal will do is to add about seven blocks And whether it's a greenway or whether it's a separated bike lane, but to make sure that bicycle riders coming down 4th Avenue will have a safe and separated bike lane, but then can continue on Vine and Taylor to Thomas.

And it's just one of these safe connections.

And I want to acknowledge, I think Katie Wilson has left, but the point that she was raising about 4th Avenue is really critical.

As somebody who rides her bike a lot, going down 4th Avenue when it just ends, it becomes a very unsafe situation, particularly with all the construction going on downtown.

So my goal here is to be able to connect 4th Avenue all the way to the east side of Seattle Center.

And by adding the subsection I, Vine Street, 2nd Avenue to Thomas Street, we can accomplish that.

Thank you, Council Member Bagshaw.

Any questions or comments on Council Member Bagshaw's amendment?

Okay, we'll call this amendment number two.

Okay.

It's been moved.

Amendment number two has been described and moved and seconded by Council Member Bagshaw.

Any further questions or comments?

All those in favor of amendment number two, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it, so amendment number two is passed.

So now we have an amended resolution 31894. Council Member O'Brien, would you like to say any closing remarks?

Good to go.

Okay, any other remarks on the base legislation as amended?

We're good?

Okay.

Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries.

The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee.

The report of the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee, agenda item six, Council Bill 119516, relating to the City Light Department authorizing a large solar program for customers with solar photovoltaic systems sized larger than 100 kilowatts and not greater than two megawatts and adding a new section 21.49.083 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Council Member Mosqueda and take your time.

Thank you very much Mr. President.

I will filibuster.

So I am excited about the next two pieces of legislation which I think are in line with this city's commitment to reducing our carbon footprint and to promoting green energy and a greener economy.

The first piece of legislation that we have is related to the solar program for customers in larger buildings.

This will help to expand the production of renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels.

I want to underscore that this legislation in front of us is a new program at Seattle City Light for large-scale producers of solar energy.

So you can imagine some of our larger mid-size and larger buildings that have flat roofs that don't have the ability to currently engage in generating solar energy at this point.

Now they would be able to be part of a program that allows for them to be large producers of solar energy and would establish a large commercial solar export rate in Seattle, it's municipal code, and this can be updated over time.

I think this is an important first step, and I'll just reiterate a point that I made earlier.

None of these policies, whether we're talking about the solar program today or in a second we'll be talking about the new energy market, these are not the end-all be-all to creating a greener economy.

These are policies that help us strive towards our commitment to creating more options for entering into a greener economy and creating more green options.

So along with transportation, we know from the reports that have been generated right here in Seattle that building emissions is one of the largest sources of climate warming carbon emissions in Seattle.

And as stated in our Green New Deal resolution that passed just last month in this city council chamber, thanks again to Council Member O'Brien for your leadership on that.

We know that energy for heating, cooling, and powering buildings accounted for more than one-third of Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 alone.

Currently, we have a handful of large-scale commercial solar producers that contract individually with Seattle City Light, but we haven't had a program that creates standards, rates, and rules on the books as of yet.

That is what this legislation aims to do.

The lack of predictability of benefits from installing solar installations on roofs can be a barrier right now for more buildings and more entities to enter into the current program that Seattle City Light has.

So we need to create a project that creates true standards for on-site solar energy generation.

This will create consistency, predictability, and will help to make sure that on-site solar production is actually being encouraged and that this electricity that's being generated on-site can not only be used for those businesses that are generating it, but any excess energy that's generated on-site can also be conveyed into City Light's system for use elsewhere and help set up export rates for customers to be credited that excess energy is accounted for.

So with that, I just want to also note that Erin House from my office has done a ton of work on this legislation before we brought it to full council and before we brought it to our committee to make sure that the labor advocates, affordable housing advocates, energy and environmental advocates were at the table to provide additional input before we brought the legislation forward.

And that includes folks from IBEW, Emerald Cities, Northwest Energy Coalition and Spark Northwest to make sure that as we move forward, we were encouraging higher labor standards, energy efficiency, including in affordable housing, and to making sure that we were striving for high-performing energy efficiency standards in all building.

This is, I think, a good first step as we look at trying to expand solar production to new buildings of various sizes, and we'll continue to be meeting with the affordable housing advocates.

I also understand that Seattle City Light has been working with the affordable housing developers on creating a virtual net metering program that makes sure that the energy savings are passed along to the low-income residents who are more likely to be renters in these buildings.

And that's a critical element of this component as well.

I think Council Member O'Brien, you've talked about that before.

When we look at green energy standards in buildings, we have to make sure that renters beneficiaries of these policies as well.

So thanks to everybody involved, thanks to Erin for your quick work with all of these stakeholders, and to City Light for being willing to work with us on this legislation and the amendments.

I think that with these amendments The policy has really been strengthened and helps us strive towards that commitment of affordability, equity, and climate priorities as we put forward this solar program.

We do have a substitute bill.

You all have it in your materials, so there's no need to pass out materials here.

Thank you, Amelia, for including that in the council materials that were sent out on Friday.

And this is a substitute bill that really includes some technical language, so I'll just run through those two components with you really quickly.

Included in the substitute bill is clarifying language on how the size of these systems are measured.

So for example, this amendment explicitly states that the practice of measuring will be in terms of alternating current or AC.

It also is clarifying the effective date for the export rate of the solar bill.

This amendment makes it clear that regardless of when an interconnection agreement is signed, so for example, if you signed up in 2019 and it's now 2020, you actually are receiving the 2020 rate.

So all customers in the program are on the same updated export rate each year.

And with that, Mr. President, if I may, I would like to move to amend Council Bill 119516 by substituting version 6 for version 1A to include these technical amendments.

Very good.

Is there a second?

Second.

So it's been moved and seconded to substitute version 6 for version 1A.

I think Council Member Scata described it very well.

So any questions or comments after that description?

Okay, we're just going to vote on the amendment now.

All those in favor of the amendment, please vote aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The version is substituted.

Council Member Muscata, would you like to say a little more?

Are we ready to vote?

Ready.

Okay, any other questions or comments on the bill?

If not, please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Bill passed, the Chair will sign it.

Please read agenda item number seven.

Agenda item seven, Council Bill 119571 relating to the City Light Department authorizing the Department to enter and participate in the Western Energy and Balance Market, including the ability to execute additional agreements necessary or convenient to participating in the western energy imbalance market.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you.

Council Member Esqueda.

Thank you, Mr. President.

So this is the second of the green energy legislation that's before us related to Seattle City Light, allowing for us to participate in the western energy imbalance market.

Again, I'll reiterate the comment I just made that, you know, in order for us to truly address climate change and global warming, we need some radical policy changes that will absolutely take on how we have business as normal.

This is a component of a much larger conversation that we must be having around how we create greener energy options.

This is not the end-all be-all again policy solution to creating green energy, but I think it's an important step that many of you have been working on for a long time to make sure that we could get into the Western energy imbalance market.

This helps us, I should say, create more options for greener energy in the market as we look at many of the Western states which create higher, I should say, more equitable access to green energy, meeting our environmental standards, our carbon reduction goals, and creates financial benefits for our region as well.

We are very excited that Seattle City Light is going to be leading as the first public entity to join the Western energy and balance market.

the market increases the reliability of renewable power and provides access to renewable power during peak demand periods.

And with the amendments that we have included in the legislation in front of you, we have been able to work with a number of folks to get support from the environmental advocacy community and organizations that have been strongly supportive of the participation in the EIM as the first public power utility in the Northwest to join.

I want to thank Renewables Northwest, which is an early and strong supporter of the EIM participation by all Northwest utilities.

I want to thank NRDC, who has supported the expansion of Western energy markets to facilitate the transition of energy sector to a less carbon intensive portfolio, and to Northwest Energy Coalition, of which Seattle City Light has also been a member for many years.

They are very supportive of our efforts to try to enter into this market as well.

This is an innovative regional partnership that supports our climate goals and will increase revenues for our utility.

And together with the solar bill that was just voted on, these policies represent I think a critical component in us adapting greener energy, more efficient energy systems, and help move us away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources as we work to address climate change.

With that, thanks again to Seattle City Light for working with us, and to Aaron House, who's been working on this piece of legislation over the last few months as well.

Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.

Any other questions or comments on the bill?

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

Councillor Mosqueda, thanks for your ongoing work on this.

I'm excited to be at this point and supporting this.

I want to just comment that there is some risk to this.

And I think that it's absolutely the right thing for us to be doing right now.

We've heard from a lot of community members, including some of the folks that work from an environmental perspective on the energy market.

And believe that being part of this energy market will give us opportunities to sell our 100% clean electricity to other markets beyond just Seattle.

And to also take advantage of the potential market advantages we have in that.

in the Western energy market.

But with that also comes some risk, and I think it's going to require ongoing diligence from the City Council in the years to come to both ensure that the market is performing as we hope, Again, there will be days where we're winners and days when we're losers, as is the market, but we want to ensure that overall it is working to our benefit and to ensure that the folks at City Light are participating in that market in appropriate ways.

I don't say that to...

denigrate anyone at City Light, just that this is a complex structure, and it's going to require that they have the resources and the expertise to be participating in that market in a way that is beneficial to the rate payers of Seattle City Light, and also, hopefully, to the broader environmental goals of the city of Seattle.

I think that the council has expressed concerns in the past city light has been very responsive to that and designing a system and You know, there's some questions about how it will play out I I have the faith that people are doing their best and I feel optimistic a little workout and I think we'll have to just continue to provide oversight going forward to Brian Any other comments or questions before we vote on the bill?

If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

I

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passed and the chair was silent.

Please read the report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.

The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee agenda item 8, Council Bill 119577 relating to city employment adopting a 2019 citywide position list.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Very good.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda and I are going to be tag teaming the next six items.

I will be addressing items 8, 9, and 11, and she will pick up items 10 and 12 through 15 relating to Seattle City Lights.

So in case people are confused, that's what's going on here.

So, item number eight, which is Council Bill 119577, is an ordinance that relates to our city employment, which adopts for 2019 a citywide position list.

And I know all of you took a long look at this.

It's 30 pages with about four-point font, but it identifies 12,106 positions.

I'm interested to note that that is only a 0.32% increase, that is 39 positions from the previous year, from our 2018 positions list.

And the reason that this is important is that all of us know that the city of Seattle is one of the fastest growing cities in our nation.

And at the same time, that our mayor and we are doing our best to keep the number of positions down and to be as responsive as possible to the public.

So, with that, I'm going to recommend that we adopt Council Bill 119577. Thank you, Council Member Akshar.

Any questions or comments?

Matt, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passed and the chair was silent.

Please read agenda item number nine.

Agenda item nine, Council Bill 119578 relating to city employment, adjusting the pay zones for titles in the city's power marketing compensation program, establishing changes to provisions in the power marketing compensation program and ratifying confirming search and prior acts.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you.

This actually applies to only two individuals, but it's an ordinance that will allow the city's power marketing compensation program to cover two new individuals who had previously been hourly and now will be salaried.

The salary increases will be absorbed through the existing City Light budget, and the committee recommends that we adopt Council Bill 119578.

Any questions or comments?

If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Shaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Jaco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Aiden, favoring and opposed.

Bill passed and the Chair was silent.

Please read the short title for agenda item number 10.

Agenda item 10, Council Bill 119591 relating to the City Light Department declaring certain real property rights surplus needs of the City Light Department.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Again, I want to thank Council Member Bagshaw for allowing five of the bills that we're considering today to be heard in her committee and for graciously hosting these discussions in the Finance and Neighborhood Committee.

These bills as a whole that I'll speak to represent routine real estate transactions that are part of regular business at Seattle City Light.

These are not large policy, programmatic, or land disposition changes, but instead are routine business items that Seattle City Light is required to gain authorization from the Seattle City Council.

So this first ordinance, item number 10, allows City Light to sell a small portion of property on each side of 35th Avenue Southeast in Snohomish County, but reserve an easement for electric transmission line purposes in order to allow the county for road to have road widening purposes.

The sale would be fair market value of $41,000 and I want to reiterate this is not big enough property to build housing on.

So we are just it's a small sliver of land that we are talking about here.

Thank you Council Member Skate.

Any questions or comments?

Now please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair was sent.

Please read agenda item number 12, the short title.

I think it's 11.

Or 11?

I'm sorry, 11. Agenda item 11, Council Bill 119603 relating to the transfer of city real property for housing development.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

This bill will authorize the disposition of a parcel of property on Yakima Avenue South and South Irving Street.

It's property that will be developed for permanently affordable home ownership.

The transfer of jurisdiction will be between our FAS, Finance and Administrative Services, to the Office of Housing and it authorizes our Office of Housing Director to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with the developer, and there are two developers, our Homestead Community Land Trust and Edge Developers, Inc., where we're 16 three-bedroom, two-bath townhomes, 10 of which will be permanently affordable homes for homebuyers at or below 80% AMI, and six market-rate homes, and all of the net sales proceeds will subsidize the affordable homes.

So we recommend that Council Bill 119-603 pass as recommended.

Thank you, Council Member Bankshaw.

Any other questions or comments?

If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Bankshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Bill passed and zero silent.

Please read agenda item number 12, the short title.

Agenda item 12, Council Bill 119498, relating to the City Light Department accepting statutory warranty deeds to the Messinaic and Lovins property.

Committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Mr. President.

This item, item number 12, is an ordinance that allows Seattle City Light to accept the deeds for two separate properties in Pend Oreille County.

Both properties were purchased in compliance with boundary license requirements to manage project habitat lands under the authority of Ordinance 125072. One property is 24.7 acres and the other one is 40 acres.

The funding for this was already budgeted and does not require new appropriation.

Very good.

Thank you customer.

I'm scared any questions or comments If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill big shot.

I Gonzales herbal Juarez Musketta, I hope Brian Pacheco so what?

President Harrell, I nine in favor none opposed bill passes and share with Senate

for Penned Arrell County.

I'm just kidding.

Okay, please read agenda item number 13.

Agenda item 13, Council Bill 119533 relating to the City Light Department accepting various easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County, Washington.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member Esqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Item number 13 is an ordinance that allows the acceptance of 451 easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County.

These easements are contained in short plats, lot boundary adjustments, and unit lot subdivisions.

Seattle City Light periodically requests that City Light accept by ordinance all electrical service easements required through land use permitting actions, and this is one example.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Any other questions or comments?

If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Bankshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passed and chair was signed.

Please read the next agenda item.

Item 14, Council Bill 119534 relating to the City Light Department accepting various easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County, Washington.

The committee recommends that the bill pass.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Item number 14 is an ordinance that allows the acceptance of 112 easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County.

Seattle City Light requires that the owner of a new or altered electric service provide the City of Seattle with a utility easement whenever City Light contractors pass over, under, or through the property of another person, or when service equipment such as poles or vaults may be located on the property being served, or the property of a third party.

Seattle City Light periodically requests an ordinance be passed by City Council accepting the distribution of easements, and this is an example.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Any questions or comments?

Now, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Bigshaw?

Aye.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

Moraes?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

President Harrell?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Bill passed, Chair was sent.

Please read the next agenda item.

Agenda Item 15, Council Bill 119592 relating to the City Light Department.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member Esqueda.

Thank you, Mr. President.

This is the last of the five that Council Member Bagshaw had graciously considered in her committee.

This ordinance allows City Light to negotiate for the purpose or lease up to two houses in Pend Oreille County in order to provide temporary housing for City Light personnel and contractors working at Boundary Hydroelectric Project in Metalline Falls, Washington.

One house would be in support of numerous projects required by the licensing of hydro facility and another would be in support of the overhaul of projects, of the project's large generators.

Thank you very much.

Okay, any questions or comments?

We just do things a little differently in Central East Washington, so I understand why you're struggling.

I'm getting sweaty palms over here.

Can we vote?

Okay, here we go.

If there's no further comments, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Bill passed and the Chair will sign it.

That will conclude our agenda.

Is there any further business coming for the Council?

Okay, if not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day.

Thank you for being here.