Dev Mode. Emulators used.

Seattle City Council 9/23/19

Publish Date: 9/23/2019
Description: Agenda: Presentations; Public Comment; Payment of Bills; CF 314433: Mayor Jenny A. Durkan's Budget Address on the 2020 Budget; Appointment of Emily L. Alvarado as Director of Office of Housing; CB 119654: relating to hotel employees' health and safety; CB 119615: Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption Program; CB 119519: relating to surveillance technology implementation; CB 119636: relating to the same and use of tobacco and marijuana products; CB 119637: relating to crimes and offenses concerning animals; CF 314359: application to rezone - 4730 15th Ave NE; CB 119651: relating to land use and zoning - 4730 15th Ave NE; CB 119649: Approving and confirming the plat of "Raymond Place"; CF 314378: subdivision application - 5936 35th Ave S.; Appointments and Reappointments; CB 119648: relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation - Seattle Children's PlayGarden; CB 119655: Seattle Monorail; CB 119647: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Chester Morse Collection; Appointment; CB 119607: relating to heating oil; CB 119653: relating to the City's traffic code; CB 119652: relating to citations and penalties in the Street and Sidewalk Use code; CB 19622: relating to pedestrian and business interactions in the public place; CB 119618: relating to City streets - NW Locks Place; Appointments and Reappointments; CB 119650: relating to violations of an compliance with the Seattle Fire Code. Advance to a specific part Presentations - 3:15 Public Comment - 29:35 Payment of Bills - 1:01:30 CF 314433: Mayor Jenny A. Durkan's Budget Address on the 2020 Budget - 1:02:12 Appointment of Emily L. Alvarado as Director of Office of Housing - 3:09:15 CB 119654: relating to hotel employees' health and safety - 3:19:38 CB 119615: Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption Program - 3:21:03 CB 119519: relating to surveillance technology implementation - 1:03:40 CB 119636: relating to the same and use of tobacco and marijuana products - 2:20:13 CB 119637: relating to crimes and offenses concerning animals - 2:20:13 CF 314359: application to rezone - 4730 15th Ave NE - 3:26:40 CB 119651: relating to land use and zoning - 4730 15th Ave NE - 3:28:02 CB 119649: Approving and confirming the plat of "Raymond Place" - 3:29:01 CF 314378: subdivision application - 5936 35th Ave S. - 3:29:11 Appointments and Reappointments - 3:31:24 CB 119648: relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation - Seattle Children's PlayGarden - 3:34:40 CB 119655: Seattle Monorail - 3:35:46 CB 119647: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Chester Morse Collection - 3:27:28 Appointment to Seattle Park District Community Oversight Committee - 3:38:41 CB 119607: relating to heating oil - 2:23:20: CB 119653: relating to the City's traffic code - 3:39:58 CB 119652: relating to citations and penalties in the Street and Sidewalk Use code - 3:40:45 CB 19622: relating to pedestrian and business interactions in the public place - 3:42:05 CB 119618: relating to City streets - NW Locks Place - 3:43:32 Appointments and Reappointments - 3:44:12 CB 119650: relating to violations of an compliance with the Seattle Fire Code - 3:47:12
SPEAKER_21

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thank you for being here in City Hall.

Good afternoon, Council Member Rasmus.

I didn't see you hiding over there.

How are you?

Thanks for being here.

Just one sec here.

The September 23rd, 2019 City Council meeting will come to order.

It's 2.05 p.m.

I'm Bruce Harrell, President of the Council.

Please call the roll.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

SPEAKER_03

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Pacheco?

Here.

Sawant?

Gonzales?

Here.

Herbold?

SPEAKER_03

Here.

SPEAKER_32

President Harrell?

Here.

Nine present.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you very much.

At this point, we will move to adopt the introduction and referral calendar.

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

Let me say a few comments about today's agenda.

Because we are preparing for budget and we'll start hearing our budget presentations this week, And the committees have wrapped up a lot of legislation.

We have a series of, or should, pieces of legislation with multiple amendments.

And this is gonna be pretty challenging to get through.

We will get through it, but it's gonna be somewhat challenging because we have amendments sort of flying around at the last minute as sometimes we have to do.

I also, as I described at council briefing this morning, will have to leave somewhat early for an obligation.

and Council Member Pacheco may chair the meeting on the back end of it.

And so because of that, I'm going to make a few adjustments on the agenda, particularly on some of those that require amendments, because in all due respect to Council Member Pacheco, it might be a little challenging for him not having done this to some extent, and the script is a little It's a little pliable sometimes, but sometimes it's a little difficult to follow.

So having said that, I'm going to make a few amendments to the agenda.

The first one is, as I described this morning, I would like to move the entire report of the Governance, Equity, and Technology Committee items 5, 6, and 7, and item 21, which is the oil heat legislation.

I'd like to move that after agenda item 1, such that I could chair those items.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Those are the only changes to the agenda I'd like to make.

And any other comments before I move it?

Okay.

I move that the agenda be amended as stated.

Is there a second?

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

So the agenda will be amended as stated.

The minutes of the September 9th, 2019 City Council meetings have been reviewed.

And if there's no objection, the minutes will be signed.

If there's no objection, the minutes are signed.

Presentations, we have several presentations this afternoon.

And so I'll just call the presentations out in the order with which they were presented to me.

The first one is actually going to be many of us attended the mayor's address on the budget to 2020 budget and as part of the sort of the protocol of the procedures that it will should be presented to the to the full council.

So first I'd ask that Deputy Mayor Mike Fong please come to the podium and hand the mayor's address on the proposed budget and you're welcome to say a few words if you like.

SPEAKER_18

Great.

Council President Harrell and council members earlier today Mayor Durkin delivered a special presentation of the proposed budget address at Franklin High School.

We were pleased to have many of you in attendance.

Thank you.

It's now my pleasure to formally deliver to you the Mayor's proposed budget message in compliance with Article 5, Section 6B of the City Charter.

And here are copies.

And hard copies have also been delivered to your offices.

And thank you for your time and we look forward to working with all of you through the budget process.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

And the speech was well received.

Franklin High Schools were at their best.

It was a great presentation.

We also have Councilmember Mesquita, who will present a proclamation on Nanny's Day.

Councilmember Mesquita, you have the floor.

SPEAKER_38

Thank you very much.

All right, all the nannies in the house.

So thank you all for your incredible work over the last almost two years as we've been working to lift up the voice of nannies, of caretakers, of housekeepers, and domestic workers.

As you all know, we've been in a lot of conversations over the last few years with the Seattle Nanny Network, the Nanny Collective, Seattle Domestic Workers Alliance, and Working Washington, the We Dream in Black Coalition, and so many others who helped us last year pass the first ever nationwide city level Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights.

And today builds on that momentum.

We have the opportunity to present the Seattle Nanny Day Proclamation.

Thanks to the Mayor, Mayor Deerkin, and to Kelsey Nyland from her office for the leadership in collaborating on this effort with community partners in our office.

Today's proclamation is timely for many reasons, not to mention the fact that at the national level, we have the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights that our very own Congresswoman Jayapal is continuing to champion, and many folks in the audience have been working to elevate that at the national level.

But we also know that this is continuing on the win of last year's Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which was championed by nannies here in Seattle, and mostly women and people of color, who brought this issue forward to us through community organizations and to really sat at the table and helped us draft the policy.

We're also excited to bring this proclamation forward today because this is a global effort across our country and across the globe.

People are calling for September 22nd through September 28th to be recognized as National Nanny Recognition Week.

We are honored to be part of the effort with the cities across the United States, Europe, and Australia, for example.

And third, we just heard a budget briefing that now is the time to make sure that we're investing in thriving economies.

And it is nannies who make the city run, nannies who help to make sure that others can go to work, nannies who especially help women come and rejoin the workplace and make sure that children have the care and support they need to grow up, to be smart, to be healthy, and to be fierce and independent like many of our nannies are.

I'm really excited to be presenting this proclamation, and I'd like to read a few whereases, Mr. President.

SPEAKER_21

Please do.

SPEAKER_38

Whereas nannies and au pairs play critical roles in our local economy to ensure the health and prosperity of families.

And whereas the work of nannies and other domestic workers helps make other work outside the home possible.

And whereas despite the important role of domestic workers in the household and the overall economy, domestic work is still not recognized as protected work by the state or federal government, which we will change.

And, whereas in the United States, nannies have historically been exempted from most laws governing insurance, collective bargaining, protections from discrimination and harassment, and other labor standards.

And we are changing that.

We have included in our city's Domestic Worker Bill of Rights a quasi-bargaining table to make sure that nannies and their hiring entities have an opportunity to sit at a table and to talk about future labor protections beyond the minimum wage, arrest breaks, protection from retaliation that we've included in last year's bill.

And we're also continuing to recognize and honor their work through this proclamation today.

Mr. President, we have a few folks who are here that would love to speak to this issue and accept the proclamation.

We have Maria Solis, Sandra Holton, Laura Gonzalez, and Molly McKeown, potentially, among others.

And at this time, I'd love to present the proclamation, if I may, Mr. President, and honor their work.

SPEAKER_21

No objection.

We'd like to suspend the rules to hear from our guests.

Seeing no objection, the rules are suspended.

Thank you very much, Council Member Esqueda.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

SPEAKER_34

Buenas tardes.

Soy Maria Solis de Robles.

Gracias a la alcaldesa Durkan y a la consejera Mosquera y a los miembros de consejo de la ciudad de Seattle.

Gracias por hacer hoy, 23 de septiembre, Seattle Nanny's Day.

Esto significa mucho para nosotros.

En nombre de las niñeras queremos agradecer la aprobación de la ordenanza de las trabajadoras del hogar que el año pasado entró en vigencia y el primero de junio Se hizo realidad.

Está teniendo un grande impacto entre nosotros, en todos nosotros.

Gracias por darnos este día como el Día de las Nanes.

Gracias a las familias que nos confían a sus hijos, que nosotros queremos y cuidamos como si fueran nuestros.

Por favor, papás, esto es muy importante.

No se pongan celosos cuando los niños se van a la hora de que nosotros terminamos nuestra jornada.

Eso significa que los cuidamos bien.

Gracias.

SPEAKER_26

Hi, my name is Maria Solis de Robles.

Thank you, Mayor Durkan, Council Mosqueda, and the members of the Seattle City Council.

Thank you for making today September 23rd Seattle Nanny Day.

This means a lot to us.

On behalf of the nannies in the city, we want to thank you for the Domestic Workers Ordinance.

That went into effect on July 1st, but there is still work to be done.

This law is already having tremendous impact on our lives, so we thank you.

Thanks to the families that trust us with their children to take care of and love us as if they were ours.

Please do not be jealous that the children sometimes cry at the end of our day.

That only shows the good work we do and how much we love them.

Thank you.

Hola.

SPEAKER_42

Mi nombre es Sandra Holten.

Muchas gracias por darnos el reconocimiento que nuestro arduo trabajo merece.

Hoy estamos aquí en representación del colectivo de niñeras y la alianza de trabajadoras del hogar de esta ciudad de Seattle en la que hasta ahora hemos podido participar activamente en el proceso de elaboración de normas para garantizar que la ordenanza funcione como todos lo necesitamos.

También nos estamos organizando para apoyar la Ley Nacional de Trabajadoras del Hogar, presentada por la congresista Pramila Jayapal y la senadora Kamala Harris, la cual ayudaría a mejorar los salarios y las condiciones laborales para millones de trabajadores del hogar en todo el país.

Trabajadores que han sido excluidos de derechos y protecciones por mucho tiempo.

Por supuesto, todos estamos orgullosos de liderar el camino aquí en Seattle.

pero nunca lo habríamos logrado sin la unidad y el esfuerzo de nuestra comunidad.

Así que les pedimos que, por favor, se unan a nosotros para continuar en la lucha por los derechos de los trabajadores del hogar en todo el país.

Gracias por hacer este día posible.

SPEAKER_26

My name is Sandra Holton.

Thank you very much for giving us the recognition that our hard work deserves.

Today we're here on behalf of the Seattle NANI Collective and the Seattle Domestic Workers Alliance that so far we have been able to actively participate in the process of developing standards to ensure that the ordinance works as well as we need.

We're also organizing to support the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights presented by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Senator Kamala Harris, which will help increase wages and standards for millions of domestic workers across the country that have been already excluded from rights and protections for so many years.

Of course, we're all proud to lead the way here in Seattle, but we would never have come here without the unity and the effort and strength of our community.

So we ask you to join us today to fight for the rights of domestic workers throughout the country.

Thanks again for making Seattle's Nanny Day today and for recognizing the work and contributions of thousands of nannies in this city.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you Council Member Mosqueda for such a great proclamation.

Next we will have Councilmember Herbold and this is a good segue into her proclamation relating to Diaper Needs Awareness Week.

Councilmember Herbold.

SPEAKER_30

Fantastic, thank you.

It's an honor to sponsor and present a proclamation declaring this week Diaper Need Awareness Week with Councilmembers Gonzalez and Mosqueda.

This proclamation is sponsored on behalf of Westside Baby who distributes diapers to families in need in Western Washington.

And I'd like to also recognize that there are several caretakers and parents of babies working in the legislative department and more babies on the way.

Diaper Need Awareness Week is recognized across the country as an initiative of the National Diaper Bank Network.

And the city of Seattle has worked to decrease disparities for infants, toddlers, and their caretakers in recognizing the developmental and health outcomes that come at this important age.

especially for families living on low income and families of color.

This week, Westside Baby is organizing diaper drives across the city and a box will be left in reception for people to donate at City Hall on Tuesday.

And if I could read from the proclamation.

SPEAKER_21

Please, the rules are suspended.

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_30

Thank you so much.

Whereas one in three families does not have a sufficient supply of clean diapers for their children, and children go through six to twelve diapers a day, and a caretaker or parent may have to buy diapers for the first two to three years of their child's lives.

And whereas according to a report by the Council on Economic Advisers, having a sufficient supply of diapers is a burden on one-third of low-income families and can account for 14% of a low-income family's income.

And an adequate supply of diapers can cost between $70 and $100 a month.

And in order to afford this, 48% of families delay changing a diaper, putting infants and toddlers in discomfort, pain, and at risk of skin infections.

and whereas the supply of diapers is generally an eligibility requirement for infants and toddlers to participate in child care programs and quality early education programs.

And through the leadership of the Department of Education and Early Learning and other departments, the city strives to address health and developmental inequalities for communities of color and low-income communities by investing in child care and early child care I'm sorry, early childhood education programs.

And whereas there are currently no government assistance programs to help families with diapers, and to the goal of collectively alleviating diaper need, the city of Seattle encourages citizens to donate generously to diaper banks, diaper drives, and those organizations that distribute diapers to families in need.

And Seattle is proud to be home of West Side Baby and other community organizations that recognize the importance of increasing the availability and access to diapers.

Now, therefore, the Seattle City Council do hereby proclaim the week of September 23rd through September 29th, 2019 as Diaper Need Awareness Week.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Rules are suspended.

We'd love to hear from anyone if they'd like to present.

SPEAKER_14

Hello, my name is Sarah Cody Roth, and it is an honor to be here today to celebrate Diaper Need Awareness Week.

I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Gonzalez and Mosqueda for making this possible and recognizing diaper need.

In the city of Seattle, it may come as a shock that 16% of families in the city of Seattle struggle to afford enough diapers for their families, for their children.

In some communities within the city of Seattle, that number is as high as 75%.

Three quarters of families in communities of color in Seattle cannot afford enough clean diapers to keep their children safe and warm and dry.

As was mentioned, diapers are a critical basic need during a child's early development.

Not having enough clean diapers can impact a child's development, but it can also impact their parents' ability to go to work.

It can, we know from recent studies, make it hard for up to three in five parents to go to work and have to miss work within a month because they don't have enough clean diapers to leave at daycare.

We know that the ripple effects of diaper need stretch far beyond a single child, a parent.

It goes to our entire community's health and economic well-being.

And so it is an honor to be here and to be able to talk about and bring awareness to diaper need in our city and to be able to imagine together the ripple effects of ending diaper need in our city.

Westside Baby believes that that is possible, and we are so honored to have the partnership of the City of Seattle to be raising awareness of this critical issue.

We look forward to continuing to work together.

Thank you for having us.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Next proclamation will be presented by Council Member Sawant, presenting a proclamation relating to standing with Kashmir.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, President Harrell.

I would like to Read the proclamation and then offer it to our community members, and they would like to say a few words.

SPEAKER_21

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_12

Community members, I'm presenting a proclamation designating tomorrow, September 24th, 2019, to be Stand with Kashmir Day.

Tomorrow, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will be presenting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with an award And we hope that the city council and the city of Seattle as a whole will be standing up to say that this award is in the face of serious human rights abuses and serious issues taking place in India at the hands of the Modi-led and the Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP-led government.

Modi has built a political career on racism, religious discrimination, and scapegoating.

And the whereas clauses of the proclamation will go more into it, but I just wanted to say very quickly the timing of this proclamation.

Last month, the Modi government unilaterally ended any vestiges of Kashmiri independence, sending in thousands of troops in an occupation, closing communications in and out of the region, and arresting elected political leaders.

Many South Asian activists and organizations in the Seattle region, some of whose representatives are here with us today and I thank them for it, have opposed the occupation of Kashmir and have objected to the Gates Foundation giving Modi this award in this context.

And I want to say on a personal note, having grown up in Mumbai and having seen firsthand some of the destruction and violence and atrocities that are being carried out by the capitalist imperialist government, like anywhere else, India is not unique, let's not make Orientalist arguments about this, but the fact is that Injustice anywhere is an obstacle to justice everywhere, and that is why it is important that we are all, as South Asian community members in the Seattle region, speaking out together.

A proclamation from the Seattle City Council stand with Kashmir Day.

Whereas the Seattle City Council supports democratic rights for all peoples and opposes religious and ethno-nationalist discrimination, and whereas the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP government of India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been criticized for promoting violence against religious minorities, silencing dissent, and actions which hurt Prime Minister Modi, the nickname, the Butcher of Gujarat, a reference to the 2002 massacre when Narendra Modi was Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, in which more than a thousand people were killed in anti-Muslim violence, and many Muslim women were targeted for rape and other forms of sexual violence, and whereas discrimination and violence against lower caste communities, particularly Dalits, has exacerbated under Prime Minister Modi's BJP government since they took power in 2014, and whereas on August 5th, 2019, the Modi-led central government abrogated Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which had guaranteed Jammu and Kashmir status as a semi-autonomous state and expanded military occupation of the state with thousands of troops, and whereas Kashmir has been placed under communications lockdown and political leaders have been detained, and whereas in August, India published an updated National Register of Citizens requiring nearly two million people, mostly Muslim, to prove their Indian citizenship or face detention at mass detention camps, the Indian government plans to build and deport, and whereas the Gates Foundation, based in Seattle, announced plans to present Prime Minister Modi an award for the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, or Clean India Mission, on Tuesday, September 24, 2019, and whereas Stand with Kashmir, API Chhaya, Seattle's South Asians for Black Lives, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Pakistan Association of Greater Seattle, Sikhs for Justice, and Voices for Freedom have opposed Modi receiving this award, and whereas the City Council believes that the award is inconsistent with Seattle's status as an inclusive, open city that is welcome to Indian, Pakistani, and Kashmiri communities of all castes and religions.

Now, therefore, the Seattle City Council proclaims Tuesday, September 24, 2019, Stand with Kashmir Day.

SPEAKER_21

The rules are still suspended.

We'd love to hear from any guests receiving this proclamation.

Thank you, Councilmember Sawant.

SPEAKER_99

Can you see?

SPEAKER_21

Good afternoon.

SPEAKER_44

Hi.

You'll have to excuse my very damaged vocal cords.

Hours of protesting will do that to you.

Modi's award from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is completely counterintuitive.

While we continue to read, watch, and listen to the horrors that have been occurring in Kashmir for the past 51 days, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's decision to give the fascist tyrant that is Narendra Modi a humanitarian award makes less and less sense.

As we all know, Modi is responsible for the recent deployment of tens of thousands of Indian troops into Kashmir, the siege of eight million Kashmiris, and the recent detainment of over 40,000 young men and boys.

How can an organization led by humanitarians give an award to such a man?

As our organization, Stand With Kashmir Seattle, receives this proclamation from the Seattle City Council, we continue to push the Gates Foundation to make the right decision and rescind the award they will give Modi.

We thank Councilman Shama and the Seattle City Council for their efforts and support.

Our chapter of Stand With Kashmir is ecstatic to see this day announced as Stand With Kashmir Day.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_02

Hi, my name is Priya Nair.

I am a community organizer at API Chaya.

I would like to read.

API Chaya is dedicated to supporting survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence.

We take strong stance against the Indian military's use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.

Recognizing the intersections between interpersonal and state violence, APHIA is dedicated to ending all forms of violence and oppression.

In this context, we demand the Gates Foundation not honor Narendra Modi.

Under his administration, the Indian government stands against the foundation's core belief that all lives have equal value.

His development work is overshadowed and undermined by injustice and violence against marginalized communities.

I would like to thank Council Member Shama Saban and the rest of the Council for making this happen.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Thank you very much and thank you Council Member Sawant.

And our last proclamation will be presented by Council Member Pacheco for a proclamation supporting Sandra Archibald.

Council Member Pacheco.

SPEAKER_20

Colleagues, I believe my office this morning during council briefing we started passing that around Dean Archibald is or Sandra Archibald is the dean of the UW Evans School and she is retiring so I will be presenting it to her at her official retirement party later this week.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you very much and it was presented I believe fully signed.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Okay.

So at this time, we'll take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda or our introduction referral calendar or our 2019 work program.

We have about 30 pieces of legislation today, many of which have amendments, which will require some discussion.

And we have three pages of sheets.

And so unless there's objection from the dais, I'm going to take the comment period down to one minute so we can hear from as many people as possible.

And I'll start off with Elizabeth Burton, who's first, and then Patience, who is second, and Allison Isinger, who's third.

One, two, and three.

And Patience, if you don't mind, you can come to this mic, and then Elizabeth, you can start in the middle, and we'll keep both microphones in play here.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_10

Council members, hello.

I'm Dr. Elizabeth Burton speaking on behalf of the Seattle Chapter for People for Climate Action.

Countywide, our organization has approximately 500 members.

I'm here to testify about the heating oil ordinance, which we are in favor of.

As Greta Thunberg has said, our house is on fire.

The climate crisis is an emergency, and in order to put it out, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

This ordinance is a necessary and appropriate step in that direction.

It not only reduces carbon emissions, it does so in a way that helps our financially vulnerable citizens, those with the lowest incomes.

For the sake of future civilization, Seattle's transition off of fossil fuels is not optional.

We are mindful of the fact that that transition puts the jobs of people in the fossil fuel industry at risk, and we take that seriously.

And we are pleased that this ordinance offers job retraining support for oil service employees.

We urge you to pass the ordinance as written with the fastest possible timeline.

Do not water it down.

We have no time to waste.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

SPEAKER_05

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

For the record, my name is Patience Malava, and I work with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County.

Our 180 members work across the region towards our vision of ensuring that all people have access to safe, healthy, and affordable homes.

And I'm here today to speak in support of the appointment of the Office of Housing Director, Emily Alvarado, who not only gets this vision, but has lived this vision through and through.

And I must mention that she is part of the great HDC staff alumni who are doing great things throughout the community.

Emily is someone with a bold vision for housing.

She has been in front of the biggest housing issues in the city, and as the affordable housing community, we are thrilled to see this appointment, and we ask you to move forward in voting to confirm Emily today.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Patience.

Anthony, just one moment.

Let me call the next three speakers that will follow you.

So that'd be Lacrece Green.

Lacrece, if you don't mind coming to our right, your left.

Yvette Dynish, and then Cindy Lung.

Lacrece, Yvette, and Cindy.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, council members.

My name is Allison Isinger.

I'm the director of the Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness.

We educate, advocate, and organize for safety, housing, and justice, and an end to the crisis, which, of course, means that we're deeply interested in who becomes the next director of the City of Seattle Office of Housing.

So I'm here to speak in warm support of your confirmation of Emily Alvarado.

Emily and I have known each other for about 10 years, and I have the email trail to prove it.

And I went back and looked at my emails and found all kinds of interesting subjects of dialogue.

Just a few key reminders that I gleaned that I want to lift up here.

She's very smart.

She talks very fast.

She knows how to listen.

She is immersed in the details of policy, and she will read you in, but you better listen fast.

She is not intimidable.

And since it is the middle of the day at work and we're talking about serious things, I'm just going to raise a symbolic cup of coffee.

As a fellow New Yorker, Emily will recognize this.

This is the New York City disposable coffee cup that says, we are happy to serve you.

I know that Emily will do her service for all the people of our city, including those who have no homes and whose needs have to be prioritized as we spend precious city dollars.

And we are happy to work with you, Emily, as you do your service.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Last week, the Latino men told you that our lives could roll at any time, and anyone with any judgment knows this to be true.

Instead of declaring a day of mourning and fasting and begging God, our Creator, to give us back a Republic with life, liberty, and justice for all, as secured, You declared, you, the council and the mayor, declared a month-long celebration.

Eat, drink, and be merry, for because the atheist who denies the existence of God and declares that we exist at death, even the unborn life is at risk.

While Rome burnt, Nero fiddled.

May I please pray.

Our Heavenly Father, restore to us the union, the justice, and the domestic tranquility that was enjoyed by all inhabitants in America, as Thomas Jefferson said.

This is my petition and my request.

In Jesus' name I pray.

SPEAKER_21

Amen.

Amen.

Following Yvette will be Cindy and then William Clark.

SPEAKER_00

Greetings, Council President, Council Members.

Today I'm advocating on behalf of the Detective Cookie Chess Park.

You'll have to look there because I only have a minute to speak on this.

Erin is a project manager, she'll speak on that, and Senda is one of our interpretive volunteers.

We're asking because we know there's an excess money in the sugar tax, right?

What better way to reinvest it into the community, which is the most diverse in the state as far as I'm concerned, than in the Detective Cookie Chess Park, which offers an alternative to being on the streets in our community?

We are asking for all the $400,000 to complete the project because it has begun.

It was dedicated a couple of summers ago by Mayor Murray.

So with the excess sugar tax money, and we know you are doing a budgeting process, we are asking you that instead of spending $500,000 on one public toilet, that you consider spending $400,000 to complete the detective Cookie Chess Park in beautiful downtown Rainier Beach.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00

Oh, this is for you.

You need to be reminded of the demographics in the neighborhood.

May this refresh your memory.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_43

And as Yvette mentioned, I'm the project manager for the Detective Cookie Chess Park.

SPEAKER_21

Our vision is to create a small public.

I'm sorry, Paula, we're going to start trying them over.

Now, are you Cindy?

SPEAKER_43

I'm speaking for Cindy.

Cindy.

SPEAKER_21

Yeah.

OK, got it.

Thank you very much.

Got it.

SPEAKER_43

So our vision is to create a small public park where chess can be played on built-in chess tables and a giant chess board right in the heart of Rainier Beach.

Our mission is to provide access to the empowering game of chess for youth and adults in Rainier Beach community, which is one of the communities in Seattle that is most affected by the soda tax.

CHESS has been proven to enhance academic performance and teach life skills to youth and that all actions have consequences.

In closing, this park is ready to be built as soon as we can raise the money and the community is eager to start using it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Following William Clark will be Warren Akervich.

SPEAKER_04

In March, I saw a terrible thing happen.

I live in a retirement place, a very nice one at the foot of Queen Anne Hill, and there's this sliver of a park, maybe Seattle's smallest park, adjacent to our building.

It's not across the street, it's on our block.

I came down with a bag of groceries for some of these people living in tents.

And there were three policemen and six parks department people putting on a theatrical displacement.

I promise you, it was theatrical.

It was a terrible embarrassment to the people in the tents and to myself.

I had no idea.

How little compassion Seattle, that is all of us, have for people living in tents.

I admit that they are largely there because of mental illness, which includes alcoholism.

SPEAKER_21

I spoke with the- Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Can you just wrap up, sir?

Just go ahead and wrap up if you don't mind.

SPEAKER_04

My suggestion is that we change the law so that persons can use the parks with tents.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

SPEAKER_04

It will be very difficult.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, sir.

Following Warren will be Shannon Ellis Brock.

SPEAKER_07

Good morning or good afternoon.

My name is Warren Ackerbeck.

I stand here to talk to you about Council Bill 119607. That's the all heat bill.

In the United States of America, fossil fuels make, are producing 63.5% of the electrical energy generated.

In Tacoma, there's only 3% produced by fossil fuels, 2% in Snohomish County, 2% in Seattle, and Pigeon Sound Energy is 59% by fossil fuels.

Weatherization would produce an 18% by United States Weatherization Board, 18% efficiency gain by going into weatherization.

By generation by natural gas is 39% efficient.

by diesel is 32% efficient.

Yet we're willing to take out 80% efficient furnaces and put in generation by fossil fuels to provide extra fossil fuels.

In Friday's meeting with Council Member O'Brien, Yolanda was asked, does Seattle have enough ability to provide electrical energy?

the answer was we have enough energy to provide it for the buildings that are coming online.

It was never said that we have enough electrical energy to produce for all the stuff that we want to transfer over, the stuff that we want to bring online, all the cars, trucks, bikes, motor scooters or electric scooters and everything else.

I believe our electrical energy that we're going to have to produce to accomplish this, the switch over on energy.

I think it's important to understand that heating oil to start with and natural gas is not far down the line as identified by the council committee.

I think those abilities to produce that will be using primarily fossil fuels to do it.

Just the last thing to say we could gain a lot more by reducing our amount of energy we use than trying to figure out how to

SPEAKER_21

I'll read a few names off after you.

Go ahead, Shannon.

SPEAKER_31

Hi, my name is Shannon Ellis Brock, and I am here today because the Northwest Energy Coalition asked me to come and speak.

I had some reservations.

I had to do some research.

Here I am.

I'm with Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union.

And we have worked with the city in the past on initiatives such as the community power works.

We work with Seattle City Light on their ductless heat pump program.

And we're in favor of the heating oil tax.

I think a big concern is the middle income people, that people are worried that we'll miss the moderate income families.

And I just want to remind council and people that are opposing this, there are options available.

I'm not here just to tell our credit union, but there are other financial institutions that offer low-income financing options for people to switch from oil heat.

Most of those programs include oil tank deconversion.

And really quickly, because I have 10 seconds left, based on the research I was given, it cost about $1,800 a month with the new tax.

to heat a house with oil.

A loan payment for a ductless heat pump is about $100 a month.

So it's an energy, it's a cost savings to homeowners to do that.

And again, this program is for everybody, low income, moderate income families.

There's institutions like the credit union and others that are here to help.

So thank you for your time.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

So that was, Shannon was our ninth speaker.

and out of around 30. And so we're not doing a very effective job of cutting off the mic at one minute because people are going over.

And I recognize it's tough to speak under a minute.

I fully recognize that.

So Madam Clerk, I'm going to ask that so I don't have to be so heavy handed.

At one minute and 10 seconds, just please turn off the mic.

So you've been forewarned that the mic will be going off in one minute and ten seconds.

And so let's try to wrap it up earlier and we'll try to be a little more flexible.

So having said that, Leah Missick will be followed by Rebecca Sire.

Leah, Rebecca, then Alec Connin.

SPEAKER_41

Good afternoon.

I'm Leah Missick, and I'm with Climate Solutions.

I'm here to testify in support of the heating oil ordinance.

In Washington State, greenhouse gas pollution stemming from buildings has been growing.

Here in Seattle, emissions from oil heating represent almost a fifth of carbon pollution from homes.

Heating oil is a public health issue.

In Seattle, about a quarter of tanks are leaking, and that number is increasing.

Long-term exposure to oil fumes can cause liver and kidney damage.

Currently, making the switch to clean heating does include upfront costs, which is why we support that folks who meet income qualifications, including renters, will have their home upgrades fully covered, and others will receive rebates to make the switch.

Heating oil is expensive.

Once the cost of the switch is covered, people will have efficient, clean heating at a much lower and stable utility cost.

They'll also be eligible for more energy payment assistance and free weatherization services.

I'm really glad this legislation allows for a just transition.

Revenue is directed to workforce development support for clean heating technology skills.

This ordinance is well-crafted and will reduce greenhouse gas pollution, improve public health, and give folks the opportunity to have cleaner, cheaper heating.

Thank you.

This is how we need to address the climate crisis.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Rebecca will be followed by Alec, and then Joe Wall.

SPEAKER_27

Hi there.

Rebecca Serr with Infinity Real Estate Development, and I was asked to come here to talk about the real estate perspective of the heating oil ordinance, which we support.

Basically, the market is showing us that people want healthy homes.

People spend 80 to 90% of their time in their home, and the particulates from oil, the dangers from spills, the challenges from renters who have to put heat, often be the fillers of the tanks of heating oil.

It's a burden, and buyers are wanting cleaner, healthier technologies.

builders are starting to build electric homes.

This is a good, smart step forward for cutting our carbon emissions.

It's a good 16-18% is a good healthy chunk of carbon emissions reductions.

And it also puts us on the pathway to being a vibrant, healthy community for the long term.

If we want to have homes that people want to live in, this is a really good step.

So at that point, I will leave it at that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_40

I'm here today to urge you to please pass the strongest possible version of the Oil Heating Tax Ordinance.

As I'm sure you know, on Friday, a conservative estimate of 10,000 people marched on City Hall to demand bold and immediate climate action, and thousands of them were young people.

I was involved partly in organizing that, and I was blown away by how many of those people were young people.

And while I certainly can't speak for those 10,000 people, I don't think it's a wild thing to say that every single one of them would be deeply alarmed to find out that this council was considering delaying the implementation of this ordinance and that this council had been asked to extend the deadline by which we would phase out climate wrecking, health damaging fossil fuels from our energy mix.

So with that said, I'll just wrap up by saying please honor the youth leadership that we saw on Friday.

Please honor our younger generation and pass the strongest possible version of this ordinance without delaying it by a single day.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Alec.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

I came down here to give you my thoughts on the heating oil tax.

I have a property that's heated with heating oil.

And I found it to be a very reliable source of heat and easily maintained and cost effective for my tenants, which I pay the bill regardless of what the market price for oil is.

I understand this bill came out of a report From the Bullet Foundation, they said, here's what we want you to do, and you guys are doing it.

A couple things to think about is that this is a big world we live in.

Oil exploration happens.

It's going to come out of the ground.

You can say we're not going to burn it in Seattle, but it will get mined.

It will come out.

Some alternative thoughts that you might look at is Such things as requiring efficiency, annual fuel air mixture tests, that kind of thing, to get us to make sure that we're burning it at.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Joe.

Our next two speakers are the Honorable Michael Fuller, Sue Juris, and Shawnee Wheeler.

The Honorable and then Shawnee.

Please proceed, the Honorable.

SPEAKER_16

I have a problem with all of y'all telling Honorable Michael Fuller to sue our Jews, a new America, when an old America's in conflict.

So this is a betray against our own forces who fought to make this country safe, free, and secure, sleeping on the street, Blue Sir, and it's devastating to me.

And you're openly violating H.R.

3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.

H.R.

3004, Case Laws.

H.R.

3009, Enforcement of Sanctuary City Act.

And the violation of George H.W. Bush, 41st President, who signed in the Law of America with Disabilities Act, July 26 of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that's not being enforced, which violates the Federal Funding Act of 2000. Also, our First Amendment right due process, equal protection of our Fourteenth Amendment right, amendment right and due process, equal protection of our Fourteenth Amendment right procedure due process and substantive due process.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER_16

But I'm tired of being sick and tired.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, sir.

Following Shani will be Siraj Lobo.

SPEAKER_99

Is it on?

SPEAKER_21

It was turned off at the last.

There you go.

SPEAKER_23

Good afternoon, President and members of the Council.

For the record, my name is Shani Wheeler.

I am the Political Director for Teamsters Joint Council, but I'm not here to talk to you in that perspective or that hat.

When I look at this policy and notice all of the zip codes in the surrounding areas, I think of my great-grandfather who migrated from a little town called Mineola, Texas, which does not exist today.

He grew up right outside of the plantation in which his parents were slaves on, but made his way to Seattle, Washington, and built what he thought was a working, middle class, American dream.

And that's in the Central District.

And so when I'm looking at this policy, I don't see a win for climate justice.

I see another way of Seattle to gentrify Seattle and push out communities of color and our most vulnerable.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Shani.

SPEAKER_06

Greetings, City Council.

My name is Siraj Lobo.

I'm with Progressive Comfort Solutions.

We're a heating contractor in Seattle.

I've been in this trade for 20 years.

I don't know if anybody else has worked with heating oil, but I challenge you to find two things.

One, anybody who lives with heating oil, who actually lives with heating oil, who prefers that over anything else.

And I challenge you to find anybody who works with heating oil, and I have, who enjoys that work.

So I could speak to the environmental element.

One gallon of oil can pollute hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh water and aquifers, carbon and so forth.

I'd like to just speak about jobs.

We're hiring.

We can train anybody to install heat pumps on the job, pay training, full benefits.

We're hiring.

So if you guys have people looking for work, please send them our way.

Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

Nina Olivier, Nina, and then Steve Gelb.

And then Tama Samo, Nina, Steve, and Tama.

Do I have a Nina here?

No?

Yes?

Hi, Nina.

So Nina, then Steve, and then Tama.

SPEAKER_01

Good afternoon.

Thank you so much.

My name is Nina Olivier, and I work for Progressive Comfort Solutions.

I have just finished watching Greta's address to the United Nations world leaders, and I think, and I'm, excuse me, I'm addressing today's oil, heating oil ordinance, and we are for it.

In Greta's words, We are running out of time.

We need to address these issues of fossil fuel use here in Seattle, and this is a step forward.

Like Siraj, my supervisor and company owner has just said, this opportunity creates jobs.

and works to build communities in hopes to move towards an electrified greater Seattle away from the use of fossil fuels.

I beg you to consider this ordinance and move forward with it.

Thank you for your time.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

We have Steve Gelb and then is it Tara, Tama?

SPEAKER_03

Good afternoon.

SPEAKER_36

Hold on just a second, please.

So, what is your name?

SPEAKER_17

Sorry.

Tama.

SPEAKER_36

Oh, you said Tama?

SPEAKER_17

Yes, ma'am, Tama.

SPEAKER_36

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

Susan Boyd and then Jared Moore.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you for being here.

SPEAKER_03

Good afternoon.

On Friday, millions of young people around the world and thousands here in Seattle told us they are mad and scared and disappointed in our lack of strong action to fight climate change and save the planet.

They called on you, our leaders, to take action to give them a future.

I'm Steve Gelb, Chair of Shift Zero's Building Electrification Task Force.

Shift Zero is an alliance of over 30 green building, energy efficiency, and climate action organizations and businesses that have come together to support policies and programs that advance zero carbon buildings for all communities in Washington State.

You have an opportunity today to take meaningful action in battling climate change by passing the heating oil legislation without amendments.

This ordinance is a critical step in addressing carbon pollution and indoor air quality in Seattle homes.

It's a model policy that creates an equitable pathway for homeowners to transition from outdated, unhealthy, inefficient, and expensive oil heating systems to clean electric heat pumps powered by our carbon-free electricity.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you very much.

Tama, thank you.

Then Susan Boyd, then Jared Moore.

SPEAKER_17

Awesome.

Hello, Honorable City Council.

I'm just here to speak on the necessity of passing the Heating Bill Ordinance in the strongest possible terms.

I was raised on Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and when I was a child, I saw firsthand some of the effects of how polluting oil heating can be.

I will never forget when I went outside of our quarters and we turned on the faucets and brown and yellow water came out.

It is clear based off of the climate strike that happened recently that we need drastic action and there's no way that we can delay on these types of ordinances and I want to reiterate that we need to start thinking in terms of future generations of people who are going to come after us.

And the future is in clean electricity, and the future of well-paying jobs will follow suit.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you for coming, Thomas.

Susan, then Jared.

SPEAKER_09

Hi there, Council.

Thank you for the time.

My name is Susan Boyd.

I am the CEO of Bellwether Housing, and I'm here to give you my strong support for the appointment of Emily Alvarado as the Director of the Office of Housing.

Emily is one of the smartest people I know.

She is singularly capable of understanding the real and perceived constraints around the problems we face in affordable housing and weaving through a new path to a solution that no one else has seen.

She is able to do this because she listens.

I have seen her in conversations with policymakers, community members, and advocates.

She hears what they need.

She absorbs the wisdom they offer.

And importantly, she hears what is not being said and is willing to name that also.

She is, as you I'm sure know, a gifted translator of ideas.

She understands the power of housing to transform lives and communities, and she knows how to convey this powerfully and persuasively to all kinds of people.

Her energy and passion is infectious, and her sheer hustle, just her ability to get stuff done at times when everyone else thinks there's not another way around, is inspiring.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you so much, Susan.

After Jared, we have Shankar and Julia Buck.

SPEAKER_15

Please.

Thank you, Councilmembers, for having us here today.

My name is Jared Moore.

I've done security and privacy research at the University of Washington and artificial intelligence research, and I'm here to talk about the Seattle Surveillance Ordinance, specifically the license plate readers and the CCTV from SDOT.

There are a number of amendments which I would like to speak in favor of today, in particular the enforceability amendment.

I think it's really important that Seattle, as a leader with this kind of ordinance, you know, braves the way for cities and countries around the world.

I think that's why it's going to take a little bit longer, that we're going to have a couple inches of text, as Councilmember Harrell talked about last time, and that in particular, we want to focus on the language, saying that these things don't store information, the license plate readers in particular.

It's just not accurate.

They have to literally store information in order to process another car going down the road five minutes later.

It's that sort of specificity of language that I and many other people would like to see in what we pass today.

So thanks a bunch.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Jared.

Shankar.

SPEAKER_08

Good afternoon, Council.

Shankar Narayan from ACLU of Washington, seconding Jared's comments to support the strengthening of the amendments today.

I'd like to remind the council that this ordinance is really about protecting vulnerable communities from the impacts of technology, and that the technology we're talking about, license plate readers, is one where ICE has already come knocking on the doors of local jurisdictions to get that information for immigration purposes.

And that technology, as used by WSDOT, is actually providing that exact same raw license plate data to a third-party agency with no current agreement.

So WSDOT could actually provide that information to ICE today, and there would be no way to stop it.

I'm not saying WSDOT will do this, but I'd like to remind you also that our Department of Licensing said the exact same thing about their facial recognition system before it was actually used to run searches for immigration enforcement.

So taking a trust us approach just won't cut it anymore.

Please strengthen the amendments as much as you can.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Shankar.

Please proceed.

SPEAKER_24

Good afternoon.

My name is Julia, and I'd like to encourage the Council to pass the Healthy Homes, Healthy Buildings Ordinance to help shift 18,000 homes currently on oil to electric heat.

I did grow up in an oil-heated residence, and while I was a child at the time, I do remember the stress and excavation that was required when our oil tank sprung a leak.

I care about both atmospheric carbon and about people's exposure to indoor air pollutants, so I'd love for everyone in Seattle to be able to enjoy the temperature sensitivity, cleanliness, and lower monthly bills that I've gotten through electric heat pumps.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you very much.

So unless there's objection, colleagues, I'm gonna cut off public comment at this section.

We got through most of them.

We still didn't have a few more, but we have a very aggressive agenda.

So I'd like to move into the next section of the agenda, which will be payment of the bills.

So please read that section into the record, please.

SPEAKER_25

Council Bill 119657, appropriating money to pay settlement claims for the week of September 9th, 2019 through September 13th, 2019 and ordering payment thereof.

SPEAKER_21

Move to pass Council Bill 119657. So moved and seconded, the bill passed, any questions?

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

SPEAKER_32

Moraes?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Begshaw?

Aye.

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

President Harrell?

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Nine in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

Bill passed, the chair will sign it.

Please read the agenda item number one, the clerk file on the mayor's address.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item one.

Clerk file 314433 Mayor Jenny A. Durkin's budget address on the 2020 budget.

SPEAKER_21

This is the formal procedure where we accepted the speech as we did.

I don't anticipate that I'll present any problems so at this point I'll move to accept.

clerk file 314433. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the clerk file.

Those in favor of accepting and filing the clerk file please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries and the clerk file has been accepted and filed.

So we had some agenda reordering, the reordering of agenda items.

So please read the first agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

From the amended agenda, the report of the Governance, Equity, and Technology Committee, agenda item five, Council Bill 119519, relating to surveillance technology implementation, authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2018 surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Department of Transportation's use of closed circuit television, traffic cameras, and license plate readers.

Committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

SPEAKER_21

Okay so bear with me colleagues a little bit I know some of you have been following this very very almost religiously and some of you have not had the opportunity to go in as deep dive as others so I'll sort of walk us through it.

This legislation, let me back up by saying the first council bill 119519 was the first bill in consideration for the requirements of the and 17 Surveillance Ordinance.

I want to thank many of you in particular, Council Member Gonzalez and others for the passage and the work looking at the Surveillance Ordinance and what we're trying to do.

And under our current system, the Chief Technology Officer was required to compile a master list of surveillance technology used by city departments.

Basically do an inventory of everything we are using and 29 technologies were identified in four departments.

Those departments being City Light, the Department of Transportation, the Fire Department, and the Seattle Police Department.

And so for the 29 technologies, the department must prepare what we call a SIR, S-I-R, Surveillance Impact Report, for each existing or proposed technology to the extent there will be an acquisition that the project management team would use.

And the SIR, Surveillance Impact Report, would be submitted for all retroactive technologies and newly proposed technologies such that there is an open and transparent conversation on everything we're using and everything we may use in the future.

And so this process, which is quite comprehensive, is a five-step process.

That's the initial draft of the SIR.

And there you have the department drafting it, putting it out there for public consumption, all of the public reporting requirements listed in the surveillance ordinance.

And then from there, a fairly comprehensive public engagement piece where public hearings, public meetings are scheduled, and the departments provide feedback with central staff monitoring that to make sure that we are aware of what's going on.

There is a community surveillance working group that reviews the SIR and they create what's called an impact assessment document addressing privacy and civil liberty concerns.

And we want to thank the ACLU and Shankar in particular for his leadership, being a strong member of the community surveillance group.

and working on the impact assessment.

And from there, the CTO, Saad Bashir, provides a response letter that sort of memorializes the working groups' concerns, and there's sort of a process, a sitting down, if you will, a meeting of the minds to identify all of the privacy issues, the surveillance issue, the city's technological needs, identify all the issues that surface, and from there, it is presented to the council.

And that was done, that has been going on for quite some time.

And I'd like the department to say it's been a labor of love, but it's been quite resource intensive for several months, if not years.

Today, we're looking at two technologies, the use of traffic cameras that uses closed circuit television, CCTV, and automated license plate readers, we'll call those LPRs.

Just by way of background, the LPRs have been, well let me back up, the traffic cameras have been in use since 2000, for almost 19 years now, and the LPRs have been in use since 2007, and the traffic cameras, as an example, are used in almost every state in our country.

So looking at these two technologies, and looking at the privacy needs that are addressed, you have what were called SIRs presented to the council.

We took a look at the SIRs and they were indeed treaties.

maybe a few inches thick, if I'm not to embellish that, and there were a lot of resources and time and effort put into those SIRs.

It was at least the chair's opinion that that was helpful, but to some extent we needed an executive report, if you will, a summation, a primer, whatever you want to call it, but a condensed report.

And so that became known as the the Condensed Surveillance Impact Report, the CSIR.

And so those two documents for these two technologies, one each for each technology, the two SIRs and two Condensed SIRs became part of the package attached to the legislation.

And the legislation itself, of course, creates a private right of action, that these are integrated documents, they all work together, and there was a, what I'll call a negotiation process that was fairly involved, fairly in-depth, and it was the chairs, I don't think I have the power to order it, but to the extent I do, I ordered, I use that term loosely, that the department sit down with any privacy advocates and hash it out and then just try to wordsmith as much language as possible, but come up with a great document that we can be proud of to take to the council.

And that was done.

And through that process, there were originally 19 points that were raised, which were still in that area of we can't quite get there yet.

And we went back to the table, and central staff was at the table with the departments and the working group.

And from those 19 points, There are roughly about four points that were still somewhat of some disagreement.

And it was the chair's opinion, I think members of the committee's opinion, that it raised significant legal issues that need to be addressed.

And we need to talk about some of those legal issues in executive committee as would be appropriate when legal issues are raised.

So from that process I want to tell you that as we made several amendments at the committee table last week and all of those amendments that the chair accepted and were voted on and agreed to by the table are incorporated in what I will call amendment number 11. So amendment number 11 addressed some concerns that council member Herbold had raised I think council member O'Brien had raised and I think Council Member Gonzalez perhaps, but we came up with a package of amendments at the table and those were reviewed by law and accepted.

And so we have That suite of amendments ready to go and we need a little time to harmonize those changes with the base legislation and the SIR since they were changes to the CSIR.

Sorry to use so many acronyms.

And that is ready.

So if we are to consider that amendment number 11 that encompasses the amendments made at the table, the legislation would be ripe to vote on today.

Councilmember O'Brien has a series of amendments, and I'll relinquish the microphone to Councilmember O'Brien in a second.

Councilmember O'Brien has some amendments that, if accepted, we would still need one more week to harmonize the CSIRs with the SIRs, and so my encompassing amendment would wait, and so it would be inappropriate for me to do that until I see where we come out on the amendments.

Now, let me say before Councilmember O'Brien Proposes his amendments that I'm not sure exactly how many there are but I think there's four and And I appreciate councilmember O'Brien's because he's got the The oil heating legislation as well as been working on feverishly.

He's been really working hard these last several weeks So I sincerely appreciate the efforts put into what he's trying to do this with this surveillance ordinance But I will tell you that I come out not supporting them, not so much because of the substance is bad policy.

In fact, I don't think the substance changes a lot, but there was a process that was done.

And we're looking at two technologies of 29. And this process to me is fundamental in doing this right as a city.

And that process was to make sure that ACLU and Shankar in particular, because of his expertise in this area, really crafted and wordsmith a piece of legislation.

That's a healthy process, that's a public process, and that was done.

And my impression now is that that was sort of a deal, and that's how we're gonna have to move forward when working with communities.

And the language now that is my understanding was agreed upon during that process by Shankar and others is what we are revisiting now.

And one could argue that's still part of the process, but I will tell you, with 27 more technologies to go, that will erode the city's ability to come up with meaningful policy, because we could wordsmith this forever.

And I will share with you that these two technologies, one have been around for 19 years, one for 12 years, that this is a retroactive view.

And if we are to negotiate with communities and experts and come up with agreed upon language and let's have a good process.

And so that's my record on looking at these amendments.

Somewhat biased because we've been working on this so feverishly and I've asked the departments to step up big and they stepped up big.

I believe their hearts, their minds, and their intellect were in the right position.

This is one of the best surveillance ordinances known to this country.

and I think it's ready to be voted on.

So having said that, Council Member O'Brien, you still, I'm sure, would like to walk through some amendments and the Chair would entertain them.

Madam Clerk, I'm not sure which ones I have to suspend the rules on, which ones are right, because all of them, so, except for mine.

So we won't have to suspend the rules on mine, because I did it the right way, by the way, but in all seriousness, if there's no objection, we'll suspend the rules so we can hear from Council Member O'Brien.

No objection.

Councilman O'Brien, you have the floor.

SPEAKER_19

Thank you, Council President.

Just in opening remarks, I appreciate your opening remarks and the process you've laid out here and I fully respect, you know, where you are on my amendments.

You have led a very intense and thoughtful and thorough process to date, and yet here I am still proposing amendments.

But I hope you and others don't see that as criticism of this process.

As I have dug into this, and I appreciate the acknowledgement of the past few weeks really trying to understand this, and even some of the stuff we heard in public comment today, it is complex.

And late last night as I was working on this and discussing it with my wife and a friend of hers, it was immediately the conversation turned to how complex this stuff is and what do we do about technology and where is it going and it's changing so fast and what are people doing with our data.

And I... I don't know how as government we are going to, I don't yet know how as government we are going to adequately manage all the data that we're capable of capturing.

And I think the process you've run so far on two technologies is outstanding.

It was extremely time consuming and these are two of the easier ones.

And I think we have a lot of work to do to figure out how we adequately safeguard this field that is constantly evolving and yet has critical implications to the things that I think we share on this floor.

And so I see this as the work you've done to date, including the amendments that I'll propose, as an opportunity to pause and learn.

what we learned so far, but this is something that I think is going to be constantly evolving as we go forward.

With that, colleagues, you should have four separate amendments that are on what I'll call the salmon-colored pieces of paper.

They mirror the four yellow ones that were handed out in a timely fashion, but there were minor changes.

that one significant, three minor changes that had to happen, maybe two significant, two minor changes that had to happen, and they came after time.

So thank you for suspending the rule so I can consider those.

I'm going to walk through them in the order of the amendments.

And so the first one I have is numbered Amendment 5. So it says, Proposed Amendment 5 to Council Bill 119519, Version 2A.

This, the document in front of you outlines nine different things that would change.

These are things that last week had been reviewed by the departments and there was, I want to be careful not to mischaracterize anybody, but my take was there was kind of broad consensus from SDOT in general that these would be consistent and allow them to do what they wanted to do.

Council President, in the sake of time, I could walk through all nine of these pieces, attempt to clarify.

I'm not sure that I will be able to clarify everything because it's somewhat technical.

Or I could just take questions from people if they wanted me to walk through a specific item or over another.

So I mentioned that it's on the salmon colored.

If you're looking at the top and perhaps maybe you printed it out without on color, it's dated 9-23-2019 and it says V2 behind that date in the header.

Just to be clear that when we discuss this and vote on it, we all know we're voting on the same thing.

SPEAKER_21

So the question is whether we take questions or we just want Council Member O'Brien to sort of plow through.

SPEAKER_19

I can move swiftly if you'd like to do that.

SPEAKER_21

I'd like you to move swiftly, because I had a question on a few of them.

So why don't you talk about what we're trying to do on this amendment number five.

SPEAKER_19

I'm going to largely read from the items, but I'll move swiftly.

So first with this, these are all the changes that are incorporated in amendment five.

So to establish that closed circuit TV can only be used for the purposes outlined in section 1.2, which is to monitor general traffic conditions on public rights away, traffic conditions after an unplanned incident.

and traffic conditions impacted by a planned event.

It also says that closed-circuit TV cannot be used in conjunction with facial recognition or license plate reader technology.

SPEAKER_21

I'm just going to stop you at number two.

Since we have suspended the rules, I will ask, we may not need it, both Greg and Lisa to at least sit at the table in case some questions come up.

I'll stop you on point number two because this is why I'm not supporting this particular amendment.

This is an example on number two.

There's certainly not, I would agree with number two where it says CCTV cannot be used in conjunction with fake facial recognition or license plate reader technology.

I agree with that point, so why would I oppose it?

If you look at, and I don't expect you to turn to the page, if you look at the SIR, which is a governing document, 4.2, it clearly states that, well, let me back up.

In the director's assessment of the technology, it clearly says, and I'll read you that, the language in the report.

It says facial recognition technology is not in use at the Department of Transportation.

Should it be considered in the future, the surveillance ordinance specifies that any material or substantial changes to the current camera technology will be subject to the surveillance ordinance and require another SIR process.

So let me just tell you what that says in the document already that they're not using it and should they use it another SIR would be triggered.

So when I see that and there are other sections 4.2 in the SIR on page 23 where it clearly says exactly what this technology is to be used for.

which is our commitment to use it only for those purposes.

It says, these systems are built strictly for this purpose, and no information about the plates that are captured to create travel times is stored or used for other purposes.

Now, that language was agreed upon during this first cut, if you will.

Because we wanted to make it clear that it's not to be used.

And if it is to be used in another way, another SIR is created.

So I'm using number two as an example of it's both redundant and not necessary.

And there are some other issues embedded in some of these that, quite candidly, we've presented to you a negotiated deal.

So you could go with number, you could either rebut number two or go on with number three.

SPEAKER_19

Well rebut it, I'll just state I don't disagree with anything you said Council President Harreld.

The SIR itself is quite an extensive document and my interest in putting this in the condensed SIR which is just a six-page document is to highlight to make sure that for folks that are trying to track this in the public They may not be able to find the language that you found, and I think facial recognition software is a critically important piece of what we're doing.

Again, I agree with what you said that this doesn't add it, it was already part of it, but to highlight it in the condensed version so that it is clear that someone who may have time to read a six-page document but not a multi-hundred page document would be able to pull that out immediately.

So I'll keep moving through this.

Number three clarifies that closed-circuit TV may be used for traffic engineering studies, images used for social media traffic updates and training materials, which are all current practices at SDOT.

The fourth thing it does, it authorizes longer retention of still images used for training for social media traffic.

Just to add, again, the intent is we don't take still images from these closed-circuit TV cameras, but occasionally they will use still images, take a still image of it to post on, say, a Twitter feed that says there's an accident at this corner and show an image of it.

That photo then would live on Twitter for a little longer, so it allows that to happen.

Number five, under data minimization and retention, which is section 3.2, it clarifies that the line items A through C are the only purposes for which the system can be used, which is live stream feed of current traffic conditions, recorded video of traffic for engineering studies, or still images of traffic conditions used in training materials or included in social media updates.

It restricts social media updates to the subject of traffic only.

It also requires written approval of each instance of recording and retention, instance of recording, and that we retain that for 10 years, which is the existing city policy.

Written approval is required for the recording of still images and the potential posting of social media annually.

So again, if someone needs to record part of the closed circuit TV for a traffic engineering study, they would need to get written approval to record it.

They could give blanket approval to make, on an annual basis, to take still images from the closed circuit TV to use for social media so that every time someone wants to snap a picture for a Twitter account, they don't need to go get written approval.

So that would be a once a year.

And we give the guidelines for that.

But for the other studies, it would need, on a case-by-case basis, written approval.

Keep going?

SPEAKER_21

You're talking about Amendment 5 still, correct?

Correct.

I'm talking about Number 7 on Amendment 5. So it's just, let's go just stop at Number, go 8 and 9 for Amendment 5. We'll just take that by itself.

But thanks, Councilman Brown.

SPEAKER_19

And so then the last two, restricts operation of closed circuit TV to users who have undergone SDOT training, including the handling and deletion of data.

Again, making sure the folks that are using this have been trained on it.

And then requires live streamed broadcasts to be consistent with the condensed SIR I Am by no means nearly an expert as either Greg or Lisa and so it's probably appropriate for my colleagues to confirm with them that what I Read was not misinterpreted or misleading at all Maybe there's something that we need to be clarified and want to just make sure we're open to that So as councilmember Brian described all of

SPEAKER_21

Amendment number five.

Did you want to say something, Mr. Dawes?

SPEAKER_22

No, I was answering Council Member O'Brien.

We don't have any comment.

He read it accurately.

SPEAKER_21

Okay.

So, this is why I oppose this amendment and I'll just take a vote since we have a busy day.

Oh, clarifying questions.

Let me comment on it since I'm the...

Why don't we take your questions first?

I'm fine.

SPEAKER_29

I wasn't sure what order you wanted to go to, but didn't want to miss the opportunity to ask some questions here.

As the original sponsor of the surveillance technology ordinance, I just wanted to get some clarification on this proposed amendment.

And this answer is probably, or this question is probably applicable to all of the proposed amendments that we have here, particularly as it relates to the condensed SIRs but in terms of what is represented on proposed amendment 5 to this council bill is anything or any of the specific changes that are articulated in the amendment not included in the underlying SIR?

SPEAKER_33

Yeah go ahead.

Lisa Kaye for council staff.

We haven't done a point by point comparison and we expect that there would need to be some amendment, some revisions made just to harmonize it.

SPEAKER_29

Okay, so my understanding of how this has been described both in council briefing and on the dais is that the condensed SIR is intended to be in effect an executive summary of the contents of the SIR.

Did I hear the intent incorrectly, Council Member O'Brien?

SPEAKER_19

No, that's my understanding too.

SPEAKER_29

So ordinarily executive summaries would be completely 100% aligned with whatever the content is in the underlying document.

So I'm now hearing from Council Central staff that that may not be the case and that there may be new requirements in the condensed SIR that are not actually reflected in the SIR.

SPEAKER_19

Correct.

And my, if I may, my attempt here was that to focus on amending the six-page document than the SAR, which is hundreds of pages, with the understanding that as we make changes to the condensed version, it will require similar changes in the SAR.

And again, I think the SAR, so the, and as Council President Harrell said, if we do adopt, I think any of my amendments, we would not be able to vote on this to attach the SARs because that will require some changes.

My understanding is that the departments have been tracking closely the proposed changes in the CSAR And I believe have an awareness of the things that need to be changed in the SAR.

And what I've heard is it would just take them a couple days to make those changes.

But I barely have my head around the complexity of the six-page document.

I definitely cannot personally speak to the complexity in the multi-hundred page document.

SPEAKER_29

So I mean, I think setting aside the complexities of each document, I think where my line of questioning is coming from is I'm concerned that we're using the condensed SIRs, which were not envisioned or imagined or even articulated in the underlying surveillance technology ordinance, that we're using this additional tool to amend the underlying SIR, thereby creating some potential conflict between a condensed SIR and the underlying SIR.

And so what I'm hearing now is that that is actually true.

We are creating conflict through adoption of these amendments with the underlying SIR.

SPEAKER_19

I think if we adopt these at the moment, there will be conflict.

Again, it won't be passed or adopted yet.

My understanding in talking to folks who'll be doing that work is they are prepared to reconcile those and have it be resolved within a week so that those conflicts would go away.

SPEAKER_29

And while I understand that and I appreciate that, I think where my concern is is that we're We're effectively creating two different tools and multiple bytes at the Apple to modify the SIR, and the SIR is supposed to be the underlying document that is legally binding on the departments.

And so I think it's inconsistent that that effect is in my mind, appears to be inconsistent with the description of the condensed SIR and the intent, which is that it's for a couple of purposes.

One, primarily for readability, so that if somebody from the street wanted to review SIRs, they could easily identify the information and the obligations and the duties and responsibilities.

And two, to be effectively an executive summary of the underlying SIR, which could be up to hundreds of pages, depending on the technology.

So I guess I'm having difficulty reconciling how your intent, which as described, appears to be sort of more technical in nature, is actually not.

extremely substantive in nature in terms of actually modifying the SIRs.

And I suppose there are lots of ways to meet the stated goals and purposes that you've described, including requiring the departments to make a more readable document of the underlying SIR and post that publicly so that people understand the rules of the game as it relates to whatever technology that they are using, as opposed to making substantive changes via a condensed SIR to a substantive SIR.

SPEAKER_19

So I think, if I hear you correctly, your preference would be, or would have been, for me to be making amendments to the SIR document at this point, not the CSIR.

Right.

With the exception of, Council President Harrell raised that one, there was simply pulling language from the SIR, simplifying it, putting it in the CSIR.

That may have been an appropriate amendment to this.

And I will acknowledge I did not, I chose not to go into the SAR and amend it, but if that is in the future how the council should be weighing in.

on amending these technologies to go through that.

I think that's something for us to think through, and I'm certainly open to that.

I'm not sure that I personally will be the one doing that because of my timing here, but.

SPEAKER_29

Yeah, I mean, I do think that, again, this is the first two technologies out of a list of dozens of technologies that a city council, perhaps not this city council, will have to consider, and we are setting precedent in terms of how we are going to set up our process and how we're going to evaluate these complex technologies and these complex policy issues.

In my mind and my understanding that underlying SIRs are legally binding documents and they have been incorporated into the ordinance at this point.

And I think that the appropriate place to make these types of amendments are in the underlying SIR.

And if we are truly interested in making those SIRs accessible and digestible and understandable to the general public, then we need to impose that requirement upon the agencies utilizing those technologies to do so, rather than using condensed SIRs, which are purported to be executive summaries, as the place to do a mandatory work to the underlying SIRs.

Which leads me to my last question, which is, are the condensed SIRs also incorporated into the ordinance, or are these just separate and apart?

SPEAKER_22

Councilmember, the condensed SIRs would be attached to the ordinance and incorporated by reference.

Same as the regular SIRs.

SPEAKER_29

So now we have an SIR to track compliance with, and we have a condensed SIR to track compliance with.

SPEAKER_22

That's correct.

And if any of Councilmember O'Brien's amendments pass today, You would not vote on the bill.

You would give a week or so to the departments to be able to bring those things into harmony and then next week you could pass it with all of them being in sync.

SPEAKER_29

So I think I've articulated what my concerns are so far.

I mean, I really do think we have an opportunity to set up a process that is clean and crisp here.

And I don't say that to insult the process that you have undergone, Council President Harrell.

I just am concerned that we're gonna be creating two parallel documents that in the future could be read in conflict and thereby inadvertently create a situation where the city will be found liable or out of compliance with a surveillance technology ordinance even though it had a meaningful good faith intent to comply with a surveillance technology ordinance just based on the virtue that there are now two documents that may be similar but not exact in terms of the language and the requirements upon upon the agency.

So I'm struggling with that reality if these amendments were to pass today.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez.

You've actually described why I don't support these amendments.

And in all due respect, Councilman O'Brien is raising some great issues.

These issues were raised and the SIR was a 141 page document.

The 141-page document that I didn't describe in my introductory remarks, it has a very significant racial equity toolkit component and engagement and public process component, fiscal impacts opponent, questions to the SIT about what happens if employees or the departments misuse the technology, what happens to underrepresented communities if they are unfairly targeted or there's a disparate impact.

That 141-page document It's a lot for the layperson just to sit there and read, unless they ran out of good novels to read or something.

And we then said, well, let's condense it, and that was the CSIR.

And again, as the chair trying to shepherd this legislation through, I asked, are there any inconsistencies?

We're talking about if one supersedes the other.

To date, there were no inconsistencies.

Can language be improved?

Of course.

In a 141-page document, it could always be improved.

But it's important that with the traffic camera technology as an example, and that's why I preface by saying we've been using this for 19 years.

We do not record.

I mean, that was, I think, one person testified about how there is some recording.

But if you look at the use of this technology again, camera views are masked for viewing occupants in buildings.

The staff are trained, and as part of their requirements, not to zoom in on individuals or license plates.

We share the information with another agency.

And when it is recorded in certain, let's say there's a traffic study as an example, it is permanently deleted within 10 days.

These are conditions in the SIR that we must comply with.

If we violate those conditions, we're subject to a private right of action, which again is unprecedented.

So I see these amendments to the CSIRs as being unnecessary and, um, again late for lack of a better description.

So anyway, so I'm ready to actually take a vote on amendment number five, unless Council Member Bryan wanted to describe it a little more.

He went through the nine, but Council Member Bryan, did you want to say?

Any more about amendment?

We're just talking about amendment number five at this point.

SPEAKER_19

No, I'll just, you know, I apologize to colleagues if I should have been trying to amend the SIR instead of the CSIR.

My understanding was this was the appropriate process to do it, but it sounds like there are some concerns about the strategy I used and I didn't intend to circumvent the process.

I was just trying to get my policy things in there, so.

SPEAKER_21

And I appreciate the apology, but You're making an argument, I'm sure, carrying the water for somebody, and those arguments were made months ago.

And Central Staff, you can talk about your process you did to get us today to ready to vote, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we revisiting issues that were conceded earlier in the process?

I was just gonna ask Councilor Central Staff to respond to that.

SPEAKER_22

Many of them, yes.

SPEAKER_21

OK, go ahead, Council Member O'Brien.

Two people in queue.

SPEAKER_19

I do think that some of these things is bringing language from one place to another.

And we can argue whether that adds any value or not.

But there are other things, such as the requirement of written approval for someone recording The CCTV are taking still images from it.

And that may have been discussed and it may have been agreed to, but I think that's an important policy decision for us to make as a council.

And I feel strongly that if someone is going to deviate from the norm or we're not recording it and do record it, there should be a written record of approval to do that and that should be saved.

If I should have done that in the SAR instead of the CSAR, we should get clarity for how people make that.

But I don't think these are meant to come to the council just to be rubber-stamped.

I think there is an opportunity for us to have a final influence on some policy decisions, and that's a few of the pieces that I'm trying to do in this piece.

SPEAKER_30

What's her name?

SPEAKER_21

Herbold.

No, I didn't know which one was first.

Councilmember Herbold.

SPEAKER_30

Yeah, I guess, I think for me it's less about, and I appreciate for the council members who have worked really hard on this, Councilmember Gonzales, as it relates to the overarching legislation and Councilmember Harrell as it relates to this particular body of work.

But I'm, and so I'm less concerned about the process piece of this and what order we should do things in.

I am, a little confused about the intent and what we're accomplishing.

I was under the impression last week when we talked about these amendments in principle that the goal was to address a concern that the CSIRs were opening up this technology in ways that the SIRs weren't.

Logically, it seems to me that if that was the case, we wouldn't need to go back and amend the SIRs because these amendments would simply be restating in a condensed form what the SIRs already say.

So if the goal is to make sure that the CSERs do not broaden the ability to use the CCTV, that's what my understanding was.

The goal is to make sure that the ability to use those is not broadened beyond what was contemplated in the S.I.R. I'm not sure I understand why after passing this amendment we would need to go back and amend the S.I.R.

SPEAKER_19

So I think there's a couple different perspectives on this, because it's new and we haven't been through the process.

And so I think there's a lot of folks, including myself, trying to envision how this will be used and what happens.

So I've heard people argue that because the language in the condensed SIR is condensed, and so it summarizes things, if someone were to just read that, It may not have the level of detail that says what you can and can't do, and so there's a fear that, no, you need to add more detail to this.

So, for instance, as Council President Harrell talked about, you can't use facial recognition software.

That is spoken of elsewhere in the SIR, but there's a sense, there's a fear that without that it feels like this is too broad or opening it back up to the concern you had.

There are other places, like I mentioned, with getting written approval that is actually a policy shift from what's in the document and would need to get reconciled.

And that's intentional.

I just, you know, I'm choosing the path that I thought was what we were going on, but we haven't laid out like a whole protocol for how we should amend CSIRs and SIRs as a council.

And so we're kind of living through that as we go.

SPEAKER_20

I was just gonna call the question.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, we have a request to get on with the other 29 items on our agenda sooner or later.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

SPEAKER_38

Great, do I get to still speak?

Yes.

Okay, I will go very short.

I will go very briefly.

Number one, I want to thank the Council President for your work to make sure that all these issues were raised in committee and central staff really for putting together sort of the matrix of of the various issues that we are considering today and considered at the table.

I know a lot of work has gone into this and also folks at the ACLU.

That crosswalk to me was very helpful.

One of the things that I did with that on Thursday and Friday last week was to look through what items are sort of legally okay and what items are potentially challenging but not impossible to implement administratively.

And I tried to identify where there was harmony between what was legally okay and Implementable and support some of those efforts, and I think in this amendment specifically There are items in there that we discussed that you're at the council presidents committee And I think are important for clarifying the intent here So I agree that maybe there's some confusion about where it should be clarified and how we harmonize those documents And my real effort here is to make sure that there's no confusion out there one of the things that was raised at the table is was a good example of how these closed circuit televisions, while tracking traffic issues, may be used unintentionally by us, the city, to do things that we would never support.

And the one good example that I gave is SDOT and Seattle Police Department had been working to provide safe areas for people to have a one-day strike.

I'm on Broadway a few weeks ago.

That's an important effort that workers should have the right to do.

I would hate for that information, even though it's never going to be recorded by the city, to be displayed on a monitor and have and employer record that and then use that to intimidate workers, for example, which is also not legal.

But we want to make sure that we've protected our city in every way possible.

And so there's some areas in there that I think we amended in your committee.

I saw this amendment here was really elevating those pieces and creating greater harmony, wanted to support it.

And if this is not the right place to do that, perhaps we continue to work on it.

But my intention was really to create that clarity.

While it might not be Legally required.

I thought it was a nice helpful way to articulate the true intent of these technologies So there was no ambiguity in the public and appreciate your ongoing entertainment of this conversation.

SPEAKER_21

Mr. President, but that's why I was going to be supportive So Thanks for the discussion on we're just voting on amendment number five.

Okay, just to be clear any more discussion just amendment number five and So, Council Member O'Brien has made the motion to amendment number...

I think I probably haven't moved in seconds.

SPEAKER_19

I'm going to all move amendment five as described on the salmon sheet, which has the date 9-23-2019 and V2 after it.

Second.

SPEAKER_21

And Council Member Mesquite has seconded it.

So, I'm going to do a voice vote and just raise your hand so the clerk could get it.

All those in favor of amendment number five say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

One, two.

All those opposed say no and raise your hand.

No.

Fails.

Okay, so that one fails.

So we're gonna move to amendment number four.

I mean, sorry, number four.

Yeah, let's go backwards, Bruce.

We're gonna go to, is it amendment number?

Six.

Six.

And that's on salmon colored as well.

Correct, Council Member O'Brien?

SPEAKER_19

That's correct.

And it's version 2. Not everyone printed it on the same color page.

I just want to be clear there.

Colleagues, I'll try to streamline this.

This is a similar set of amendments, at least a similar theme, as to the one we just turned down, except it's for the other technology, the license plate reader technology.

I'll walk through it really quickly if that's okay.

There's only six items to discuss.

One is it clarifies the purpose and allowable uses of license plate reader data and the result in travel time information.

It restricts the use of all license plate reader data, not just data that includes license plate numbers.

It prohibits the use of license plate reader system to collect images of vehicles or occupants.

It prohibits SDOT from providing data collected by the SDOT, Seattle Department of Transportation license plate reader system, to entities other than WSDOT.

It makes explicit that WSDOT does not have access to the SDOT license plate reader system, and it also restricts SDOT sharing of LPR data only to WSDOT for travel time purposes.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you Council Member Bryan and I'll just respond as the one of the proposed base legislation.

The reason I'm not supporting this amendment is for pretty much the same reason I talked about earlier in the SAR and what we were trying to accomplish.

It's very important I think to understand in the SAR, that SDOT is never in possession of the images.

First of all, the technology by its very nature doesn't capture all of the license plate.

They capture between 5% to 10% as they move into view.

The images are simply sent to WSDOT.

And the software reads the plate number and adds a timestamp, then compares the timestamps to match it on a plate in order for us to get the reports that are generated in looking at travel time.

So the department made it crystal clear the technology cannot be used for enforcement.

We don't keep this data and we're trying to get traffic reports from it.

And I believe that the proposed amendment by the maker is captured adequately in the SIR and again was thoroughly examined earlier in the process.

Any other discussion on the amendment?

Any questions?

Okay, so Council Member Gonzales.

SPEAKER_29

I just want to confirm the same sort of line of questioning I had in the first place.

Is this effectively attempting to amend the SIR or is this carbon copy, nothing new here in terms of requirements, duties and obligations as reflected in the SIR.

SPEAKER_22

This issue is addressed in the SIR and the CSIR and it is an issue where the department has outlined practice about the data that they capture.

They have said that they capture raw data to include a timestamp, a station identifier, a camera channel, an alphanumeric plate string, and a confidence factor.

Most of those things I don't know what they are.

But what the amendment would do is say that SDOT could capture those things and only those things.

So if there was another piece of data that the LPR wanted to capture, then it would have to be brought before you all in a new SIR.

However, that would be the case anyways because of the underlying surveillance ordinance.

If there was any substantive change to any of the SIRs, they have to come before you again.

SPEAKER_29

Right, so capturing different kinds of information that go outside of what you just described, that would be considered a material change that would require SDOT to come back to the city council to amend the SIR anyhow.

SPEAKER_22

That's correct.

So that this is, this language is helpful from a clarification and from a reader standpoint, but the reality of it is that the underlying ordinance protects against this anyway.

SPEAKER_30

no need to amend the SIR if this passes?

SPEAKER_22

Well, it uses the language only, and as I've said before, if there were any other data captured besides what FDOT's already listed, they would have to come ask you.

So I would say that this is not legally necessary.

SPEAKER_30

I understood that you're saying this is not legally necessary.

My question, though, is would passage of this amendment require us to go back and amend the S.I.R.?

SPEAKER_22

Oh, thank you.

I think the agency would still want to bring it into harmony.

They probably would take that only language and put it in the S.I.R. Does it require it?

I would have to ask the attorneys that.

Okay.

SPEAKER_21

So, did you make the motion formally, Council Member Brown, for amendment number six?

SPEAKER_19

I will move what's listed as proposed amendment number six with the date 9-23-2019 version two as discussed.

SPEAKER_21

So moved and seconded.

Amendment number six has been moved and seconded.

All those in favor say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

All those opposed say no and raise your hand.

No.

That's okay.

So we're gonna go to amendment number seven.

What was it, Madam Clerk?

I was asked what the count was on that vote.

Four to five.

Okay, number seven, Council Member Brian Walker, student number seven, please.

SPEAKER_19

So this amendment and the next amendment are not a suite of amendments, but actually a single amendment, and they do relate to a policy.

Amendment seven, just for folks following, again, it's also on the salmon colored paper, but at the top it has today's date, 9-23-2019, and a V2 by it.

So it's version two.

This is about the license plate reader data and the requirement, oh sorry, no, that's the other one.

This is about the license plate reader and it makes it explicit that that will not be used, made available in response to civil or criminal enforcement purposes except as provided by a superseding judicial warrant.

To me, the language you saw earlier today was more broad, and the concern that was raised, which I share, is language that simply says, I'm gonna pull up my yellow version from this morning.

Actually, I gave it to someone, so I don't have it in front of me.

Would be, had said, except as prohibited by law without the technical reality This data is being collected by people that, for the most part, aren't lawyers.

And the concern is that if someone like ICE were to approach someone and say, hi, I'm a federal agent.

I need you to hand this over.

And federal law says you have to give it to me.

How are they going to interpret, and what do they do?

And I'm worried that language that is vague or broad would allow that to happen in cases that we don't want it to happen.

I both want to acknowledge that the potentially hypothetical nature of these scenarios, and it's hard to walk down all those hypothetical scenarios, and at the same time, there are enough examples in today's world where these types of transactions are happening, and that may be in the case where there's an employee somewhere who feels strongly that they want to share information, and this gives them the cover to do that, or someone that's just not an expert on it.

And so, again, this is the language that I think is narrowly tailored to say the only conditions under which this information can be shared and used for civil or criminal enforcement purposes.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you.

I see this amendment as more than just an amendment to the underlying S.I.R. via the condensed S.I.R. I actually see this as a potential amendment to the underlying ordinance where this issue around warrants and what kind of warrants would merit or require an agency to share data or information gathered through technologies approved by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and through the CSRS, we had a very long conversation in the original drafting of the Surveillance Technology Ordinance around this burden of proof or requirement of when that information or data should be shared originally.

I'm not going to support this amendment because I see it as frankly, I see it as going back into the surveillance technology ordinance and actually underlying amending or attempting to amend the underlying warrant requirements around when agencies are intended to share information that may have been captured with law enforcement or for other purposes via this particular language and that is very, that to me is a different policy conversation if we want to amend the surveillance technology ordinance to modify that standard or to you know, change our obligation somehow in terms of how we respond to judicial warrants, then we should have that conversation.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, so, and I oppose it as well, but I just want to go back to the technology again, and I understand the hypothetical concerns, but in the SAR we make it very clear we don't use it for enforcement.

It's never used for enforcement.

We don't We're not in possession of the LPR images.

We are not in possession of it.

We transfer 5 to 10% of the reads with some confidency level and we get information back.

And the department has stated that is its exclusive use of the document.

So, of the technology, so I'll.

in there but um councilman brands you want to say one closing word on this i i concur that we're clear that that the city will not be using this enforcement this language is specifically that we do not hand it over to someone else to use it for civil or or criminal enforcement purposes and that's the distinction very good distinction and i don't know when we are obligating that it's not to be used by a third party that we have not the kind of control over we want i don't know if that would be a liability we want to assume in our ordinance and so It's been moved and Did you want to say something customer?

I'm sorry.

I'm trying to We're good.

SPEAKER_30

I'd love to hear what comes from Gonzalez has to say about that This is pretty if we're if we're setting new policy that was debated in the underlying surveillance ordinance.

I really want to defer to the prime sponsor of that bill to hear her concerns and

SPEAKER_29

Yeah, if I could just add to that.

I mean, I think we, again, another policy discussion and decision point that we made in the underlying ordinance was the question around whether or not we should require third parties or outside parties to comply with the restrictions and requirements and legal mandates of our surveillance technology ordinance.

In the debate around that particular question, this council decided to not to only make sure that those rules are applying to what we control and how we can use the data.

Now, there are situations that are reasonable.

Largely, we heard from the Seattle Police Department and some other agencies where we receive legitimate judicial warrants for purposes of public safety reasons.

And the question became, are those agencies responsible for handing over that information if we possess it?

Not what other agencies might be doing with that data or information, but what do we have in our possession and what are our legal obligations under constitutional law and otherwise to respond to those judicial warrants?

Again, I'm happy to have this conversation about changing that threshold or that potential policy, but I fundamentally see this as an attempt to resurrect that conversation, which fundamentally would have the effect in my mind of of modifying the base ordinance of the surveillance technology, which had already decided under which circumstances the city of Seattle would be required to respond to a judicial warrant.

if we were in possession of data or information that was gathered as a result of surveillance technology that we had been utilizing and that was appropriately approved through a SIR process.

So I'm just flagging my concern that this is going much further than just amending an SIR, but actually amending the underlying ordinance.

That may be something we want to have a conversation about again, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that conversation in the context of of a SIR that is specific to one type of technology because I think the implications are much broader.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, was Council Member O'Brien's amendment, it was not moved.

So Council Member O'Brien, will you move amendment number seven?

SPEAKER_19

I will move...

I will move amendment number seven dated today 9-23-2019 version two.

Second.

It's moved and seconded.

SPEAKER_21

Amendment number seven has been moved and seconded.

All those in favor say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

All those opposed say no and raise your hand.

No.

That one fails too.

SPEAKER_19

So let's go to number eight.

So this one also relates to the license plate reader technology and the relationship between SDOT and WSDOT, the State Department of Transportation and the City Department of Transportation.

This, Council President Harrell, you described, I think in layman terms, a bit of how the technology works, what we capture is handed off to another department.

My understanding is currently there is not a written requirement for, sorry, a written agreement between SDOT and WSDOT, but the underlying language would require that.

well, sorry, this amendment would require that within six months there needs to be a written requirement, a written agreement as to how that data is shared and specifically adds the language that WSDOT would need to be held to the same requirement and restrictions set forth in our policies.

So I'm going to pull up from the language for a second and just try to articulate why I think this is particularly important.

We are collecting some data.

I believe that the reasons for collecting the data are legitimate reasons to study travel times, and I think they serve the public well.

They do have the potential to be misused.

You know, we are collecting personally identifiable information, license plates in certain times of day and where people are.

Our policies are that that data is deleted almost immediately once it's served the purpose of measuring travel times.

But when we hand that data off to another party that's not bound by those same conditions, there's a fear that someone may use that data for other sources, other purposes, or they may hand it over to another agency that requested for other purposes.

And I think this is at the heart of the entire surveillance ordinance and the things that I think is appropriate for us as a council to struggle with.

There's a number of ways I think this could play out if this amendment passes.

In the next six months, WSDOT and SDOT could come to an agreement of data sharing that basically holds WSDOT to the same standards we're holding them to, at which point I would feel very comfortable that the data sharing would continue and we continue to get the information.

It may be that WSDOT or SDOT come back to us and say, we were unable to reach agreement.

WSDOT was not willing to be held to the same standards as SDOT.

At that point, this amendment would require that they no longer share the data, which means we would no longer have that travel time information.

Because as far as I know with the technology, the only way we can get that travel time information is by sharing the data with WSDOT.

That I think is a legitimate policy question that this council can struggle with.

If SDOT felt strongly that they wanted that information, they could come back to this council before that and say, hey, we can only get X, Y, and Z in the agreement, and we would like you to amend the the SIR, the CSIR, to give us some more flexibility, or we can decide, no, it's not worth the risk of collecting that data without the assurances, and we'd rather live without that travel time data, because the idea that this might be used against our will for data for things such as immigration or ICE, doing it to track down people in the city of Seattle.

I'll stop there.

I think that this is the type of thing that is appropriate for us to be doing and laying out the guidelines by which we not just collect information, but the conditions under which we would share it with other parties.

And I don't want to prejudge what a future council may decide as what's the appropriate balance there.

But at the moment, I think it's appropriate to say that WSDOT should be held to the same standards and ask them to go work on that data sharing agreement.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Council Member O'Brien.

I'll make a comment sort of consistent with my other comments.

The reason I don't support this amendment, first, I know that the law department has raised some issues that I won't divulge the issues, but I think they flagged this one.

I'll just put it that way.

Is that correct, Greg?

That's correct.

It was flagged.

I'll just leave it at that, number one.

But number two, I think as a city, if we choose not to use LPR, we can stop using it.

This is, we are a recipient of the information we're getting.

We've used it since 2007. We are getting good data for traffic management, which is the purpose of the LPR.

And I think the chances of us getting washed out within six months to agree to this kind of surveillance ordinance are slim to none.

And I think that we'd be fooling ourselves if we think within six months we can achieve that.

Now, there's another route, I think, to get there.

That could be, perhaps, in the future council could set a resolution and negotiate with the WSDOT and have our department work with them to put in the right safeguards.

But I think to require it now in this process is, is burdensome and impractical.

I think we should try to get there another way though.

I would like to have WSDOT guarded as much as we are, but I don't think we'll be able to achieve that within six months.

And if we don't, either we have to pull the technology or we are in violation of our ordinance.

Council Member Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you.

I just want to go back in my time machine again to when we first had a debate around the Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

This was also another policy point that was debated, discussed, and ultimately rejected by the City Council when we approved the Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

There was a strong interest by the advocates at the time to require as an overarching principle within the Surveillance Technology Ordinance that whomever we do business with sign a contract and agreement agreeing to comply with our ordinance.

And we had a very long debate and discussion around whether as a matter of policy that was practical or appropriate for us to impose our city law, in some cases, up, meaning to the federal government or to the state, and whether we had legal standing to be able to actually make that enforceable setting.

And that conversation was separate and apart from whether or not it was even practical to be able to have that kind of contractual relationship with agencies that we deal with.

So, again, during that debate, we determined that that was not a direction we wanted to head with the understanding that the CSRS would take care of any potential concerns related to the type of information we were capturing that might be available to third-party agencies that would cause us significant privacy concerns and that the CSRS were the place where we needed to make sure that those restrictions were in place in order to comply fully with our own ordinance.

So it's similar to, I think, the way that we look at information we gather at the city in general as it relates to ICE enforcement.

You know, we can only be compelled to hand over what we actually collect, so we need to be very careful about what we are collecting, knowing that federal agencies and state agencies will, even under this rubric, will be, you know, still have FOIA and other public records request tools to be able to get that information from us.

But again, I see this amendment as opening the door again to that policy question that we had in the underlying Surveillance Technology Ordinance debate around whether or not we were going to impose upon third parties an obligation to comply with the Surveillance Technology Ordinance before we agreed to do business with them as memorialized in a separate, in an agreement that was separate and apart from the CER, separate and apart from the condensed CER, and certainly separate and apart from the underlying a technology ordinance.

So I think that it really creates a very complicated system.

I think it's also going to result in a situation where we will never engage in regional efforts with any agency at all, whether it's a legitimate or even if it's a legitimate reason to engage in business with a regional agency.

So again, I'm just, we may wanna have that conversation from a broader policy perspective, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that, make that policy decision in the context of an amendment.

I guarantee that this amendment will turn up again when we consider other types of technologies related to other departments.

And if that's gonna be the case, then let's reopen the Surveillance Technology Ordinance to have that conversation.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez.

Did you want to make the motion?

Did you want to?

SPEAKER_19

I wanted to just comment if I can.

Council Member Gonzales, my intent when we passed the original surveillance ordinance was indeed that we weren't going to have a blanket requirement because it wasn't clear how that would be enforceable, that third parties would be bound by this.

But for me, at least, it didn't preclude saying on a case-by-case basis, as we gather technology, if it's necessary to share with third parties, that it would be appropriate for us to consider what requirements we put on that data when it goes out our door and we essentially lose all control of it.

And this is one that I think, what this amendment sets up, is the possibility, which I think is real, frankly, that watch.

and s.

could reach agreement that watch.

is like, yeah, we delete the data as soon as we process it.

Our vendors do the same thing.

It comes back to you.

We're happy to sign on to those conditions.

It's fine.

And we get to keep moving forward.

And if they're unable to do that, it'd be good to understand why they're unable to do it.

Is it because, no, we like to keep that in case we want to give it to somebody?

Or is it technically not feasible and here's the reason we need to do it?

And at that point, they could come back to the council to decide on a policy decision.

Do we even want to be collecting license plate refunds?

information for the purpose of traffic.

Is a trade-off not worth it anymore if we don't have control of what that data is being used for?

So I feel strongly that this is an appropriate place to add a third-party requirement.

This doesn't say, I mean this says that without this agreement after six months they would have to stop collecting the data but obviously the parties could come back to the council between now and then and say we think it's really important that we keep collecting it and here's what we're able to agree to and we think you should make the case to the to the public, we can make the case publicly that we're collecting it.

Without this, I fear what I have to tell constituents is we collect this data, we have strict controls on what we can do with the data, but we're giving it to another agency which we don't have any control over what they do with it.

We hope that they will honor our concerns, but we don't have the control over it, and that causes me some concerns.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, so you want to make the motion, Customer O'Brien?

SPEAKER_30

May I ask a question?

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_30

Does the current language not still require that third party agreement?

It just simply doesn't say that the third party agreement are the same restrictions and requirements in the CSER.

So there's still that

SPEAKER_19

Sorry, the underlying part is not the amendment.

That was my amendment to the noon amendment, but we should ask central staff.

I believe this whole language was new.

SPEAKER_22

Yes, I think that you're right, Councilmember Herbold.

The language that is in the case now in the CSER, SDOT and WSDOT must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing the LPR data.

And it's made clear in other areas of the CSER that that data is to be used only for traffic purposes.

That is already underway.

I believe that is the case.

If SDOT came back and said that they think that the data might be used for something else, they would be obligated under the surveillance ordinance to come back to the council.

The difficult part about this amendment is how would the city of Seattle enforce any kind of agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation?

SPEAKER_30

So we would still have the ability to have that analysis of those trade-offs if there was either no agreement or the agreement was inconsistent with the CER.

Yes.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_19

OK, so I'll Can I just clarify, I believe what the underlying, if my amendment fails, the language that will be in the CSER will simply say, SDOT and WSDOT must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing LPR data.

That's correct.

But not the conditions under which they are.

But I think that's in the CSER?

SPEAKER_22

There's more clarification in the CSER.

That is in the CSER, yes.

SPEAKER_19

In the CSER.

In the CSER as well.

SPEAKER_22

that the purpose is for traffic collection, for collection of traffic data and calculating travel times.

SPEAKER_21

I think it's important to note that we don't know WSDOT's retaining requirements are under state law.

We know what ours are and what we're willing to live with and so this amendment again imposes the same requirements that we have in our CSR but We don't know what all those policies are, and I think we heard this.

This discussion was a lively debate at the working group level, and this is where we had come out on it, which is inconsistent with this amendment.

Okay, it's been moved.

Has it been seconded?

It has not been moved.

So, Council Member Moran, can you move?

SPEAKER_19

I will move.

Amendment number eight.

Let me ask the clerk.

There's a version two and a version three that I think are identical, so I'm just going to stick with...

Okay.

I don't believe anyone has version three in front of them.

Oh, you do?

I'm not sure that there's, I did a quick look over.

It may be moot here based on the last three amendments, but we should probably at least get it accurate.

I see that.

I compared the language to try to figure out what changed between version 2 and version 3 because they both say as of 1.15 p.m.

on 9.23.

SPEAKER_33

They're identical sir.

SPEAKER_19

Okay so I'm gonna go with version 2 just because that's the only one everyone has and if it turns out we missed something then we'll deal with that later but it may not turn out.

So I'm gonna go ahead and move amendment 8 on the salmon sheet that's listed at the top as 9.23 2019 version 2.

SPEAKER_21

Is there a second?

It's been moved.

Amendment number eight has been moved and seconded.

All those in favor say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

All those opposed say no and raise your hand.

No.

It what?

Fails three to six.

It fails three to six.

Do we have a number nine?

SPEAKER_19

No, I'm not moving 9 or 10. So I am done, Council President Harrell.

I apologize for taking so much time in that exercise, but I appreciate your indulgence.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Pacheco, you may lead us through the oil heat legislation, so get your Roberts Rules of Order hat on pretty soon here.

So what this then leaves us with, the legislation that passed out of the committee, and I'll describe that as amendment number 11. And that's just the way it's written up.

So there are not a 8, 9, 10 or 11. So let me just let me clarify what motion I'm making.

I am making a motion number 11 that basically incorporates the amendments that unanimously passed at committee table that incorporate the two SIRs and the two CSIRs coming out of the out of the committee.

Okay.

I hope that's clear.

So I'm going to move to pass amendment number 11. Is there a second?

Second.

SPEAKER_36

Okay.

SPEAKER_21

Okay.

Any discussion on this amendment?

And I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it passes because of all the hard work that everyone's done.

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay, the amendment passes.

So now we have a surveillance ordinance as amended that's ready for vote.

Yeah, let me find my number here.

Just one sec.

It is number...

SPEAKER_33

1 1 9 5 1 9 councilmember Okay

SPEAKER_21

I'll say a few things after.

Okay, please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 119519 as amended.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Begshaw?

Aye.

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

President Harrell?

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Nine in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passed and the Chair will sign it.

Let me just say a few thanks to Council Member Bryan and Shankar.

Thanks for pushing the envelope on all of these issues.

I know that some things were not gotten.

people did want, but I think it's still one of the best surveillance ordinances this country's seen.

I hope we're setting the bar for other cities and states to follow.

Councilman Gonzalez, I want to thank you for your full engagement and your leadership on the surveillance ordinance.

Saad Bashir, Ginger Ambruster, Jason Cambridge, and Adiam Emery, Greg and Lisa, thank you very much, Greg Doss, Lisa Kay, Kate Garman, awesome as usual, and the Community Surveillance Working Group, thanks you for all of your engagement.

So with this, it was a long time coming, but thank you for all your work, and Council Member Bryan, thank you again.

SPEAKER_19

I also want to just personally thank Greg and Lisa, and I'm not sure which names of folks at SDOT and the law department who are responding to your requests on my behalf over the weekend to get through that, and that was a really Herculean effort.

Despite my disappointment in the outcome today, I'm extremely grateful for the time you all put into this weekend and the past few weeks to keep me up to speed.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

So I'm going to stay for items six and seven and I'm going to relinquish the chair to Council Member Pacheco.

So can you read can you read six and seven in together please?

SPEAKER_25

Item six and seven, Council Bill 119636 relating to the sale and use of tobacco and marijuana products to and by minors.

Council Bill 119637 relating to crimes and offenses concerning animals.

The committee recommends both bills pass.

SPEAKER_21

As I said a couple of weeks ago, these two ordinance are just a reconciliation of state law to our city code, or I should say our city code to state law.

One is for the sale and use of tobacco and marijuana products to minors.

And the other one is for crimes and offenses relating to animals.

In particular, as you may recall, the state legislature approved a bill to change the legal age of buying tobacco and vaping products from 18 to 21. And this law will take place in January of 2020. And as recommended by the Attorney General's Office and the State Department of Health and public health advocates in Washington state is the ninth state to set 21 as the minimum age.

And so we certainly want to adopt that standard.

Hopefully many states will follow our lead.

The ordinance relating to animals and crimes and offenses, the ordinance changes the classification maximum penalty of certain animal controlled crimes and makes these classifications and maximum penalties again, consistent with state law.

So the crimes for which the maximum penalty were posed formally from, it's from 180 days in jail and a $500 fine to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine from 500 to 5,000.

which includes keeping an exotic animal or using a guard dog without a guard dog license, owning a dangerous animal, selling a sick, dangerous, or exotic animal.

And so the state law goes into much more depth.

And again, we're revising our code to make sure we're consistent with state law.

Any questions or comments on this legislation?

Okay, please call the roll on Council Bill 119-636.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Eight in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

So, Council Member Pacheco, you're off the hook.

Do I go there or stay here?

No, I could continue chairing.

Oh, okay.

I was, I missed a huge opportunity.

according to my staff, so my apologies.

So the bill passes and the Chair will sign it.

I just lost my rhythm here.

Was that number seven or was that number six?

SPEAKER_37

That was number six.

SPEAKER_21

That was number six.

So please call the roll on Council Bill 119637. Juarez.

SPEAKER_32

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sumwalt.

Aye.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Eight in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passes and the Chair will sign it.

Please read the next agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 21, Council Bill 119607 relating to heating oil.

The committee recommends that the bill pass as amended.

SPEAKER_19

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you colleagues.

I'm just going to take my surveillance hat on and put my climate change hat on or off and on.

This legislation was originally proposed by the mayor's office and I am very supportive of it.

This legislation essentially has a phase out of use of underground oil tanks in the current condition.

by the end of 2028. The intent is to, it would also have a tax placed on home heating oil of just under 25 cents a gallon.

For your reference, I'm told variously, I think the city's analysis shows that a typical homeowner would use about 500 gallons, I've heard from the oil oil distribution companies that their number is closer to 400 gallons.

So you can get that somewhere between $100 and $125 a year would be the cost of the tax for someone that's using a petroleum-based oil.

In committee, we amended the legislation to allow for an exemption for biofuels.

It's specific that the exemption would not apply to biofuels such as palm oil, which are produced in a way that actually is just as carbon intensive and damaging to the planet as petroleum.

But other biofuels such as recycled grease or biofuels produced more sustainably locally.

could be used, and to the extent they're used as a mix in the tank, the tax would be waived on the portion of biofuels that are in the tank.

So if you have a mix of 50-50 biofuels and petroleum oil, the tax would be half of what it would otherwise be.

If you have a mix of 99% biofuels and 1% or less of petroleum, then largely the tax would almost completely be eliminated.

The revenues from the tax would go to a number of things.

Primarily I want to highlight that folks that are currently on the, I should say, let me back up for a second.

Home heating oil is not a regulated utility the same as folks that heat with gas or heat with electricity.

We know that the city of Seattle has programs for low income homeowners that use electricity, whether it's for heating or for just other purposes, which I assume is just about everybody uses it.

Low income folks can apply to be on the utility discount program, which gives them a significant discount.

There are similar programs that Puget Sound Energy runs for gas customers, but there's no such mechanism to do so for oil heat.

And so what this would do is for people that currently heat with oil that are at the same income level as would qualify them for the utility discount program, they would be eligible for a significant investment from the tax proceeds to convert them completely to a ductless heat pump.

which would provide heating at a much more cost effective rate.

The analysis I've seen from the department shows that based on the current cost of heating oil, it costs about twice as much to fuel the heating furnace as it would for an electric furnace.

Additionally, we know the electric heat pumps also provide cooling in the summers or any time you need it.

And we're seeing more and more instances where high temperatures in Seattle have a health impact on folks.

And so the estimated a little over 1,000 people that currently qualify for the utility discount program would be eligible for these conversions.

In committee, we also amended it to allow folks making up to 80% of area mean income to be eligible for some form of discount.

Without raising the additional revenues, not everyone in that category will be eligible for the full conversion, as we mentioned, but there will be flexibility to continue to provide subsidies for folks that want to convert it at slightly higher income levels.

And there's also future opportunities for us to raise additional revenues.

I want to appreciate conversations we've had with a number of stakeholders, including folks from Teamsters 174, who represent some of the drivers that deliver oil, talking to the heating oil companies who You know, I believe the conversations I've had with everyone recognize the climate impacts, but also want to figure out what a transition looks like.

And so part of that transition was the amendment to allow biofuels not to be taxed, to allow that as a transition fuel for folks that choose to keep their oil furnace for a number of years.

but also, and work to ensure that there are opportunities for workers that may lose their jobs to be retrained and have similar union family wage jobs.

I wanna, if it's okay with you, Council President, turn to my colleague, Council Member Mesquita, who's been part of a lot of those discussions and really helpful in those discussions, and I believe has an amendment that she would like to put forward, and I support that.

SPEAKER_21

Please do.

Council Member Mosqueda, you have the floor.

SPEAKER_38

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'd like to move that we amend Council Bill 119607 by incorporating Amendment 1, and then I'll speak to the contents of it.

Second.

SPEAKER_21

It's moved and seconded.

Amendment number 1. Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_38

Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank the prime sponsor of this legislation for working with us and really echo my appreciation for the joint council, Teamsters Joint Council and Teamsters 174, along with some of our colleagues from the labor movement.

IBEW is in the house today, Building Construction Trades were here earlier, folks from UA32, the Plumbers and Pipefitters, Northwest Carpenters, and Building Construction Trades as a whole.

We have continued to say that folks within industries that will be impacted by a transition away from any industry need to have a just transition into a green new economy.

And I think that some of the language that you see in the legislation in front of you incorporates that and what we've tried to do with the amendment in Amendment 1 is to really underscore some key components that were brought to us from our partners and friends at the Teamsters, and I think correspond and really emphasize the importance of looking at the impact of workers themselves, residents within the city of Seattle, and figuring out how we ensure that there's both a just transition for those who are working in various industries and also for our lowest wage workers and communities of color.

So a huge amount of appreciation for the work that's included here.

There's a few components that I'll underscore in this amendment.

Really brought to us from the Teamsters through an equity perspective and by wanting to make sure that we underscore the risk assessment that's needed.

Number one, there's an acknowledgment that we need to fix the underground heating oil tanks and analyze if there's any environmental risk when they leak.

They pose a threat to soil, surface water, groundwater, and property.

Number two, there's language included in this amendment that really addresses the financial burden that some folks spoke to when they testified about the potential impact on middle income, low income, and fixed income households, including renters and seniors, which I know there's an amendment on later.

and look forward to supporting that as well.

And then as we convert to non-oil options that we are looking at addressing any financial burdens that come up.

Number three, we recognize that there is a Washington State Pollution Liability Protection Act, which helps those who use oil tanks transition and provide assistance for any financial hardship that might be related to oil tanks as we move over to electric options and that as those financial incentives are provided to our community, we as a city want to make sure that we're looking to see if there's any additional resources that we may need to support to fulfill any claims that are coming up from this transition.

Also, as I mentioned, there is language included that calls for a risk assessment of existing tanks and an equity analysis to be part of the implementation plan.

That's critical and it really came from our friends in the labor community who said we would love to see that incorporated in an implementation plan and that this information also be presented to the Green New Deal Oversight Board, which we just voted on recently.

Last few items, it calls for an outreach plan to include the perspective and feedback and any concerns from folks within the resident community, from the labor unions and also industry as we look at moving forward and doing the outreach.

And as we call for a just transition, it would not be just if we didn't include getting feedback on the number of individuals affected by any policy change.

So what you see in here is a report back to the city on the outcomes on workforce development, any feedback that we can get early on the potential impact on jobs, job losses, gains, and retention, making sure that we're looking at jobs in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning with a specific focus on workers represented by labor unions and good family wage jobs and making sure that As we transition, we're looking at the necessary support to make sure that folks have good living wage jobs in that green new economy.

So looking forward to working with you all as we get that feedback.

And lastly, thanks to Got Green, the Green New Deal work group, Council Member O'Brien again, Teamsters for your work on this policy.

I think that this helps us move forward with a really robust environmental policy without unintentionally leaving any workers behind.

So thanks again to the folks who worked with us and collaborated on this effort.

And I love to see it incorporated in the legislation.

SPEAKER_21

So that's just Amendment 1 that I'll describe as Amendment Number 1 to the Council Bill.

Any other questions on it?

I'll make sure that it has a second.

SPEAKER_19

I will second it if it's been moved.

SPEAKER_21

Okay so amendment one has been made and seconded by Council Member Gonzales.

All those in favor of amendment number one please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

So we have an amendment that's passed.

Council Member O'Brien you want to talk any more about the base legislation?

SPEAKER_19

I don't have any more, Council Member Herbold has a number of amendments that are before us, so why don't we pivot to Council Member Herbold and let her walk through her amendments.

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_30

I appreciate it very much.

So, I have three amendments here, amendments two, three, oh four amendments, two, three, 4 and 5. Just want to say for the record that the legislation requires the tax beginning on July 1st, 2020 as written, but it doesn't actually implement the requirements to decommission oil tanks.

That's going to be done, not only is it going to be done in the future, but there are a number of other code amendments that will have to be made in order to implement that.

So I just think it's really important to have some clarity about that for the record, because we've received a lot of questions about what exactly this piece of legislation does.

And so, of course, the requirement in the bill itself is that we're seeking OSC, SFD, the Office of Sustainability and Environment, Seattle Fire Department, and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to develop a plan and recommendation by July 21st, 2020, for purposes of the decommissioning goal that is contained in this legislation.

So as far as setting the stage for the amendments that I have, the concern I've heard from seniors and low-income residents about the impact of the legislation is really critically important, I think, to all of us.

OSC estimates that 36% of oil-heated households have residents that are seniors.

And of the participants in the utility discount program for these homes, 60% are estimated to be seniors.

And the funding for the conversion doesn't quite appear to add up yet, but we have time to get that right.

The sort of back of the envelope calculation at this point provides funding for 1,100 conversions, and that is based on the number of residents with heating oil who participate in the city light utility discount program, but citywide participation is about 30% of those eligible, so a lot fewer people participate than the number of people that are eligible, according to the report developed by the utilities.

that the council requested through last year's budget process.

So there is, I think, good reason to think that participation in this program will be significantly higher than this program being the program to fund decommission of oil tanks, that the number will be significantly higher than the number of people who participate in a program that is designed to help them pay their monthly utility bills.

The cost associated with decommissioning significantly higher, and so I think it's reasonable to anticipate that participation in a program that would help pay for that is going to be greater.

And so, you know, one of the things that that I think we're looking at here is that the utility discount program is set at 70% of median income for the state, whereas this legislation that's before us now provides assistance for those at 80% of the median Seattle area income so that more people will become eligible based on income.

This means if 3,000 households participate in the conversion program, it would require potentially an additional $10 million for the rebate program.

It would require a million or so, I'm sorry, the conversion program would require an additional $10 million and the rebate program would potentially require an extra million dollars.

And, you know, you may recall when we debated the tax on high incomes a couple years ago that's working its way through the courts, one of the items identified as a high priority for funding is the creation of green jobs and meeting a carbon reduction goal as a potential use of those funds.

So we have been thinking about this.

not just in this legislation, but we've been thinking about how to meet what are going to be costly expenses associated with meeting our carbon reduction goals.

So, to address all of this, I have Amendment 2 that would amend Council Bill 119607 to clarify that low-income households eligible for the rebate be at or below 80% area median income.

This amount is intended to offset the anticipated average increase due to the heating oil tax for households using oil heat.

The amendment in committee changed the threshold for conversion assistance to 80% area median income.

And this amendment would do the same for the rebate program because currently this section only refers to low-income households.

It does not define it.

So I'm seeking to have consistency for the definition of low income throughout the legislation both for the rebate program as well as for the funding of the conversion program.

OSCE had reached out just a little bit before we moved into full council about this particular amendment and they have requested that we create some flexibility around this proposed definition so that it instead identify as a goal that we have an analysis of the viability to extend the heating oil tax reimbursement to households whose income is between 70% state median income and 80% area median income.

Again, that would not create the type of consistency that I'm seeking.

And it is not consistent with the amendment in front of us right now.

And I am hesitant to request a suspension of the rules in order to consider language that we don't have in front of us.

But I'd like to just sort of open up for what other folks here would like to see done with this amendment number one.

SPEAKER_21

Or amendment number two, version one.

For it to be considered, I'll have to suspend the rules, but go ahead and you can speak to it if you'd like.

SPEAKER_19

I believe Council Member Herbold's amendments were in just before the deadline, so those need to be suspended.

SPEAKER_30

If I change it to reflect OSC's input, we would have to be deliberating language that we actually don't have before us.

SPEAKER_19

And I'm going to oppose this amendment as drafted, and I'll walk through that.

I will just say, for the record, I was able to share these with OSC as soon as I got them, which is about noon.

So they didn't have time to respond to us.

I sent them over the weekend, but that's OK.

Oh, OK.

I didn't hear back from them until right after that, but thank you there.

The concern that they shared with me that I share with them is that, We currently do not have any programs at the city where folks are qualified at an 80% of area mean income threshold.

And so the- Well, we will though, right?

So there's a distinction between a subsidy program for installing on a case by case basis as folks come forward.

And so what I've heard from OSC is they're comfortable setting up a system to verify folks to the standards that they're comfortable with.

The rebate program is run through Seattle City Light and it's an on bill rebate.

And the requirements, I don't believe, I'm not aware that anyone's discussed with City Light.

I don't think they're just going to take OSC's word for it because they have their own qualification programs and I think it would be prudent.

to have a conversation with City Light, what would it take to set up a verification program that meets the standards that they want to do for everyone who's qualified in that area to get an on-bill rebate?

And I think, I mean, the point you make, Council Member Herbold, is we're starting into this already, and I agree with that.

But that's why I would support the language that OSC proposed, which is do some further analysis on this.

Specifically it says, instead of what Councilmember Herbold put down, add to the reporting requirement that a third bullet item which says analysis of the viability to extend the heating oil tax reimbursement to households whose income is between 70% state median income and 80% area median income.

That assessment would include work with Seattle City Light to understand what a program would take.

allow them to better understand how much foregone tax revenue would be there, what that means, are there fewer people that would be eligible?

Is it significant enough that we would say we actually cannot fully convert people the same way we need to rethink that?

I think that's all important information to have in front of us before we make this decision.

And so something that allowed flexibility for a future decision to make, I can support, but I can't support this firm requirement without further weighing in.

Council Member Hurwitz.

SPEAKER_30

Thank you.

So I think Council Member Bryan's correct.

I think this is going to qualify a significantly higher number of people because not only are we talking about 80% median income, but we're talking about the area median income instead of the state median income.

And that's actually my goal is to make sure that a significantly higher number of people are qualified for this rebate program.

But all of that said, I don't have any objections to sort of putting a pin in the definition of low income since it is currently undefined in the legislation and getting some more information.

And under that situation, I would say that that would be a circumstance, Council President Harrell, that we would want to suspend the rules to consider that.

new text that has not been submitted by the deadline at noon today.

SPEAKER_19

What I would suggest, if we go down that path with others' approval, is that I would be happy to email what we have and where it goes to the clerk.

We could continue discussing these.

And then, thankfully, we have dozens of other items to consider on today's agenda.

And so hopefully, someone will be able to clean that up and bring us back something for final consideration at the end of the day.

That works for me.

SPEAKER_21

Okay so it sounds like I'd be willing to suspend the rules just because it's almost five o'clock I'm getting a little dizzy.

For us to consider that sounds like you will have some language for us and so I could move to the next agenda item is that the or you had other amendments to those right on this one so on that particular amendment we will table.

SPEAKER_30

It would be easier for the clerk if we waited for the whole bill or to

SPEAKER_19

Or should we vote on the amendment as described and we'll send the paperwork for someone to bring it?

I'm emailing it to Yolanda right now.

I'm not sure who's responsible to do that or should I send it to somebody else?

To who?

SPEAKER_21

Okay, so the first amendment described by Councilmember Herbold, I'm referring to that as amendment number two?

SPEAKER_30

It has not been moved, it has not been seconded, so we don't need to vote on it.

We have a replacement version that I guess we'll be working on in the next couple minutes.

SPEAKER_21

call that amendment number two that's baking so to speak.

So would you like to move number three?

SPEAKER_30

Thank you.

So amendment number three would amend council bill 119607 to add that the proposed implementation plan should consider exempting residents over the age of 65 from the proposed requirement that all heating oil storage tanks in Seattle be decommissioned or replaced with a modern tank by December 31st, 2028, and a plan to fully fund conversions from oil heating systems to electric systems for households at or below 80% AMI.

So, OSCE has explained that heat pumps can certainly provide for lower heating costs over the long run, and those reduced monthly costs can result in the conversion actually paying for itself over a period of time.

But elderly residents may not have the longevity in their homes in order to enjoy those future benefits and are more likely to be on fixed incomes.

So I want to ensure that the programs are funded, but I think it's really important that in participating in the programs that we don't have folks who we are saying on one hand will benefit from the decommissioning over time that don't actually have the opportunity to do so.

And so for that reason, the amendment would again exempt residents over the age of 65.

SPEAKER_19

So I have some concerns about this because the amendment actually just says we should consider a plan if it doesn't actually exempt them.

I'm comfortable with moving forward.

My concern is, one, certainly folks over the age of 65 who are high net worth individuals, I think, should continue to follow this and I think kind of an income threshold is important.

The other point that I want to, which exists already, we have income thresholds for PASS.

This legislation is closely tied to the state funding through something called the, what is it, Pollution Liability Insurance Agency.

What this agency does, it was created because in the case where oil tanks had leaked, a decommissioning of an oil tank typically costs, I believe, around $500 to $700.

If folks find that the oil tank has leaked, then there's required soil remediation.

And I'm told that can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

And so someone who budgets to go in and...

convert from oil to something else, and they get their tank commissioned, and partway through it, they realize they have this massive bill.

There were some problems.

One, for folks that went through with it, it was really expensive.

I believe there were also concerns that people would kind of try to cover up the leak because they just had no way to afford it, and that meant the pollution stayed in the ground.

So this agency was created to ensure folks against that.

It's an insurance pool.

It doesn't actually cost anything to join.

You just simply have to register, so it's a unique type of insurance.

That agency ends at the beginning of 2030. And there's a finite number of dollars that are allocated in the state legislature each year.

This program with the deadline of 2020 is designed to get all Seattle residents in to be considering these decommissionings before that insurance pool ceases to exist.

And one of my concerns is this, it may have an unintended consequence of allowing some seniors to postpone a decision to decommission a tank.

until a later date at which point there may no longer be the insurance fund to help them deal with the what could potentially be tens of thousands of dollars of soil remediation if it came.

So again the amendment because it is it says we should consider it I am happy to support it just with clarity that I would want the department to look at the complexities around both continuing to have an income threshold for folks, even if they're seniors, maybe it's a different one, I don't know.

And also what that might mean to folks that pushed on beyond the limit of the timeline of the insurance agency.

SPEAKER_21

So did I hear an amendment and a second through that discussion?

SPEAKER_30

I will move amendment three to council bill 119607.

SPEAKER_21

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member O'Brien had expressed his support, but with some asterisks behind it.

Council Member Pacheco, you wanted to make some comments?

SPEAKER_20

Sure.

So I will not be supporting the amendment.

And I just want to just really quickly give some thoughts about just not just this amendment, but the other amendments in the discussion around the heating oil tax in itself.

I am very, very sensitive to the issues of job loss that have been discussed and brought forth by labor.

I said to folks, my dad had lost his job twice over the last three years.

And so I know those worries and those concerns are very real and intimate.

And as such, I treat them with the utmost regard.

am concerned with creating additional exemptions or with the legislation in itself because fiscally, with the direction that the bill has gone, it may have some unintended consequences as we move forward.

I thought And I said to some stakeholders that I think that the tax probably, and this is very unfortunate because of the tax structure by which we operate, I thought the tax might need to be a little bit bigger to help subsidize the increase and the exemptions that we've created in addition to recognizing and being cognizant of the fact that we need funds and we need to start establishing funds to retrain workers and those union jobs that may potentially be lost as a result.

So that said, OSC also and central staff stated in committee that no other home investments do we evaluate as needing to have an ROI except for environmental and weatherization upgrades.

I heard the actions and the voices of the young people who were protesting on Friday and demanding and calling on all of us as leaders to do what we can to Make action on climate change that much more real and move quicker That said I cannot support this amendment and nor can I support delaying implementation of this legislation Because I do think that we need to be moving faster and be doing more that we can to both help communities transfer in their conversion to these new weatherization efforts as well as electric heating efforts.

And so I would like to support the underlying legislation as is.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

So we have an amendment number three.

Would anyone else like to make comments before I call on the vote for amendment number three that's been moved and seconded?

Okay, Council Member Juarez.

SPEAKER_35

I'm sorry, could you just clarify Amendment 3 one more time?

SPEAKER_21

Sure.

SPEAKER_35

I'm going between 2 and the 80% AMI, that's the one we're focusing on, not the actual Amendment 3, which is the extent implementation from July to September 2020. We're on 2?

Amendment 3 is the amendment that asks for

SPEAKER_30

the implementation plan to consider some things, as we've discussed.

It doesn't actually create any exemptions.

It asks, and if I was unclear about that, I apologize.

It asks that OSC consider exempting residents over the age of 65. And it includes a reference to the implementation plan to come back to us with information on how to fully fund conversions for households at or below 80% area median income.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, thank you.

And Council Member O'Brien's asterisks are duly noted.

Okay, we're going to vote on amendment number three as described by Council Member Herbold.

All those in favor of amendment number three, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

SPEAKER_30

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

be on September 1st, that same year, 2020, just two months later.

And the reason is that I'd really like the council to have a couple months to ensure the numbers add up from the July 1st, 2020 receipt of the implementation report.

That's the date we're supposed to be getting that report.

Along with Council Member Mosqueda's amendment, this could help address labor concerns.

And I think it's good public policy to have a little bit of time with the report that is linked to the need for this particular tax.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

SPEAKER_19

A delay.

Council Member O'Brien, would you like to respond?

I will be opposing this.

I understand the concerns.

Fairly confident we're not going to report back that we're collecting too much money to fund all the things that we would like to fund in here.

And by delaying it for a couple months, that's just less revenue that we will be able to collect.

I would be open to an alternate of accelerating the reporting date if we wanted to see that sooner.

But I believe from all the preliminary data I've seen is that we will have enough funding to fund those lowest income, the little over 1,000 folks that we believe would qualify for UDP.

And we have some funding to do some things for that next tranche of folks.

And it'd be great to have additional revenue, whether it's from this or likely from some other sources, to do that.

But I don't think that report's going to do justice.

And I think simply stalling, putting on a tax on these petroleum products is that.

And I don't think that makes sense at this moment.

SPEAKER_30

I just want to add that part of what we accomplished in Council Member Mosqueda's amendment is that the plan would also include risk assessment, racial equity analysis, as well as making sure that our new Green New Deal Oversight Board gets a copy of the plan.

And I think that's all.

I don't think it's pro forma information that we're asking for and going to be receiving.

And again, I think it's appropriate for us to have a couple months to consider it.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, so we heard the lively debate on extending it from 7-1 and 9-1.

I'll take it in a form of a motion.

Do we need to discuss that anymore?

Any questions of the maker?

Council Member Gonzalez?

SPEAKER_29

Yeah, just really quickly.

I think I'd be interested in hearing from Council Member Herbold her response to Council Member O'Brien's point that, sorry, that a two-month delay has a significant fiscal impact on the amount of the tax revenue collected.

Do you have a sense, Council Member Herbold, of what the fiscal analysis is here?

I do not.

SPEAKER_21

Okay.

Okay.

So, Council Member, will you make a motion so it can be seconded, please?

SPEAKER_30

I move amendment four.

Seconded.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Moved and seconded.

All those in favor of amendment number four, say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, say no and raise your hand.

No.

It passes.

So, amendment...

Six to two.

Six to two it passes.

Amendment number four passes.

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_30

Thank you.

Amendment number five, hopefully, will be pretty easy.

It's just a recital recognizing the potential global warming impacts of hydrofluorocarbons in refrigerants used in consumer appliances, such as electric heat pumps, and the council's commitment to advocate for statewide legislation to expedite the reduction of HFCs with high global warming potential.

We know that the state legislature passed and the governor signed into law.

Senate House Bill, I'm sorry, Substitute House Bill 1122, which adopted regulations to reduce the use of HFCs in refrigerants, particularly those that have the highest global warming potential.

This bill did not include heat pumps, which prohibit the use of HFCs in heat by January 1st, 2020. And so this amendment would state the council's support for statewide legislation to expedite the reduction of HFCs with high global warming potential, and specifically calling out the need to address the issue as it relates to heat pumps.

SPEAKER_21

Customer Brian, is this a friendly one?

SPEAKER_19

It's a recital, so I'm fine with that.

I think that a lot of this has been addressed in the state law.

I don't know, I'm not an authority to speak to the points that Council Member Herbold is, but I know she's always very thorough in the things she does, so I take her at her word there.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, so is there a second?

Did you make the form of motion amendment?

SPEAKER_30

I move amendment five related to hydrofluorocarbons.

SPEAKER_21

Amendment number five is moved and seconded.

All those in favor of amendment number five say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

That's unanimous.

We're going to be looping back now to number two.

Let me just get there.

SPEAKER_30

That'll work.

SPEAKER_36

All right, thank you.

SPEAKER_30

That does the trick.

For the public record, this Amendment 2, Version 2, amends Council Bill 119607 to request that the Office of Sustainability and Environment assess the viability of increasing the number of low-income households that use oil heat eligible for the $120 annual reimbursement to all households at or below 80% AMI median income.

SPEAKER_21

I don't just keep it alive.

I'm sorry Okay, so unless there's objection I'm going to suspend the rules to consider this it has been reviewed by law and Councilmember Herbert, why don't you make that a form of motion?

We'll get a second and just so we could dispense of that part.

SPEAKER_30

Absolutely I move amendment to version 2. Second.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, so moved and seconded.

Councilmember O'Brien.

I already spoke this morning.

Appreciate your flexibility comes memorable.

Okay, any other comments?

All those in favor of amendment number two raise your hand and say aye.

Aye Opposed the ayes have it And I think we've got through all the amendments Okay, so I'm gonna turn it back to councilmember O'Brien and see if you'd like any closing remarks A couple comments I want to make one

SPEAKER_19

This is an important piece of legislation.

I appreciate the Mayor's leadership on this.

I appreciate stakeholder engagement on this.

Folks have stuck around here for over three hours now just to get to this point.

When we talk about making a transition to a clean energy economy that provides opportunities for increased union and family wage jobs in that new clean energy economy.

It's an amazing opportunity and it's hard work and we went through a lot of work on this piece of legislation which affects the fraction of folks that live in Seattle and we have a lot more work to do and I just it's it's it's work and we're gonna have to keep engaging this work I really appreciate folks who've engaged in this to get to where we are.

I also want to say thank you to Yolanda on central staff.

Central staff in general has been doing amazing work for the past few weeks as a number of us have Squeezed in a number of extra committee meetings and and they haven't even started their budget work which starts today And so I'm just extremely grateful for folks Including Yolanda's work to get the amendment back in time for all of us to vote on it today.

So Colleagues appreciate your engagement on this and look forward to more future work in the few months.

SPEAKER_21

I have left Thank you, Councilmember Bryan Councilmember Mosqueda, would you like to see some comments?

SPEAKER_38

Thank you, Mr. President.

Again, I said this earlier, but given the sausage-making we just went through on making amendments, I want to underscore my appreciation for Councilmember O'Brien's willingness to incorporate numerous stakeholder suggestions and feedback.

My intent is to always make sure that we have a conversation directly with folks to make sure that we're getting that feedback, and you've been very, very open to including that feedback.

So I want to say thank you and also recognize that this is one of many items on the to-do list before the end of the year and a piece of a broader package that we know one item alone is not going to address the climate issues that we see.

And so I think this is a great example of how you personally and professionally have been reaching out to try to get some feedback directly from those directly affected.

So looking forward to working with you.

I really do hope that even though we did some sausage making up here, that the takeaway from today is that when we include the folks at the table, which in all honesty, I think, The mayor's office could have incorporated prior to sending down the legislation so that we had less of that to do on our end That we do get a better product in the end so really excited about some of the work that you've done and my understanding is that with the amendments that we've included today that you and I had the chance to work on over the last week with the feedback and direction from the teamsters There's not opposition.

In fact, I think this is a good model for how we continue to bring folks together.

So thank you for those nods of affirmation and for your ongoing work to make sure that we move forward and don't delay and incorporate that workforce and union perspective in the language.

Thanks again for your hard work on this.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Council Member Muscata.

Council Member Pacheco.

SPEAKER_20

I just really want to quickly highlight, you know, these conversations are not easy and they're just going to get harder.

The decisions and the lack of inaction on a federal level, even internationally, makes every decision that we make moving forward that much harder.

And I want to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge the emails that I've been receiving all day with the headline, it was only three days ago.

And all the young people that marched and protested and everyone that asked us to move forward and move as quickly and expeditiously as possible with regards to this issue.

These choices will not be easy and quite frankly, I want to acknowledge how difficult those choices are, because it means for us as a society to be moving forward.

It means so many trade-offs.

It means, given the fact that we live in a regressive tax structure, those that would be most impacted by any increase in taxes are going to be low-income communities of color.

these decisions by the Green New Deal board will be difficult.

It's why I try to make sure that it was as inclusive as possible so that we had as many voices at the table when we make these decisions and we balance these tradeoffs so that the council can make the best informed decision given the variety of perspectives.

But I hope my colleagues will take today's conversation and continue it and keep moving us forward in the direction.

As I say to many folks, I not only have a responsibility to you, but I have a responsibility to your kids and your grandkids.

And so it is with that responsibility that I take the decisions that I take and the actions that I make.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Councilman Pacheco.

Any other closing comments from any of our colleagues before we vote?

Okay.

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

SPEAKER_32

Morris.

Aye.

Musqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Swan.

Aye.

Bankshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Eight in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passed in share of assignment.

Okay, let's go back to our agenda order.

Please read the next agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

The report of the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee agenda item two, appointment 1428, appointment of Emily L. Alvarado as Director of the Office of Housing.

The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Mosqueda, and thank you for your patience.

SPEAKER_38

Thank you for your patience, Mr. President and council colleagues, and thanks to Emily Alvarado for her patience and her interest in serving as our next Office of Housing Director.

Emily Alvarado's appointment came to our committee in the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee from the mayor's office, and I have to tell you the testimony that we heard today was just a snippet of the enthusiasm that we heard from community.

People are very excited about the work that she has done as interim executive director and the past work that she did at the city of Seattle working on affordable housing and equitable development for over a decade.

You can tell that she has a lot of respect in the community from folks who came to testify today.

And again, as I mentioned in council briefing this morning, if you listen to her comments in our committee last week, you will hear a compassionate call for equitable investments, especially in the lowest wage workers housing and to making sure that as we do development in the city that it is driven and informed by the community most at risk for displacement.

So I encourage folks to take a look at that because I was ready to to stand up and give her a standing ovation.

Honestly, the process that we've incorporated had much of your fingerprints on it.

Colleagues, last year we asked for a really robust process for including stakeholder feedback from the interview process to identifying finalists and then getting those community partners to have a role in interviewing folks.

And I think you can tell from those conversations the role in which community has in identifying a strong leader really resonated.

And I really am thankful to the mayor for nominating Emily Alvarado to be our next Office of Housing Director.

She is knowledgeable about Seattle housing needs.

She possesses a strong appreciation for the role of permanent and affordable housing.

and social inclusion, using housing as a tool to reduce poverty and creating healthier and more resilient communities.

And she has the expertise, the knowledge, and the relationships, importantly, to make sure that as we move forward in the city to address our crippling housing crisis, that we really include deeply affordable homes and center our conversations and policy by those experiencing displacement and the lack of affordable housing.

So she is still here in the audience with us, and I think that that's a testament to her tenacity and interest in serving in this position.

Thank you, Mr. President.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Ms. Alvarado.

You learned a lot about surveillance technology and oil heat legislation, so you got to bang for the buck here.

Council Member Bagshaw.

SPEAKER_36

Great, thank you.

Emily, it's with great pleasure that I support you in this, and I know I spoke at the committee how much we appreciate you, all the work that you have done.

And my council colleagues who weren't there, maybe you know this, maybe you don't, but Emily, as an attorney, and when she was at the UW Law School, She received one of the most highly competitive and full rides there from the Gates Foundation Public Service Award.

So I want to just tell you how much I appreciated learning about that and didn't know about that scholarship and reward award that you received.

And it just speaks volumes.

And during the committee meeting, the number of people in our community who stood up and said, you are absolutely the right choice.

It's just stunning to know how much support you have.

So congratulations, and I'm just excited to be voting for you.

SPEAKER_19

Customer O'Brien.

I similarly am thrilled.

I am struggling with all sorts of things in my own head as my last few months wrap up here in the city, and I know there's a lot of amazing folks up here that will hopefully carry on the good work that this council has done.

But I would be lying if I said I didn't have some concerns about my role and where the city goes when I'm gone, and I know that Emily's appointment is gonna make me sleep better at night because I know that the city is in good hands.

And not that your work isn't cut out for you, but I have the utmost faith that there's not anyone I know of that would do a better job stewarding the amazing work that the Office of Housing has done to date.

And it's one of the departments of the city that I'm most impressed with.

And I feel just so excited that I get a chance to vote on your appointment before my time runs out here.

Thank you for serving.

Thank you, Council Member O'Brien.

Council Member Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_29

Well, thank you, Council President.

I'd like to commemorate the moment by giving a 20-minute speech.

Just kidding.

I'm definitely not going to do that.

Really quickly, I've had the pleasure of knowing Emily for quite some time, having come up through the law school ranks.

kind of around the same time and I first met Emily when I was working for the mayor's office in 2014 and was always inconsistently blown away by her preparedness, her commitment, but more importantly her vision and her principle and her willingness to give us tough information or news when she knew we wanted to hear otherwise.

And so I think that that is an important quality to have as a director in the role of Office of Housing Director is a tall and important task.

And it's one that I think that Emily has all of the characteristics and skill sets to be able to rise to the occasion.

So I'm looking forward to seeing how you grow in this role.

And also, it should be noted that Emily Alvarado is a resident of District 1 and is my neighbor.

So if that's not enough, I don't know what is.

SPEAKER_21

Congratulations.

So you have to recuse yourself?

Is that what you're saying?

SPEAKER_29

Absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

SPEAKER_30

Congratulations, Emily.

SPEAKER_21

Any other comments?

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_30

Thank you.

I just want to real quickly say among the many things I appreciate and value about Emily is where she comes from and I think it's really important that we have people in decision-making roles that come from a place of pushing City Hall to do more.

I think that ensures that we have a steward of the Office of Housing that knows how to push us all together forward, but also knows how to work with organizations whose job and mission is to push us forward.

And I think that's really incredibly important in trying to ensure that we're all collaborating.

you know, really somebody who appreciates that role that folks on the outside have in their expectations for us to do more.

So rather than seeing it as a hassle or, you know, a thorn in our back, I think Emily knows how to, knows that the voices that are outside of City Hall expecting more of us actually help us all do our job better if we didn't have them.

So I really appreciate that history and that value for those that sort of, the value of that position that Emily holds.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you very much.

Okay, great comments.

I think I counted five.

So I think you're looking pretty good here.

Any other comments from the dais?

Okay, if not, I'm going to call for a vote.

Those in favor of confirming the appointment, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

Motion carries.

The appointment is confirmed.

And give her a hand.

Ms. Alvarado, it's not required, but if you'd love to share a few remarks with us at 530 on a Monday, I might add, please do.

And it's absolutely my pleasure in supporting you as well.

SPEAKER_28

Thank you.

I'll be brief.

Good afternoon, or evening, everybody.

Thanks again for your confidence in me, and thank you to Mayor Durkin for appointing me.

As you've heard from other people, I am passionate about housing.

Housing is a human right, and when we invest in affordable housing, we improve the lives of so many individuals and families.

But we also improve the life of the city as a whole, because housing is our healthcare, it is our education, housing is our economic resilience, and it's our climate resilience.

And housing is also essential urban infrastructure.

And if we leave it to the market alone, it will be infrastructure for only a few.

And I believe together we can build an infrastructure of equity and inclusion for generations to come.

For people on a fixed income, for people exiting homelessness, for low-wage workers, and for middle-income households, and across the city.

And as director, I am really excited and honored to work with the fabulous staff at the Office of Housing, the community partners who we have, and with all of you, to advance racial equity, to scale up our investments in low-income housing, to promote middle-income housing, and to address displacement.

And again, I thank you for your confidence.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_21

Wow.

Very good.

One of the best confirmation speeches I've ever heard.

Thank you very much.

Okay, please read the next agenda item.

I will remind our colleagues that if you do feel a need to take a short break, I could have called for a recess.

That's what I was contemplating, but we're gonna keep trying to plow through it.

But if you have personal needs you have to attend to, we'll work around it.

As long as we have a quorum here, we should be okay.

So please read the next agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item three, Council Bill 119654, relating to hotel employees' health and safety.

Repealing Chapter 14.25 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Esqueda.

SPEAKER_38

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

This will be short.

Thanks for all of your past support on the four pieces of legislation that we just passed related to the hotel worker protections.

As we celebrate, we also have one technical item we still have to address, which is the fact that the legislation from Initiative 124 is still on the books.

and while those protections are not in place pending the ongoing court ruling, we do have two, in some places, conflicting sets of policies on the books, and we wanna make sure that we strike the original provisions of Initiative 124 so that when the four pieces of legislation on hotel worker legislation is signed into law, there is no conflict.

With that, we'd recommend passage of Council Bill 119654, as suggested from my Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Any questions or comments on this legislation?

SPEAKER_36

Okay.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

You've done a great job.

SPEAKER_21

Alright, there you go.

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passed and the chair was silent.

Please read the next agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item four, Council Bill 119615 relating to the multi-family housing property tax exemption program.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_38

Thank you, Mr. President.

We're really excited about this piece of legislation.

This is the MFTE, or Multifamily Tax Incentive Program, that we have the opportunity of updating every four years.

We've had three conversations in our committee about this and engaged with stakeholders over the last two months.

As folks know, the MFTE program is a fixture of Seattle's affordable housing portfolio.

It's aimed at incentivizing or creating more middle-income housing through tax exemptions for new development.

However, I want to underscore this is a voluntary program that the city is authorized to administer under the state's provisions.

And it's important to note that in exchange for a tax exemption, new residential development projects are required to set aside a portion of units at rents affordable two families making between 60 to 80 percent of the area median income.

So as we had the opportunity to look at the legislation in light of the changing demographics and increasing population size in Seattle, we took the opportunity to ask questions about what we could do to improve the incentives to make it more affordable for folks and to make it truly worth the public benefit of foregoing those tax dollars.

Here's something that we did in this legislation based on data, based on feedback from stakeholders.

We said we knew that the region had an increase in population, especially in folks who are making high-wage incomes.

And we know that those high-wage incomes have skewed the area median income in the area.

Meaning that somebody who used to be at let's say 65% of the area median income last year was actually making the exact same amount but was making 60% of the area median income now.

This is a really important element to consider when we think about who we're trying to incentivize the creation of these affordable units for and We want to make sure that this tool is generating more affordable units for middle-income households.

And we did go through the robust process of talking with private development, talking with non-profit developers in the community, working with labor and working with housing advocates to identify a few possible ways to better calibrate the incentive that we are offering in the MFTE program with our goals of creating more affordable housing units.

And different size units in the market, so there's a few things that we incorporated based on those conversations with labor housing and nonprofit and Market rate developers number one is we worked with central staff and found that there is an opportunity to slightly lower the affordable affordability threshold for some unit sizes so that one bedrooms and and studios have more incentives to be affordable for our community.

Our analysis, and thanks again to central staff for working on this over the last few months, indicates that this change that we've proposed in the legislation would not have a significant impact on participation in the MFTE program.

Number two, we worked with our labor partners on ways to advance labor standards in this legislation.

Though we want to do more, there is some limitations on what we can do at the city level, and so we've included a nod to potential future labor standard changes that may happen at the state level.

Here in this legislation, we've directed the Office of Housing to include in their annual reporting any changes including labor standards at the state level impacting MFTE and recommended policy structures, and have directed the executive to collect data related to labor equity goals from participating projects so we can better understand the labor dynamics of the program, how many folks are getting good living wage jobs on these programs, and advanced labor equity efforts through the MFTE program.

So we wish our friends luck in their conversations at the state level, for example, on including prevailing wage in the MFT program, but that is not something that's incorporated in this legislation at this point.

And finally, we have updated our annual reporting requirements to make sure that we at City Council get a better understanding and more Frequent information about changes in the market so that we can do a better job of responding not just every four years But ongoing actually twice a year.

We're going to get an analysis an analysis of the housing market conditions recommended policy changes especially if there's a significant downturn or upturn in the market state-level changes as we talked about and and demographic data of who is living in our MFTE units to better understand are we serving our goals of creating more equitable, affordable, and inclusive housing throughout the city with this program.

If we're going to forego, again, those tax dollars, we want to make sure it's going to the public good and that will help us with that.

And that concludes my remarks, Mr. President.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.

Any questions or comments?

If not, please call the roll.

On the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Whereas.

O'Brien, Pacheco, Sawant, Begshaw, Gonzalez, Herbold, President Harrell.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

SPEAKER_36

I'm going to take a quick break.

I hope that we can revisit five, six, and seven.

SPEAKER_21

Yeah, I'm sure you do.

Please read the next agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

We report that the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee agenda item 8, Clerk File 314359, an application of Matt Driscoll to rezone approximately 4,320 square foot site located at 4730 15th Avenue NE.

Committee recommends that the application be granted as conditioned.

SPEAKER_20

So, colleagues, this is a contract rezone application for 4730 15th Avenue Northeast on the east side of 15th Avenue in the University District.

The rezone would take the parcel from Low Rise 3 to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 65-foot height limit and would fill in the gap in the block that was left after the rest of the block face was rezoned.

The rezone will facilitate the development of a 127-unit apartment building with ground floor retail.

The PLEZ committee recommended amended this application to increase the MHA requirements to the correct level which will require 9% of units be affordable or that developer pay $20 per square foot.

I move to grant clerk file 314359 as conditioned.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Any other questions or comments?

So those in favor of granting the petition as conditioned, Please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries.

The chair will sign the findings, conclusions, and decision of the council.

Please read the next agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

The report of the City Council, agenda item 9, Council Bill 119651, Relating to Land Use and Zoning, amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 60 and 61. The committee recommends, excuse me, no recommendation.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Pacheco.

SPEAKER_20

So this is the council bill associated with the previous contract rezone.

It just grants the rezone and accepts the property use and development agreement.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

I'll move to pass council bill 11965102nd.

Second.

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bigshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Five in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

Bill passed and shared with Senate.

Please read 10 and 11, please.

Council Member Bagshaw, can you call the roll on the, can you extend the roll on the passage of the last bill?

SPEAKER_32

Six in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

There we go.

Now, can you Can you read items 10 and 11 into the record, please?

SPEAKER_25

Agenda items 10 and 11, Council Bill 119649, approving and confirming the plant of Raymond Place in portions of the Southwest Corridor in the Southwest Corridor section 22. Excuse me, agenda item 11, clerk file 314378, full unit lot subdivision application of Black Hawk Investment LLC to subdivide one parcel into 14 unit lots at 5936 Avenue South.

Council Member Chico.

SPEAKER_20

Colleagues, this is the final plat approval ordinance of the 14-unit Raymond Place subdivision in the Othello neighborhood.

Our action today follows SDCI permit approvals, preliminary plat approval by the hearing examiner, development of the project, and final review by SDOT and SDCI.

SDOT and SDCI confirm that all conditions have been met and recommend that council grant final approval.

This is the property located at 5936 Avenue South in Othello, a half block west of MLK Way.

It's approximately 13,329 square feet.

Originally zoned for low-rise three, it was rezoned under MHA to neighborhood commercial two with a 75-foot height limit.

And it's dividing the two lots into 14 lots for townhouses with vehicular access provided through an alley.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you very much.

And you described both the bill and the clerk file in your description, correct?

SPEAKER_20

The clerk bill.

SPEAKER_21

Yes, so we have the bill and the clerk file.

Those both were read into the record.

SPEAKER_20

Yes, sorry.

SPEAKER_21

So I'll take them individually.

So on the council bill 119649, I will move to pass council bill 119649. Moved and seconded.

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Begshaw?

Aye.

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

President Harrell?

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

Bill passed and Chair will sign it.

I will move to accept and file Clerk File 314378. Those in favor of accepting and filing the Clerk File, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries and the clerk file has been accepted and filed.

Very good.

So please read items 12 through 16.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda items 12 through 16. Appointments 1430 through 1434. Appointment Echuela Minor as member of Seattle Housing Authority Board of Commissioners for a term to September 30th, 2022. Appointment Michael Diaz as member of Seattle Housing Authority Board of Commissioners for a term to March 20th, 2023. Reappointments of Robert D. Cutchfield and Paul Purcell as members of the Housing Authority Board for a term to December 1st, 2022. And reappointment of Gerald Smiley as a member of the Housing Authority Board for a term to March 19th, 2023. The committee recommends that these appointments be confirmed.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Pacheco.

SPEAKER_20

Colleagues, these are five appointments to the Seattle Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

Their appointment packets are in the agenda items, and we are hoping to get full approval of the five appointments.

SPEAKER_21

And Council Member Mosqueda, would you like to?

make some comments too.

SPEAKER_38

I'd be happy to.

Thank you Councilmember Pacheco for your support.

These are five appointments to the Seattle Housing Authority Board that came through the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee.

The first is appointment of Twyla Miner as a member She is an exemplary, sorry, she provides an exemplary service to the community as a member of the Denny Terrace community.

She runs the feeding ministry at Greater Mount Baker Church, is an active volunteer for emergency feeding programs of Seattle.

in King County and collects donations to help stock the emergency feeding warehouse for the last five years.

She's been a resident of the Seattle Housing Authority since 2001. The appointment of Michael Diaz is coming before us as well as a new member.

Michael was formerly an employee of Plymouth Housing Group, where he oversaw the rental housing office and has been a resident of the Seattle Housing Authority since 2016. And then we have three reappointments.

The reappointment of Robert Crutchfield For his second term, serving on the authority board, he was an adjunct professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Washington, an honorary professor of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Queensland, Australia.

We have the reappointment of Paul Purcell, who would be serving for his second term as well.

He is a founder and strategic advisor of the Beacon Development Group, where he has overseen development of over 80 projects, totaling about $900 million of investments in affordable housing for clients across Washington.

And finally, the reappointment of Gerald Smiley.

This would be Gerald's second term.

He's a laborer from Local 242, organizes with the Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition, and labors Local 242, and is the owner of Big League Prep Free mobile app, where he provides training for youth coaches, and he is a Puget Sound SAGE board member.

Committee recommends appointments of 1430 through 1434 be confirmed.

SPEAKER_21

All right.

Any other comments on any of these appointments?

Those in favor of confirming the appointments, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries and appointments are confirmed.

Please read the report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee.

SPEAKER_25

The report of the Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee, agenda item 17, Council Bill 119648, relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation, authorizing the superintendent to amend the existing 10-year lease with the Seattle Children's Play Garden to add a third additional extended term of five years.

Committee recommends the bill pass.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Juarez.

SPEAKER_35

Great, thank you Madam Clerk.

As you stated, this is a parks bill that authorizes the superintendent to amend the existing 10-year lease.

This program opens more recreational opportunities for children with physical challenges.

It's centrally located at Coleman Playfield, which is an ideal place for a specialized recreational facility.

The Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee recommends full council pass this ordinance.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Any questions or comments?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant?

Bagshaw?

Aye.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

President Harrell?

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Six in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

Bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Please read the next agenda item.

Short title.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 18, Council Bill 119655 relating to the Seattle Monorail approving a letter of agreement between the Seattle Monorail Services LLC and the Seattle Center Department.

Committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

SPEAKER_35

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

If we could all sing the Monorail song from the Simpsons as I read this, that would be great.

This would approve a letter of agreement between Seattle Monorail Services and Seattle Center and would authorize the Seattle Center Director to negotiate and execute an amendment to the monorail concession agreement.

The biggest piece of this for me is the implementation of the ORCA program as an option to use on the monorail, which will begin October 2019. I sponsored an amendment that requires Director Nellams to report back to committee to finalize the agreement, if he finalizes the agreement.

The Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee recommends full council pass Council Bill 119-655 as amended.

SPEAKER_21

Is there any questions or comments?

Council Member Baxhaw.

SPEAKER_36

Quickly, thank you.

Council Member Juarez, wonderful job on this.

I want to acknowledge Robert Nellums and Tom Albro.

I think at one point we, I know this went on for a very long time, And I think at one point we just suggested throw the lawyers out of the room and have a beer summit.

Since 2014. And it worked.

So anyway, thank you for your help.

Yep, got it done.

SPEAKER_21

Those are our comments.

Let's call the roll on the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bankshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passed and the chair was signed.

Please read agenda item number 19.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 19, Council Bill 119647, authorizing the General Manager, CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Seattle and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

It can be recommended that the bill pass.

SPEAKER_21

Ms. Moraes.

SPEAKER_35

Thank you.

And as Madam Clerk stated, this is an ordinance to execute a Memorandum of Agreement.

The City owns a collection of 12,000 artifacts that were obtained between 1986 and 1989 as part of the Cultural Resource Mitigation Plan developed for safety improvements to the Cedar Masonry Dam and construction.

The collection contains artifacts like projectile points, cores, cobblestones, flakes, and fire-altered rock, representing approximately 10,000 years of human habitation.

The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe desires to obtain, house, and maintain nine pieces that hold historic and cultural significance for the Muckleshoot Nation and other tribes in the region.

The committee recommends full council pass Council Bill 119647. Thank you, Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_21

Any questions or comments?

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

SPEAKER_32

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bangshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passed and the Chair will sign it.

Please read agenda item number 20.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 20, appointment 1426, appointment of Andrea C. Akita as a member of Saddle Park District Community Oversight Committee for term to March 31st, 2022. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Juarez.

SPEAKER_35

Thank you.

This appointment is a role that represents District 2, Council President Harrell's District, for the Parks District Oversight Committee.

The PDOC provides advice to the Mayor, City Council, and the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation related to Seattle Park District's project and programs.

Andrea currently serves on the Board of Park Commissioners, so Andrea sees this as an opportunity to bridge the important work between the two entities.

Andrea has rich history in both the nonprofit and private sector to bring to the table, her knowledge of social justice issues and affordable housing, and her understanding of how the city works will allow her to be a value-added member to enrich the committee discussions.

The Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee recommends full council confirm this appointment.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

Now, those in favor of confirming the appointment, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries and appointment is confirmed.

Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee, the short title.

SPEAKER_25

The agenda item 22, Council Bill 119653 relating to the city's traffic code.

Conforming the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law, the committee recommends the bill pass.

SPEAKER_19

Customer O'Brien.

This is a cleanup code that we go through periodically to just make sure that our city codes are consistent with state law.

Okay.

SPEAKER_21

Do you want to read, are all of these the cleanup?

Are all these clean?

No, they're not.

So let's just take this one one at a time.

So any questions or comments on item number 22?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Juarez?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Zawad?

Aye.

Bankshaw?

Aye.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

President Harrell?

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Please read agenda item number 23.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda 23, Council Bill 119652 relating to citations and penalties in the street and sidewalk use code.

Committee recommends the bill pass.

SPEAKER_19

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

So this one's a little bit different.

This is essentially changing the penalties for folks that operate in the right of way.

This covers a wide range of folks for different operations.

So this is sidewalk, from sidewalk cafes on up to major construction projects where they're taking a sidewalk and a lane of traffic.

This is an attempt to just recalibrate those fees, in part to just recognize it's been a number of years since we've done that.

In part also to recognize that for some of the large construction projects, it started to feel like the fees were just an easily paid cost of doing business.

So we're seeing some increases there because we really want compliance, not payment on those.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Thank you, Kessler and Bratton.

Any questions or comments?

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

SPEAKER_32

Juarez?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Lacheyko?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Bankshaw?

Aye.

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

President Harrell?

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

Bill passes and the Chair will sign it.

Please read item number 24.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 24, Council Bill 119622, relating to pedestrian and business interactions in the public place.

The committee recommends the bill passes as amended.

SPEAKER_19

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

So this would change the standards for things like licensing street cafes.

It redefines what's the pedestrian clear zone, which is the space between the curb and a cafe.

It would increase that clear zone to require that it's eight feet on downtown streets and six feet elsewhere.

It also establishes what's called the pedestrian straight path.

As I mentioned earlier, it would allow a little more flexibility for opening cafes, sidewalk cafes.

Currently, they're prohibited in buildings adjacent to low-rise or single-family.

This would allow adjacency to happen.

Obviously, there's a review process that goes to with some discretionary decisions the department has.

and certainly can put conditions on it.

It can only be used at certain times of day or they have to shut down at a certain hour if there are noise concerns and those can be reviewed periodically.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

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

SPEAKER_32

Juarez?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Begshaw?

Aye.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

President Harrell?

Aye.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you very much.

The bill passed and the chair will sign it.

Please read agenda item number 25.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 25, Council Bill 119618 relating to city streets, changing the name of the portion of Northwest 54th Street.

Committee recommends the bill pass.

SPEAKER_19

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

So there are two intersections in Seattle of Northwest 54th Street and Northwest Marcus Street.

One is adjacent to the locks.

The other one is further west, at the west end of Ballard, as Marcus Street starts to head up the hill.

That causes some confusion, specifically for first responders, who may get a call from someone saying, I've had a car accident and I'm at the corner of 54th and Marcus Street, and they may not know which one to go to.

The way to address that is to rename the street to Northwest Locks Place so that we don't have the duplicate identical intersections.

And the outreach has been done with the businesses there.

They'll have to redo their addresses, but it makes sense.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

SPEAKER_32

Moraes.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Chico.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

SPEAKER_21

Aye.

SPEAKER_32

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

The bill passed in share of Senate.

Please read item 26.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 26, appointment 1417, appointment of Charlie Simpson as member of Seattle School Traffic Safety Committee for term to March 31st, 2022. The committee recommends that the appointment be confirmed.

SPEAKER_19

That's member O'Brien.

So Charlie is currently pursuing a master's of urban planning at the University of Washington.

He also works for Alta Design.

He convinced the committee that he cares a lot about safety for pedestrian kids.

I'm excited to support this.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

Those in favor of confirming the appointment, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries.

Appointment is confirmed.

Please read items 27 and 28.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda items 27 and 28. Appointments 1418 and 1419. Reappointments of Inga Maskoff and Nick Paragy.

Paragy, excuse me, as members, levy to move Seattle Oversight Committee for term to December 31st, 2023. Committee recommends that the bill, excuse me, the appointments be confirmed.

SPEAKER_19

Council Member O'Brien.

These are both reappointments.

Inga lives in the Ravenna Bryan neighborhood.

She has 25 years of planning and developing experience.

She was also a co-founder of the Fix 65th Coalition that was advocating for bicycle and walking safety.

Nick, another reappointment, lives in Lake City.

He has 40 years experience in civil and structural engineering and so brings firsthand experience with building bridges, streets, retaining walls, and things like that.

SPEAKER_21

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

Those in favor of confirming the appointments, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries.

Appointments are confirmed.

Please read agenda item number 29.

SPEAKER_25

Agenda item 29, appointment 1420, reappointment of Christina J. Wong as a member of Sweden Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board for term to August 31st, 2023. The committee recommends that the appointment be confirmed.

SPEAKER_19

Council Member O'Brien.

Christina has studied social work and policy at University of Chicago as a graduate of UW Law School.

20 years experience as an advocate for social justice issues.

Currently works, her day job is with Northwest Harvest, been an amazing resource on the committee.

And look forward to keeping her on there.

Sorry, I said the commission, not the committee.

SPEAKER_21

Very good, any questions or comments?

Those in favor of confirming the appointment, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, vote no.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Please read the next agenda item.

SPEAKER_25

The report of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans, and Education Committee Agenda Item 30, Council Bill 119650 relating to violations of and compliance with the Seattle Fire Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Council President.

Council Bill 119560 would authorize certain Seattle Fire Department personnel to issue citations for additional requirements and compliance with requirements of the existing Seattle Fire Code.

This legislation would create a civil penalty of $373 per violation.

This is equal to the fee for re-inspections and it will allow for the use of a more moderate tool to enforce compliance with the Fire Code and help protect lives and property from the risk of fine.

This, excuse me, from the risk of fire.

This less punitive approach to enforcement has the potential benefit of incentivizing compliance with the fire code.

And again, wanna express my gratitude to the fire department for the thoughtful approach to this strategy, which included a plan for extensive engagement of property owners, including language appropriate outreach when and if necessary.

With that being said, the committee recommends that the City Council pass this council bill.

SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez.

Any questions or comments?

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

SPEAKER_32

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Siwak.

Aye.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_21

Bill passes and Chair will sign it.

Just wanted to reflect the fact that this room was full when we started and you all can really clear out a room, I see.

Is there any further business to come for the council?

If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the evening.

SPEAKER_99

you