AN ORDINANCE relating to heating oil; imposing a tax on heating oil service providers; directing the expenditure of heating oil tax revenues; directing relevant City departments to create a plan for regulating the use of heating oil tanks; adding a new Chapter 5.47 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, 5.55.230, and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here in city hall. Good afternoon, Councilman. Restroom since he is hiding over there. How are you? Thanks for being here. The. Just one sec here. The September 23rd, 2019 city council meeting will come to order. 2:05 p.m.. I'm Bruce Harrell. President Council Report Please call the role. Juarez must get out i o'bryan the taker here so what. You're. Gonna. Hear Gonzalez. Here Herbold President Harrell nine present. Thank you very much. At this point we will. Moved to adapt the introduction for a calendar. You. No objection. The introduction of pro calendars adopted. We 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 pieces of legislation with multiple amendments, and this is going to be pretty challenging to get through. We will get through it, but it's going to 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, we'll have to leave somewhat early for a an obligation and Councilmember Checo 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 to particular and some of those that require amendments because in all due respect to Councilmember Pacheco, it might be a little challenging for him not having done this to some extent in the script. This is a little it's little pliable sometimes. It sometimes is a little difficult to follow. So having said that, we can make a few amendments to the agenda. The first one is, as I describe this morning, I would like to move the entire report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee items five, six and seven and item 21, which is the oil heat legislation. I like to move that after agenda item one so that I could share 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 I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So the the agenda will be amended as stated. The minutes of the September 9th, 2018, city council meetings have been reviewed, and there's no objection the minutes will be signed . In. 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 before. 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 or the procedures that it will should be presented to the to the full council. So first arrested. 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. Great. Thanks. President Harrell and Council Members. Earlier today, Mayor Durkan 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 five, Section six of the city charter. And here are copies in 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. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And the speech was well-received. FRANKLIN High schools were at their best, and it's a great presentation. We also have Councilmember Mosquito who will present a proclamation on Nannies Day. Councilmember Mosquito, you have the floor. 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 and Black Coalition and so many others who helped us last year passed that the first ever nationwide city level Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. And today, today builds on that momentum. We have the opportunity to present the Seattle Nahanni Day proclamation. Thanks to the Mayor, Mayor Durkan and to Kelsey Niland 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 and the 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 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, this national nanny recognition week. We are honored to be part of that 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, whereas, as Mr. President, please do. WHEREAS nannies and other 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 a protected work by the state or federal government, which we will change. And. WHEREAS, the United States 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 the National Hour in our cities 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, rest 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 McEwen, potentially among others. And at this time, I'd love to present the proclamation, if I may, Mr. President. And on no. Objection, we'd like to suspend the rules to hear from our guest. SINGER Objection. The rules are suspended. Thank you very much, councilmember skater. You need to let me know. All right. Okay. Okay. 3:00 because there's. When I started this so many assholes the wrong place. But I said that I'll call this a Cadillac once again. I must get at the name of the concert, or that I should have a Seattle glasses. But I said, Oh, you mean Detroit. This this September ceremonies day is still significant. Mucho para nosotros and most are desert leprosy on the unsightly de la straphangers as they look at the annual colonial past other intermissions. Yet we are primarily wholemeal and say sorry. That is that any longer than the impact interim nosotros nosotros gracias for by most esta the echo media de las manis can I just tell us what I mean? That's kind of a comprehensive seahorse. Nosotros caramels eat caramels with I must go mostly for I'm wasters. Yes, por favor purposes. Just more importantly, not opponents and losses. Gwendolen and Yosef and Laura, they can also trust. I mean, I'm almost the whole nada, but it's a significant squid. I must be in class yet. I didn't. Hi. My name is Maria Celeste Robles. Thank you. Mayor Durkan Council Macheda and the members of the Seattle City Council. Thank you for making today September 20th, our Seattle Nanny Day. This means a lot to us on behalf of the nannies in the city. We want to thank you for the messy 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 our children to take care of and love 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. Then we just got ourselves into an indoor outdoor travel committee or just almost a. And representational quality wasn't in yet us l'alliance travel horror the LaGuardia statue of Seattle and I thought I must you participative commenter in El Proceso La Raza on the normas but I garantizar Laura Keller the announcer Funciona Comodo La Necesitamos. I mean, all systems organize and operate. Boyer, La Lane National, the travel carousel overrepresented Congress's staff. But I eligible Senator Kamala Harris la Lacalle are you that I'm a colossal la yossi less conditional nevertheless but I mean you'll as it I'm told by the avocado it is cancerous Chloe those are the rituals protectionism which at the apple but supuesto those estamos are actually also the real El Camino aqui and Seattle. But I don't know Colombia almost Laudato si la only that elsewhere. So not only the articles but the most powerful war. So you know, so transparent in LA in LA Lucha below the ritual of trabajo, horizontal oriental base grasses. But I suggested they are possibly. My name is Sandra Holden. Thank you very much for giving us the recognition that our heart, our hard work deserves. Today, we're here on behalf of the Seattle Nanny 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 also recognize and we also, where else, organizing to support the national law, 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, so many years. Of course, we are all proud to lead the way here in Seattle, but we will never have come here without the unity and the effort and ensuring 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. And to. Well, thank you, Katherine Mesquita, for such a great proclamation. Next, we will have Councilmember Herbold, and this is a good segway into her proclamation relating to diaper needs Awareness Week Council member Herbold. Fantastic. Thank you. It's an honor to sponsor and present a proclamation declaring this week type Diaper Need Awareness Week with council members Gonzales and Mosquito. This proclamation is sponsored on behalf of West Side 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. Please, the rules are suspended, Councilmember Herbold. 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 6. To 12 diapers. A day. And a caretaker or parent may have to buy diapers for the first 2 to 3 years of their child's lives. And. Whereas, according to a report by the Council on Economic Advisors. 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 families. 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 or 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. 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. Thank you. The rules are. And we'd love to hear from anyone if they like to present. Do. 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 the 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 communities 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. West Side 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. Thank you. Which will be presented by council members sworn presenting a proclamation relating to standing with Kashmir. Thank you. Thank you. President Howell, I would like to read the proclamation and then offer it to our committee members. And they would like to say a few words. Absolutely. Community members. I'm presenting a proclamation designating tomorrow, September 24th, 2019, to be a 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 Bharatiya Janata Party BJP led government. Modi has built a political career on racism, religious discrimination and scapegoating, and the various 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 in 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 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 gas communities, particularly Dalits, has exacerbated under Prime Minister Modi's BJP government since they took power in 2014. And. Whereas, on August 12, 2019, the Modi led central government abrogated Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which had guaranteed Jammu and Kashmir status as a semi-autonomous Don Imus 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 2 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 SWAT Bharat Abhiyan or Clean India mission on Tuesday, September 24, 2019. And. Whereas, Stand with Kashmir APA here Seattle, 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 colors and religions. Now, therefore, the Seattle City Council proclaims. Tuesday, September 24, 2019. Stand with Kashmir Day. Then again, the rules are still suspended. We'd love to hear from any guests receiving this proclamation. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Closer. I. You see? Good afternoon. Hi. You have to excuse my very damaged vocal chords. Hours of protesting will do that to you. Well, these are words from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is completely counterintuitive. While we continue to read, watch and listen to the to the horrors that have been occurring in Kashmir for the past 51 days. The bill and that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 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 8 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 that they will give Modi. We thank Councilwoman Sharma and the Seattle City Council for their efforts and support. Our chapter of San with Kashmir is ecstatic to see this day announced as a stand with Kashmir day. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. My name is Priya Nair. I am a community organizer at API here. I would like to read API hire is dedicated to supporting survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence. We take strong stands against the Indian military's use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Recognizing the intersections between interpersonal and state violence, API 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's stance 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 members from Iceland and the rest of the council for making this happen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you. Councilmember Swan, in our proclamation will be presented by Councilmember Pacheco for a proclamation supporting Sandra Archibald. Councilwoman Pacheco. Oh, colleagues, I believe my office this morning during council briefing started passing that around. Dean Archibold is our Sandra Archibold 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. Thank you very much. And it was presented, I believe, fully signed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. So at this time, we'll take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda or our introduction on Pro Calendar or our 2019 work program. We have about 30 pieces of legislation today, many of which have amendments which will require some discussion. 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 could 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 Alison Eisinger, this third one, two and three. And Patience, if you don't mind, you can come to this Mike and then Elizabeth, you can start in the middle and we'll keep both microphones in play here. Thank you. Council members. Hello, I'm Dr.. Elizabeth Burton, speaking on behalf of the Seattle chapter for People. People for Climate Action County Wide. Our organization has approximately 500 members. I'm here to testify about the heating oil ordinance, which we are in favor of. As Creditbloomberg 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. Thank you. Good afternoon, council members. For the record, my name is Patience Malaba 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 HGC stuff 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. Thank you, patients. And in just one moment, let me call the next three speakers that will follow you. So that'd be like Chris Green La Chris, if you don't mind coming to our right, your left, Yvette, Dinesh and then Cyndi Lum the crease. Yvette and Cyndi. Thank you. Thank you. Council members. My name is Alison Eisinger. 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 are 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 ten 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 dialog, 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 intimidated all. And since it is the middle of the day at work and we are talking about serious things, I am 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. Thank you. Kind priests. Last week. The Latino man told you that our lives could be could grow 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 our Republic with liberty. Life, liberty and justice for all. As secured, you declared the council and the mayor declared a day of celebrate, a month long celebration, eat, drink and be merry for because the atheist who denies the existence of God and declares that life that we exist there, even the church children, the unborn life is at risk. While Rome burnt, Nero fiddled. May I please pray our Heavenly Father restored to us the Union, the justice and the domestic tranquility that was enjoyed by our own happen to all inhabitants in America. As Thomas Jefferson said, this is my petition and my request. In Jesus name, I pray. Amen. Okay. Following me. That will be Cindy and then William Clark. Greetings. Council President. Council Member. Today I'm advocating on behalf of the Detective Cookie Chess Park. You'll have to look that up because I don't have a minute to speak on this. Aaron is a project manager, so speak on that and Send is one of our intrepid volunteers. We want to we're asking because we know there's an excess marine sugar tax. Right. What better way to be invested into the community, which is the most diverse in the state as far as I'm concerned? Then in the Detective Cookie Chess Park, which offered an alternative to being on the streets in our community, we're asking for the order of 400,000 to complete the project because it has begun with dedicated a couple of summers ago by Mayor Mary. So with the excess sugar tax money and we know we're doing a budgeting process, we're 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. Thank you. Oh, this is for you. You need to be reminded of the demographics in the neighborhood. Maybe make this refresh your memory. Thank you. Thank you. And as I mentioned, I'm the project manager for the detective Cookie Chess Park. Our vision is to create a small pub. I'm sorry. I probably will start over now. Are you Cindy? I'm speaking for Cindy. Yeah. Okay. Go. Thank you very much. Got it. So our vision is to create a small public park which can be played on Built-In Chess tables and a giant chessboard. 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, enhance academic performance and teach youth that 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. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's our. Thanks. Following William Clarke will be worn Arabic. In March, I saw a terrible thing happen. I live in a retirement place, a very nice furniture full of Quillen hill. And there's a sliver of a park. Maybe Seattle's Smarter Forest 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. Hmm. 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 four people living in tents. I admit that they are largely. There. Because of mental illness. Which includes alcoholism. I spoke with the. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. And just wrap up, sir. Just go ahead and wrap up, if you don't mind. My suggestion is that we change the rules so that. Persons can use the parks with tents. Thank you. It will be very difficult. Thank you, sir. Following Warren will be Shannon Ellis Brock. Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Warren Electric. I stand here to talk to you about council bill 119607 as your 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 Puget Sound Energy is 59% by fossil fuels. Weatherization would reduce an 18% by the United States weatherization board. 18% efficiency gain by going into weatherization by generation, by natural gas is 39% efficient. Biodiesel is 32% efficient. It 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, Elinor was asked that Seattle have an 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 this 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 heating oil to start with natural gas is not far down the line. Is it going to be identified by the council committee that I think those abilities to produce that will be using primarily fossil fuels to do it. Thank you, sir. So just in the last thing to say that we could gain a lot more by reducing our amount of energy we use, then trying to figure out how to just eliminate one sector of it that's efficient. Thank you. Following Shannon. Well, I'll read a few names off after you. Go ahead, Shannon. Sure. Thank you. 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 work with the city in the past on initiatives such as the Community Power Works. We work with Seattle City Light on their Dockless 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. 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 deep conversion at a really quickly because I have 10 seconds left. Based on the research I was given, it cost about $800 a month. With the new tax to heat a house with oil, a loan payment for a dockless heat pump is about $100 a month. So it's an energy is 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, others that are here to help. So thank you for your time. Thank you. So it 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 this with Madam Clerk. I'm going to ask that so I don't have to be so heavy handed at one minute. In 10 seconds, just please turn off the mic. So you've been forewarned that the mic will be going off in one minute and 10 seconds. And so let's try to 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 saya. Leah Rebecca, then Alec CONAN. Good afternoon. I'm Liam MESSICK 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. Thank you. Rebecca will be followed by Alec and then Joel. Hi there. Rebecca Sayre of Infiniti 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, Heidi, 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 60. 80% 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. Falling off. One sec. Jo Wall, do you mind checking the other mike over here and you follow Alec. An afternoon canceled. Alec on in with 350 Seattle here today to urge you to please cast 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 see 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. 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 Bullard Foundation. They said, here's what we want you to do and you guys are doing it. A couple of 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 and you all. Fuel air mixture tests a kind of thing to get us to make sure that we're burning it at. Thank you, Joe. All right. Our next two speakers are the Honorable Michael Fuller sued Jewish Jurists and Shani Wheeler. The Honorable. And then Shani. Please proceed. The honorable. I have a problem with all of your telling. Honorable Maka Fuller Through Ijaws A New America one. Oh, 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. But also and it's devastating to me. And yes, openly validated all three of three. No sanctuary of a criminal act. He got three or four Kate Plus and got 309. Enforcement of Sanctuary City Act and Violation of George H.W. Bush. White House President who signed into Law America with Disabilities Act July 26, 1990 in Section five of War Rehabilitation Act 1973, that's not being enforced would violate the Federal Funding Act of 2000. Also our First Amendment right to protest the equal protection of the 14th Amendment. Rights Amendment right. And. Due process, equal protection of our 14th Amendment right procedure, due process and substantive due process. Thank you, sir. But following. I'm tired of being sick and tired. Thank you, sir. Following Shawnee will be. Sooraj Lobo. Changes. Just email me on watching the show. Is it on? It was turned off at the last. I know you're going to go. Good afternoon, president and members of the council. For the record, my name is Johnny Wheeler. I am the political director for Team Joint Council. But I'm not here to talk to you and 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, the gentrify Seattle and push our communities of color and our most vulnerable. Thank you. Thank you, Shirley. Greetings. City Council name Swaraj, Lobo and Progressive Comfort Solutions were a heating contractor in Seattle. I've been in the street 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 quickly lives with heating oil. Who prefers that over anything else. And 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, cantaloupe, hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh water and aquifers, carbon and so forth. Let's just speak about jobs we're hiring. We can train anybody to do to install three 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. Thank you. Nina, Olivia, Nina. And then Steve Gelb. And then Tom Seymour. Nina, Steve and Tamar. Do I have any? Do I have a nina here? No. Yes, I. Nina. So Nina. Then Steve. And then Tom. Good afternoon. Thank you so much. My name is Nino Olivier and I work for Progressive Comfort Solutions. I have just finished watching Greta's address to the UN United Nations world leaders. And I think and I meant 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 we like Suraj, my my 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. Thank you. Continue to. Steve. We have Steve Gelb and then is Tara. Tamar, who do. In. The. Hold on just a second, please. So what is your name? Sorry. Tamar. Oh, it's you, says Tamar. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Susan Boyd and then Gerard. Mark, go ahead, please. Thank you for being here. 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 Kalb, 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 supply. Thank you very much. I comma. Thank you. Then Susan Boyd, then Jerrod Moore. 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 was like, I saw firsthand some of the effects of how polluting oil heating can be. I will never forget when I went outside of our 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 to we need drastic action. And there is there's no way that we can we can delay on these types of 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, you know, clean electricity and a future of well-paying jobs will follow suit. So thank you. Thank you for coming. Come. Susan. Susan, then Jared. Hi there. Counsel, thank you for the time. My name is Susan Boyd. I'm 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. Great. Thank you so much, Susan. After Jared, we have Shankar and Julia Buck. Please. Thank you, council members, for having us here today. My name is Jared Moore. I've done security and privacy research at the University of Washington and an artificial intelligence research. And I'm here to talk about the Seattle surveillance ordinance, specifically the license plate readers and the CCTV, CCTV from Ascot. 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, paves 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 5 minutes later. It's that sort of specificity of language that I and many other people would like to see in what we passed today. So thanks a bunch. Thank you. Shared. Shankar. Good afternoon, counsel. 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 was DOD is actually providing that exact same raw license plate data to a third party agency with no current agreement. So was could actually provide that information to ICE today and there would be no way to stop it. I'm not saying watch 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. Thank you, Shankar. Please proceed. 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 reference and 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. Thank you very much. So unless there's objection, colleagues, I'm going to 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 would be payment of the bills. So please read that section into the record. Police Constable 119 657 A property manager pays out of claims for the week of September 9th, 2000, 19 through September 13th, 2018, at ordering payment thereof. Moved to pass Council Bill 119657 so moved in second. Is the bill passed any questions that please got the roll on the passage of the bill whereas. All right let's get to O'Brien Pacheco so on by John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell hi nine in favor and unopposed. Bill pass the chair of Senate please read the agenda item number one the clerk file on the mayor's address. Agenda item one clerk file 314 433 Mayor Jenny Durkin's budget address on the 2020 budget. This is the. Formal procedure where we accepted the speech as we did. I don't anticipate that presenting problems. So at this point I'll move to accept. Stark file 3144, three, three. It's been moved in second that we accept the Clark file those in favor of accepting and filing the Clark file please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the Clark file has been accepted and filed, so we had some agenda reordering the recording of agenda items. So please read the first agenda item. From the amended agenda reported the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee Agenda Item five Council Vote 119 519 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 a vote pass as amended. Okay, so bear with me, colleagues, 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 a deep dove, as others shall 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 2007 surveillance ordinance. And I think many of you in particular, Councilmember Gonzales and others, for the passage in 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. 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 Seattle Police Department and so forth . The 29 technologies the department must prepare what we call a sur air surveillance impact report for each existing or proposed technology. To the extent there will be an acquisition that the project management team would you would use and the Air Surveillance Impact Report would be submitted for all retroactive technologies and newly proposed technology 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 air. 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 a public hearings, public meetings are scheduled in the department and the departments provide feedback with center staff, monitoring that to make sure that we are aware of what's going on. There is a community surveillance working group, that River that reviews the SLR, and they create what's called an impact assessment document addressing privacy and civil liberty concerns. And we want to thank the ACLU and Shanker in particular, for his leadership, being a strong member of the community surveillance group and and working on the impact assessment. And from there, the CTO, Syed Bashir, provides a response letter. It sort of memorializes the working groups concerns and there's sort of a process 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 was been has been going on for quite some time. And I'd like to see the department 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. Recall those LP hours just by way of background. The lawyers have been there. Well, let me back up. The traffic cameras have been in use since 2000, for almost 19 years now, and the lawyers 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 that are addressed. You have what we're called SARS, presented to the council. We took a look at the SARS, and they were indeed treaties. They were maybe a few inches thick, if I'm not to embellish that. And there were there were a lot of resources and time and effort put in put into those SARS. 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 to CSIR. And so those two documents for these two technology, one each for technology, the two SARS and to condense SARS became part of the package attached to the legislation. And the legislation self 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 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 had 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 Councilmember Herbold had raised and think Councilmember O'Brien had raised. And I think Councilmember Gonzales 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 SIRC since they were changes to the CCR started using the sacraments 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. Councilwoman Bryant has some amendments that, if accepted, we would still need one more week to harmonize the CSI hours with the sewers. And so my encompassing amendment would wait. And so it would be inappropriate me to do that until I see where we come out on the amendments. Now, let me say before Councilman O'Brien proposes his amendments, that I'm not sure exactly how many there are, but I think there are four. And. And I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's because he's got the the oil heating legislation as well as he's 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 and we're looking at two technologies of 29. And this process to me, is fundamental. And doing this right as a city in that process was to make sure that ACLU and Shanker in particular, because of his expertize in this area, really crafted and wordsmiths a piece of legislation that's a healthy process as 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 going to have to move forward when working with communities and the language. Now, that is, in 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 and experts and come up with agreed upon language and let's have a good process and so forth, 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 two 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 comes from Bryan, 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 in mine because I did it the right way, by the way. But in all seriousness, if there's no objection to suspend the rules, rules we you hear from council member O'Brien. You know, Jackson customer in Brown. You have the floor. Thank you. Council President. Just in opening remarks, I, I appreciate your opening remarks and the process you've laid out here. And I fully respect, you know, where you are and 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 acknowledgment of 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 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 is government we are going to. I don't yet know. How is government? We are going to act 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 it 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 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, there are you should have four separate amendments that are on the what I'll call the salmon colored pieces of paper, the mirror, the four yellow ones that were handed out in a timely fashion. But there were minor changes that are one significant, three minor changes that had to happen, maybe two significant, two minor changes that had to happen. And it 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 five. So it says proposed Amendment five to Council Bill 119519 version to a this the document in front of you outlines nine different things they would change. These are things that last week had been reviewed by the departments and there was and I want to be careful not to mischaracterize anybody. But my take was there was kind of broad consensus from from our start in general that these would be consistent and allow them to do what they wanted to do. Council President And the second time I could walk through all nine of these pieces in 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 923, 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. So the question is whether we take questions. We just want Councilmember O'Brien to sort of plow through. I'm. I can move swiftly if you'd like to do. I'd like you to move swiftly. And 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? And I'm going to largely read from from the items, but I'll move swiftly. So first with this, this is 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 of way traffic conditions after an unplanned incident in traffic conditions impacted by a planned event. It also says a closed circuit TV cannot be used in conjunction with facial recognition or lights license plate reader technology. I'm going to stop at number two. Since we have suspended the rules, I will ask, we may not need it. Both Greg and Lisa. This at least sit at the table in case some questions come up. I'll stop you in point number two, because this is why I'm not supporting this particular amendment. This this is an example. And number two, there's certainly not I would agree with number two where it says CCTV cannot be used in conjunction with physical 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 turn to the page, if you look at the SLR, 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 SBIR process. So, I mean, just tell you what that says in the document already, that they're not using it and should they use it, another SAR would be triggered. So when I see that and there are other sections 4.2 in the OCR and page 23 which clearly says exactly what this technology is to be used for. Which is our commitment to use it only for those purposes that 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 is not to be used. And if it is to be used in another way, another SDR is created. So I'm using number two as an example of it's both redundant and necessary, and there are some other issues embedded in some of these that quite candidly. We've presented to you and negotiated a deal. Okay. So you could go with number. You could either rebut number two or go with number three. And I'll just state I don't disagree with anything you said. Council President Harold, the, the the essay itself is quite an extensive document. And my interest in putting this in the the condensed essay are, 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 the highlight 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 100 page document, would be able to pull that out immediately. So I'll keep moving through this. Number three clarifies it closer to TV, maybe use for traffic, continuing studies images used for social media traffic updates and training materials, which are all current practices at our site. The fourth thing it does, it authorizes longer retention of still images used for training for social media traffic updates. 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 retention, which is section 3.2, it clarifies that the line items A through C or the only purposes for which the system can be used, which is live stream stream feed of current traffic conditions, recorded video traffic or for engineering studies or still images. Traffic conditions use and training materials are included in social media updates. It restrict social media updates to the subject of traffic only. It also requires written approval of each incidents of recording and retention, of instance of recording, and that we retain that for ten years, which is the existing city policy . Written approval is required for the for the recording of still images and the potential posting of social media annually. So again, if someone needs to record part of this 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 for 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 need to go to a written approval. So that would be a once a year and we give the guidelines for that. But for the other studies we need on a case by case basis, written approval. Let's keep going. We're. You're talking about Amendment five, still correct? Correct. I'm talking about number seven on Amendment five. So it's just let's go. Just stop it. Number go eight, nine for anybody. That would just take that by saying that things catch my breath. And so then the last two restricts operation of closed circuit TV to users who have undergone SDI 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 stream broadcasts to be consistent with the condensed air. 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. Or maybe there's something that we need to be clarified. I want to just make sure we're open to that. So as Councilmember O'Brien described all of amendment number five. Did you see something? I'm sure does. No, I was answering. Councilmember O'Brien, we don't have any comment. He read it accurately. Okay. So this is why I oppose this amendment, and I'll just take a vote in. And since we have other. We have a busy day. Some questions or if clarifying questions. Let me comment on this, since I'm the. Well, one would take your questions. First, I'm fine. 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 as the the original sponsor of the surveillance technology ordinance. I just want 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 SARS. But in terms of what is represented on proposed Amendment five to this Council bill, is anything are any of the specific changes that are articulated in the amendment not included in the underlying sir. Yeah. Gahanna is okay 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. Okay. So my understanding of how this has been described, both in council briefing and on the dais, is that the condensed ACR is intended to be, in effect, an executive summary of the contents of the survey. Did I hear the intent incorrectly, Councilmember O'Brien. No, that's that's my understanding, too. So ordinarily, executive summaries would 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 ACR that are not actually reflected in the ESA. Correct in my if I may, my attempt here was that to focus on amending the six page document and then the SLR, which is hundreds of pages, with the understanding that as we make changes to the condensed version, it will require similar changes in the ACR. And again, I think the SARS. So the the and as Council President Harold said, if we do adopt, I think any of my amendments, we would not be able to vote on this to attach to the SARS, because that will require some changes. My understanding is that the departments have been tracking closely the proposed changes in the CCAR and I believe have an awareness of the things that need to be changed in the SARS. And what I've heard is it would just take them a couple of days to make those changes. But I, I am 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. 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 SARS, which were not envisioned or imagined or even. Articulated in the underlying surveillance technology audience that were using this additional tool to amend the underlying asset are thereby creating some potential conflict between a condensed SARS and the underlying SARS. 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 SARS. I think if we adopt these at the moment, there will be conflict again and won't be passed or adopted yet. My understanding in talking to folks who will 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. And while I understand that and I appreciate that, I think where my concern is is that we're we're we're. We're effectively creating two different tools and multiple bites at the apple to modify the essay are in the essay are 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 as they are 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 Assayas, they could easily and identify the information and the obligations and the duties and responsibilities and then and and to to be effectively an executive summary of the underlying ACR, which is hundreds and could be up to hundreds of pages depending on the technology. So I guess I'm not I'm I'm, I'm, 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 NASA's. 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 SSR 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 SLR to as substantive as they are. So I think if I hear you correctly, your preference would be or would have been for me to be making amendments to the SARS document at this point, not the CSIR. Right. I mean. Substantive. I think Council President Harold raised that one. There was simply pulling language from the air, simplifying and putting in the CSIRO. That may have been an appropriate amendment to this and I acknowledge I did not I chose not to go into the as they are and amend it. But if that is in the future, how the Council should be weighing in on amending this 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 yeah, I mean, I do think that that again, this is the first two technologies out of a list of dozens of technologies that 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 these complex technologies and these complex policy issues. And in my mind and my understanding, the underlying answers 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 C.R. and if we are truly interested in making those seers 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, you know, condensed layers which are purported to be executive summaries as the place to do a mandatory work to the underlying science. Which leads me to my last question, which is are the condensed SARS also incorporated into the ordinance, or are these just separate and apart? Councilmember The condensed SARS would be attached to the ordinance and incorporated by reference same as the regular SARS. So now we have an easier to track compliance with and we have a condensed as are to track compliance with. That's correct. And if any of Councilmember O'Brien's amendments passed 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. So. 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 and I don't say that to insult the process that you have undergone. Council President. I just am concerned that we're going to be creating two parallel documents that that in the future could be read in conflict and in 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 this virtue that there are now two documents that that may be similar but not exact in terms of the language and the requirements upon upon the agency. So I'm I'm I'm struggling with with that reality if these amendments were to pass today. Thank you. Councilman Gonzales, you've actually described why I don't support these amendments. And in all due respect, Councilman Brian is are raising some some some great issues. These issues were raised and the SBIR was a 141 page document, 141 page document that I didn't describe in my introductory remarks. It has a very significant racial equity tool kit component and engagement and public process component, fiscal impacts, opponent questions to the city 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 analysis CSIR. And again, as the chair trying to shepherd this legislation through. I want. I asked, are there any inconsistencies? We're talking about if one supersedes the other. There were to date, there were no inconsistencies. Can language be improved? Of course, in 141 page document, that could always be improved. But it's important that with the traffic camera technology, as example, 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 test testified about how there is some recording. But if you look at the use of this technology, again, camera views are masked for event viewing documents in 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 ten days. These are conditions in the air 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 CSIR as being unnecessary and again, late for for lack of a better description. Sure. Anyway. So I'm ready to actually take a vote on amendment number five unless Councilmember Bryan wanted to describe it a little more. He went through the nine. But Casper and Bryan, did you want to say any more about an amendment or just talk about amendment number five at this point? No, I'll just you know, I'll apologize to colleagues if if I should have been trying to amend the SA 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 yeah, 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 in central staff. You can talk about your process. You did. To get us to date ready to vote. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we revisiting issues that were conceded earlier in the process? Well. I was just guest to counter such that to respond to. That many of them. Yes. Okay. Great cast member and I do people in queue. 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 or 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. And so if I should have done that in the essay instead of the CSIR, 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. Council member. Herbal? No, I didn't know which one. First cancer herbal. Yeah, I guess it is it for me. It's less about. And I appreciate for the council members who have worked really hard on this, Councilmember Gonzalez, as as it relates to the overarching legislation in Councilmember Harrell as it relates to this particular body of work. But I'm in so I'm less concerned about the process piece of this and what order we should do things. And 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 CSI hours were opening up this technology in ways that the SARS weren't and. Logically, it seems to me that if that was the case, we wouldn't need to go back and amend the stories because we would be these these amendments would simply be restating in a condensed form what the sabers already say. So if the goal. Is to make sure that the seizures do not broaden the ability to use the CCTV as as that's what I was under. That was what my understanding was. The goal is to make sure that the ability to use those cameras is not broadened beyond what was contemplated in the sale as they are. I'm not sure I understand why, after passing this amendment, we would need to go back and amend the SLR. 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 SDR 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 that you can't use facial recognition software that is spoken of elsewhere in the ACR. 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 we 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 we haven't laid out like a whole protocol for how we should amend CSA hours and hours of the council. And so we're kind of living through that as we go. Gaspar Pacheco. I was just going to call the question. Okay. We have a request to get on with the other 29 items on our agenda sooner or later. Councilmember Mesquita. Well, great. Do I get to speak? Yes. Amazing. 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 the various issues that we are considering today and considered at the table. And a lot of work has gone into this. And also for 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 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 they're one good example that I gave is escort. And Seattle Police Department had been working to provide safe areas for people to have a one day strike 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 an 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 are some areas in there that I think we amended in your committee. I saw this. This amendment here was really elevating those pieces and creating greater harmony. I 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 I appreciate your ongoing entertainment of this conversation, Mr. President, but that's why I was going to be supportive. Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. 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. So Councilmember O'Brien has made the motion to amendment. I think actually we. Haven't moved in such a move amendment. All move Amendment five is described on the salmon sheet, which has the date 923, 2019 and v2 after it. Again and councilman risk mitigated second. So I'm going to do a voice vote and just raise your hands so the clerk could get it. All those in favor of amendment number five. Say I and raise your hand, I. One to all those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. Yes. Okay. So that one failed. So we're going to move to amendment number four. I'm sorry. Number four, let's yeah, let's go backwards because we're going to go to is amendment number six six. So that's on salmon colored as well. Correct. Comes from Brown? That's correct. And his version, too. Not everyone printed on the same color page. So just want to be clearer. Clear their 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 resultant travel time information. It restricts the use of all license plate reader data and not just data that includes license plate numbers. It prohibits the use of a license plate reader system to collect images of vehicles or occupants. It prohibits Ascot from providing data collected by the state of the art transportation license plate reader system to entities other than watchdog. It makes it explicit that Watchdog does not have access to the state license plate reader system, and it also restricts our state sharing of LPR data only to washed out for travel time purposes. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. And and I'll just respond, is the one of the proposal based legislation, the reason I'm not supporting this amendment is for pretty much the same reason I talked about earlier in the essay. And what we're trying to accomplish is very important, I think, to understand in the same way that our state is never in position, really possession of the images that first of all, the technology by its very nature doesn't capture all of the license plate, the capture of between 5 to 10%. As they move into view, the images are simply sent to watch Dot and the softer reads the plate number and as a timestamp that compares to time stands to match it on a plate in order for us to get the the reports that are generated and 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 ACR and again was thoroughly examined earlier in the process. Any other discussion on the amendment? Any questions? Okay. So I just want to. Councilmember Gonzalez, 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 C.R. or is this carbon copy? Nothing new here in terms of requirements, duties and obligations as reflected in the ESA. This issue is addressed in the OCR and the ARE 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 Estcourt could capture those things and only those things. So if there was a another piece of data that the LPR wanted to capture, then it would have to be brought before you all in a new C.R.. However, that would be the case anyways because of the underlying surveillance ordinance. If there was any substantive change to any of the hours, they have to come before you again. 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 asked to come back to the city council to amend the ACR anyhow. That's correct. So that this is this this language is is helpful from a clarification and from a reader standpoint. But the reality of it is that the underlying ordinance protects against this anyway. No, no need to amend the C.R. if this passes. Well, it uses the language only. And as I've said before, if there were any other data captured besides whatever thoughts already listed, they would have to come ask you. So I would say that this is not legally necessary. That's very well. Understood that you're saying this is not legally necessary. My question, though, is, is would passage of this amendment require us to go back and amend the C.R.? Oh, thank you. I think the agency would still want to bring it into harmony. They would probably would take that only language and put it in the air. Does it require it? I would have to let the I would have to ask the attorneys at. Okay. So did you make the motion for Emily Casper and Brian for Amendment number six? I will move what's listed as proposed Amendment six with the date 1923, 2019, version two as discussed. Okay. So moved and second amendment number six has been moved in second. All those in favor say I and raise your hand. I. All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. That's okay. So we're going to go to Amendment number seven on that. What was it, madam? I was asked what the countless in my book. 4 to 5. Okay. Number seven. Councilmember O'Brien, walk us through number seven, please. 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 record, on the salmon colored paper. But at the top it has today's date, 923, 2019 and a V to buy it. So source version two. This this is about the license plate reader data and the requirement. Oh, sorry. No, that's the one. This is about the license plate reader. And that 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 going to pull up my yellow version from this morning. I'm saying give 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 that 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, hey, 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 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 maybe 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 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. Fran Gonzalez, thank you. I see this amendment as more than just an amendment to the underlying SLR via the condensed, as 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 searches. We had had a very long conversation in the original drafting of the surveillance technology ordinance around sort of around this burden of proof or requirement of when that information or data should be shared originally. So I'm not going to support this amendment because I see it as frankly not. 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 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 obligations somehow in terms of how we respond to judicial warrants, then we should have that conversation. Okay. So and I opposed it as well. Then I just want to go back to the technology again and I understand the the hypothetical concerns, but in the NCR, we make it very clear we we 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 competency level and we get information back. And the department has stated that as its exclusive use of the document so the of the technology so in there but consumer brands you won't see one closing word on. This I concur that we're clear 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 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 another kind of control over. We want I don't know if that would be a liability we would want to assume in our ordinance. And so it's been moved and. Yeah. Do you want to say something, sir? I'm sorry, I'm trying to. We're good. I'd love to hear what comes from Gonzales 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. Yeah, if I could just add to that. I mean, I think we again, another another policy discussion and decision point that we made in the underlying ordinance was 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 to 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 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 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 of modifying the base base ordinance of a surveillance technology which had already decided under which circumstances the city of Seattle would be required to respond to a judicial 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 search process. So I'm just flagging my concern that this is going much further than just amending an SLR, 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 search that is specific to one type of technology, because I think the implications are much broader. Okay. Was Kasper and Brown's amendment? It was not moves. So Kasper and Brian, will you move amendment number seven? I will move. I will move amendment number seven dated today 923 2019 version to. Second. Guess moves and second amendment number seven and moving second and all those in favor say I and raise your hand. All although the polls say no. One, raise your hand. No. Don't fails to. So let's go to number eight. So this one also relates to the license plate reader technology and the relationship between start and Wash, not the State Department of Transportation and the city department transportation. This council president Harrell, you described, I think in layman's 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 I'm sorry, a written agreement between our stop and wash night. But the underlying language would require that we're 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 language that the watchdog 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 aren't 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 we've 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 for 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 there in the next six month, why start in? Our state could come to an agreement of data sharing that basically holds washed out 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 would continue to read the information. It may be that why start or start come back to us and say we were unable to reach agreement washed out, was not willing to be held to the same standards as our state 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 the travel time information is by sharing the data with Washed. That, I think is a legitimate policy question that this council can struggle with. If, if asked, felt strongly that they wanted that information, they could come back to this council before that and say, hey, we we can only get X, Y and Z in the agreement. And we would like you to amend the the the ACR, the CCAR 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 the travel time data because the idea that this might be used against our will for data, for things, you know, such as immigration or ICE, doing it to track down people in cities, Seattle. So 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 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 that watchdog should be held to the same standards and ask them to go work on that data sharing agreement. Thank you, Councilman 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 as a city, if we choose not to use LPR. We can start 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 that 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 would be fooling ourselves if we think within six months we can achieve that. Now there are another there is another route, I think, to get there that could be perhaps in the future, council could set a resolution and negotiate with the wash DOD 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 should try to get there another way, though. I would like to have washed out and 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. Councilmember Gonzales. 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 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, an 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 have legal standing to be able to actually make that enforceable setting and that that conversation was separate and apart from whether 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 servers 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 a significant privacy concerns and that the servers 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 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 I see this amendment as 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 and in an agreement that was separate and apart from the sur, separate and apart from the condenser, and certainly separate and apart from the underlying 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 I'm just we may want to have that conversation from a broader policy perspective, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that that make that policy decision in the context of of an amendment. I guarantee that this amendment will turn up again when we consider other other types of technologies related to other departments. And if if that's going to be the case, then let's reopen the surveillance technology ordinance to have that conversation. Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez, did you want to make the motion? Did you want to? I wanted to just go someplace. Can Councilman Gonzales, my my intent when we passed the original surveillance ordinance was indeed, if we weren't going to have a blanket requirement, because it wasn't clear how that would be enforceable, that the 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 we are, it's not 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, you know, what this amendment sets up is the possibility, which I think is real frankly that washed out and asked can reach agreement that watchdogs 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, decide on the policy decision, do we even want to be collecting license plate information for the purpose of the 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 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 are 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. Okay. So you want to make the motion concerned, Brian? May I ask the question? Council member Herbold. Does the Lane current language not still require a that third party agreement? It just simply doesn't say that the third party agreement are the same restrictions and requirements in the seizure. So there's still that sorry. The underlined part is not the amendment. That was my amendment to the new amendment. But we should ask Central South. I believe this whole language was is new. Yes, I think that you're right. Councilmember Harold Herbold. Sorry, the the language that that is in the case now in the seizure state and was state must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing the LPR data. And it's made clear in other areas of the seizure that that data is to be used only for traffic purposes. I think that is already underway. I believe that is the case. If START 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 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? So we would still have the ability to sort of have that analysis of those trade offs if there was either no agreement or the agreement was inconsistent with the sur. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I'll. Can I can I just. Please clarify. I believe what the underlying if this if my amendment fails, the language that will be in the seizure will simply say, I start in Washington must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing NPR data. That's correct, but not the conditions under which they are. I think that there's more. There's more. Conversations. Sir? Yes, sir. Aye, sir. As well. You know. And I think that the purpose is for traffic collection. For collection of traffic data and calculating travel times. Yeah. I think it's important to note that we don't know why. Shots. Our 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 because remember. And can you. Move? I will move to 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 him. Oh, you do? Three. I'm not sure that there's I did a quick look over to maybe moved here based on the last three amendments, but we should probably at least get it accurate. We should have more data. You can see that. I see that I compared the language to try to figure out what changed between version two and version three, because they both say as of 1:15 p.m. at 923. I think they're identical, sir. Okay. So I'm going to go with version two 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 going to go ahead and move Amendment eight on the Salman sheet that's listed at the top as 923 2019 version two. Their second let's imagine amendment number eight has been moved in second and all those in favor say I in raise your hand. I. Always the polls say no and raise your hand no. It is what fails. It failed. Three, six. Do we have a number nine? No, I'm not moving nine or ten. So I'm done counting. President Herrell. Okay. Thank you so much. Time and that exercise. Well, I appreciate your indulgence. Councilmember Pacheco. You may lead us through the oil heat legislation, so get your Robert's Rules of Order hat on pretty soon here. So what? This thing 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 eight, nine, ten 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 2 hours and the two CSI hours coming out of that 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? Okay. Okay. Okay. Somebody from the Comedy Central States that. 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 i. I. I. 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. Hmm. It is number. 119519 council member. Sorry, sir. I'm not sure. Okay. I'll say a few things after. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119519 as amended. Whereas I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco I so want to make sure. Gonzalez Bill President Harrell I nine in favor nine opposed. The bill passed and chair of Senate. Let me just say a few thanks to councilmember Brian for and Shankar thanks for pushing the envelope on all of these issues. I know that some things were not gotten that people did want, but I think it's still one of the the best surveillance ordinances this country has seen. I hope we're setting the bar for other citizens in states to follow. Councilman Gonzales, I want to thank you for your full engagement and your leadership on the surveillance ordinance Saad Bashir, Ginger and Brewster, Jason Cambridge and Adam 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 in Councilman Brian. Thank you again. I also want to just personally thank Greg and Lisa and I'm not sure which names of folks that start in the light apartment who are responding to your requests on my behalf over the weekend to get through that. And that was a really Herculean effort. And despite my disappointment in the outcome today, I'm extremely grateful for the time you all put in to this this weekend and the past few weeks to keep you up to speed. Thank you. So I'm going to stay for item six and seven and I'm going to relinquish share to Councilmember Pacheco. So can you read can you read six and seven in together, please? Action Item six and seven Council Bill 119 636 relating to the sale and use of tobacco and marijuana products to and by minors. Council Bill 119 637 really into crimes and offenses concerning animals. The committee recommends both bills pass. As I said a couple of weeks ago, these two ordinance or 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 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 control crimes and makes these classifications and maximum penalties again consistent with state law. So the crimes for which the maximum penalty were imposed formally from, it's from 180 day days in jail and a $500 fine to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, some 500 to 5000, which includes keeping an exotic animal or using a guard dog without a guard guard dog license, owning a dangerous animal, selling a sick , dangerous or exotic animal. And so the state law goes in a 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 comes Bill 119636. Whereas Mosquera O'Brien. Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez. Herbold. President Harrell. I Aden favor not opposed. So it comes from check or you're off the hook. So I. Do I go there, say. Oh, I could I can continue. Cherry. Oh, God. And cancel. I was I missed a huge opportunity, according to my staff. So I my apologies. So the bill passes and Cheryl signed it. I just lost my rhythm here. Was that number seven or is that number six? Which that was number six. So please call the roll. Uncomfortable. 119637. Suarez Misgender. O'Brien. Pacheco Somewhat better. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. I. Adan favor and unopposed. The bill passed in show senate. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 119607 relating to heating oil. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Councilmember O'Brien Thank you, colleagues. It's going to take my surveillance hat on and put my climate change hat on or off and on. The 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 the 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 $0.25 a gallon through 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 or 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 the cost of the tax for someone that's using a petroleum based oil. I mean, committee, we amended the legislation to allow for an exemption for biofuels. It's specific that it's it's it would not 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 or biofuels produced more sustainably, locally could be used. And to the extent they're used in the 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 5050 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 use it. And low income folks can apply to be on the utility discount program, which gives them a significant discount. There are similar programs that Peterson 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 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 dockless 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 kind of current cost of heating oil, it costs about twice as much to fuel the the heating furnace as a wood for an electric furnace. I think this really we know the electric heat pumps also provide cooling in the summers or any time we 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 a thousand 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 median 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 who 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 represents 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 to ensure that there are opportunities for workers that may lose their jobs to be retrained and have similar union family wage jobs. I want to if it's okay with you, can't the president turn to my colleague, Councilmember Mesquita, who's been part of a lot of those discussions and really helpful in those discussions and believe has an amendment that she would like to put forward. And I support that. Please do. Councilmember Machete, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to move that. We amend Council Bill 119607 by incorporating Amendment one. And then I'll speak to the contents of it. Second, to move to Second Amendment. Number one, Casper Mosquito. 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 U.A. 32, 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 One 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. This was 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 underscored 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 as they 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 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 communities 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 addressed 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 and 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 Scott Green, the Green New Deal Work Group, Councilmember 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'd love to see it incorporated in the legislation. So that's just Amendment One that I'll describe as an amendment number one to the Council bill. Any other questions on it? I'll make sure that it has a second. I will second it if it's been moved. Okay. Okay. So Amendment one has been made and segment by Councilmember Gonzalez, all those in favor of amendment number one. Please say I. I opposed the ayes have it. So we have a an amendment. This passed. Councilmember O'Brien, you want to talk anymore about the Bass legislation? I don't even more. Councilmember Herbold has a number of amendments that are before us. So why don't we put it to Councilmember Herbold and let her walk through her? And Councilmember Herbold. Appreciate it very much. So I have. Three amendments here. Amendments to 304 amendments two, three and four and five. I 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 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 the requirement in the bill itself is that we're seeking O.C. SFD, that being the Office of Sustainability and Environment, Seattle Fire Department and the State Department of Construction 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. O.C. It 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, you know, we have we have time to get that right. The the sort of back of the envelope calculation at this point provides funding for 1100 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 the 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 is significantly higher. And so I think it's reasonable to to anticipate that participation in a in a program that would help pay for that is going to be greater. And so, you know, one of the things that. That that I think where 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 3000 households participate in the conversion program, it would require potentially an additional $10 million for the for the rebate program. It would require a million or so I'm sorry, the conversion program would require an additional $10 million in 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 of 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 to meet what are going to be costly expenses associated with meeting our our carbon reduction goals. So to address all of this, I have Amendment two that would amend Council Bill 11 9607 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. O.C. 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 some flexibility around this proposed. 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 who in whose income is between 70% state median income and 80% area median income. Again, that would not create the type of consistency that 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 that we don't have in front of us. But I would like to just sort of open up for what other folks here would like to see done with this amendment, number one. Amendment number two, version one. Vote. For it to be considered, I'll have to suspend. The rules will go ahead and you can speak to it if you like. Are they Councilmember Herbals amendments were in just before the deadline. So those are going to be. If I change it to reflect Ozzy's input, we would have to be deliberating language that we actually don't have before. And I and I'm going to oppose this this amendment as drafted, and I'll walk through that. I will just say, for the record, I was able to share these with OIC as soon as I got home, which is about noon. So they didn't have time to respond to us. It sent them over the weekend with it. So I didn't hear documentary that that. But thank you very much. The the concern 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 and in 80% of area income threshold. And so. The. Well, we will, though, right. So there's a distinction between the subsidy program for installing on a case by case basis as folks come forward. And so what I've heard from OAC 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 has discussed with City Light. I don't think they're just going to take his word for it because they have their own qualification programs. And I think it would be prudent to have a conversation with City like 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 it on bill rebate? And I think I mean, the point you make, Councilmember Herbold, is we're starting into this already and I agree with that. But that's why I would support the language that see proposed, which is do some further analysis on this. Specifically, it says instead of a 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% area state median income and 80% area median income. That assessment would include work with Seattle City Light to understand what a program would take. It would also allow them to better understand how much foregone tax revenue would be there. What that means, are there fewer people that would be eligible? You know, 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 future decision making, I could support, but I can't support this firm requirement without further weighing it. Her. Thank you. So I think Councilmember O'Brien'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 and said the state median income. And that's 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 as 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 Herold that we would want to suspend the rules to consider that new text that has not been submitted by the deadline at noon today. What I would suggest, if we would go down the path with with others approval, is that I would be happy to email what we have and where it goes to the clerk. We can 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 that works for me. Okay, so it sounds like I'd be willing to suspend the rules just because it's almost 5:00. I'm getting a little dizzy. It's important for us to consider. It sounds like you will have some language for us. And so I could move to the next agenda item as at the OR. You had other amendments to those, right on this one. So on that particular amendment, we will table it. Would it be easier for the clerk if we waited for the whole bill or. To. Keep going through. The OR should we vote on the amendment as described and we'll send the paperwork for someone to bring it? Okay. I am emailing it to Yolanda right now. I'm not sure who's responsible to do that or should I say somebody else. To. Yeah. Okay. So the First Amendment described by Councilmember Herbold, I am referring that as amendment number two is correct. So it has not been moved and has not been second. 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 of minutes. So we'll call that amendment number two that's making sort of speak. So we'd like to move number three. Thank you. So amendment number three would amend Council Bill 11 9607 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 o-C has explained that he pumps can certainly provide for lower heating costs over the long run and the those reduced monthly costs can result in the conversion actually paying for itself over over a period of time. But eligible 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 that in participating in the in the programs that we 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 the amendment would again exempt residents over the age of 65. That's from Brian. 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 add, which exists already, we have income thresholds for for pass the this legislation is closely tied to. The. State funding through something called the the what is it pollution liability insurance agency. What this agency does, it was created because in the case where all things had leaked were a conversion. A decommissioning of an oil tank typically costs, I believe, around 5 to $700. If folks find that the oil tankers leave, then there's required soil remediation. And I'm told that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. And so someone who budgeted to go in and convert from oil to something else and they get their tank commission and part way through it, they realize they have this massive bill. There were some problems. One for folks that went through with 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 to insure 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 end of 12 or 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 2028, is designed to get all Seattle residents in to be considering these retrofit or these decommissioning before that insurance pool ceases to exist. And my concern is my one of my concerns is this 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 what could potentially be tens of thousands of dollars of soil remediation if they can. 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. So did I hear a an amendment and a second through that discussion? I will move Amendment three to Council Bill 1190 6072. Moved in second and Caspar O'Brien had expressed his support, but with some Asterix behind it. Councilman, particularly you wanted to make some comments? Sure. So I will not be supporting the amendment. And I just wanted 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 itself. I am very, very sensitive to the issues of job loss that has been discussed and brought forth by Labor. My dad, as 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 much very real and intimate. And so as such, I treat them with the utmost regard. However, I am concerned with creating additional exemptions or with the legislation in itself, because fiscally, with the direction that the bill has gone in, it may have some unintended consequences as we move forward. I thought that and I said to some stakeholders that I think that the tax policy and this is very unfortunate because of the tax structure that by which we operate, I thought the tax might be 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, ISC also and essential 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 the the actions and the voices of the young people who were protesting on Friday and saying, demanding and calling on all of us as leaders to 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 over 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. Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco. So we have an amendment number three. Would anyone else like to make comments for call on the vote for amendment number three that's been moved in second. Okay. Because we were worse. I'm sorry. Could you just clarify Amendment three one more time? Sure. Between two and the 80%. Ami, that's one we're focusing on, not the actual Amendment three, which is the extent implementation from July to September 2020. We're on to Amendment three is the amendment that asks for 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 O.C. consider exempting residents over the age of 65, and it asks. It includes that 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. Okay. Thank you. And Councilmember O'Brien's asterix should do it. Okay. Okay. We're going to vote on amendment number three as described by Councilmember Herbold, all those in favor of amendment number three. Raise your hand and say I. I was opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No, I believe I could see that one passed. Okay. Because remember Herbold. Thank you. Amendment four would amend Council Bill 11 9607 to the delay the effective date of the tax for two months. The bill currently says July 1st, 2020. My amendment would have the effective date 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 Councilmember Mosquitoes Amendment. This could help address labor concerns and I think it's good public policy to have a little bit of time with the the report that is linked to the need for this particular tax. Or get a delay. Councilmember Brian, I'd like to respond. I will be opposing this. I understand the concerns. I'm fairly confident we're not going to agree to report back. They were conflicting. Too much money to fund all the things that we would like to fund in here. And by delaying it for a couple of months, that's just less revenue that we will be able to collect. I would be open to an alternative accelerating the reporting date if we wanted to see that sooner. But I'm 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 1000 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 I don't think that report is going to do justice. And I think simply stalling, putting on a tax on, you know, on the petroleum products is that and I don't think that makes sense at this point. I just want to add that part of what we accomplished in Councilman Mosquitos Amendment is that the 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 about it. I don't think it's proforma information that we're that we're asking for and going to be receiving. And again, I think it's appropriate for us to have a couple of months to consider it. Okay. So we heard the lively debate on extending it from 71291. I'll take it in the form of a motion. Do we need to discuss that any more? Any questions of the maker? Catherine Gonzalez. Yeah. Just really quickly, I think I'd be interested in hearing from Councilmember Herbold her response to Councilmember O'Brien's point that it's right that that a two month delay has. A significant fiscal impact on the amount of the tax revenue collected. Do you have a sense, Councilmember Herbold, of what the fiscal analysis is here? I do not. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, Councilmember, will you make a motion so it would be second, please? I move amendment for two counts. Thank you. Moved and seconded all those in favor of amendment number four. Say I and raise your hand. I. Although the polls say no. One, raise your hand now. It passes. So amendment. 622682. It passes amendment number four passes. Council member Herbold. 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 a statewide legislation to expedite the reduction of HFCS with high global warming potential. We know that the state legislature passed and the Governor 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 and 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. Customer. Brian, is this a friendly one? 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 Councilmember Herbold is, but I know she's always very thorough in the things she does, so I take her to work there. Okay. So is there a sec? Did you make the formal motion amendment? I move Amendment five related to hydrofluorocarbons. Because amendment number five is moved. And second, it all those in favor of amendment number five. Say I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Yes, unanimous. Is. We looping back now to number two. Yeah. You just get there. Is. Does that work? Just do you? All right. Thank you. That does the trick for the public record. This amendment to version two Amends Council Bill 11 9607 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% am I median income. Okay. But don't just keep it alive. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. So unless there's objection, I'm going to suspend the rules to consider this. It has been reviewed by law and council member Herbert. Why don't you make that and form a motion? We'll get a second. And just so we could dispense of that part. Absolutely. I move amendment to version 2. Seconds. I guess. Minnesotan council member O'Brien. I already spoke to supporting this and appreciate your flexibility comes memorable. Okay. Any other comments? All those in favor of amendment number two, raise your hand and say I, I oppose the ayes have it. And I think we go through all the amendments. Okay. So I'm going to turn it back to Councilmember O'Brien to see if you'd like any closing remarks. A couple of comments I want to make. One of this is a important piece of legislation. Appreciate the mayor's leadership on this. I appreciate stakeholder engagement on this. Folks have stuck around here for over 3 hours now just to get to this point. When we talk about making a transition to a clean energy economy that provides opportunities for increase 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 work. And we're going to 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 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 I have left. Thank you. Castro and Brian. Councilmember Mosquito, you'd like to see some comments and I. 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 and 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, you know, 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. And there's not opposition, in fact, that I think this is a good model for how we continue to bring folks together. So thank you for those nods of affirmation and and for your ongoing work to make sure that we move forward and don't delay and incorporate that work. Workforce and union perspective in the language. Thanks again for your hard work on this. Thank you. Customer and misguided customer and Pacheco. I just want to they 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 an action on a federal level or 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 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 protests 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 the regressive tax structure, those that would be most impacted by any increase in taxes are going to be low income communities of color. And 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 when we make these decisions and balance these trade offs so that the council can make the best informed decision and 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. Thank you. Katherine Pacheco. You know, the closing comments from many of our colleagues before we vote. Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill. Whereas I must get to O'Brien Pacheco Swine Bank. John Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell. I. Eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passed in show. Sign it. Okay. Let's go back to our agenda. Order! Please read the next agenda. Item three point of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item two Appointment 1428 Appointment of Emily Alvarado as Director of the Office of Housing. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. Councilmember Mesquita. And thank you for your patience. 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 the process that we've incorporated has 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, finalist and then inner 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 expertize, 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 in policy by those experiencing displacement and the lack of affordable housing. So she is still here in the audience with us. And we I think that's a testament to her tenacity and interest in serving in this position. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Ms.. Alvarado, you learn a lot about surveillance technology and oil heat legislation. So you got a bang for the buck here. Councilmember Bagshaw. 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 is 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 how much I appreciated learning about that, didn't know about that scholarship and reward award that you received . And it just speaks volumes. And during that 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. Cast member 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. And but I won't. 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 going to 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 that'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 apartment before my time runs out here. Thank you for serving. Thank you. Can spend with Brian. Councilmember Gonzalez. Well, thank you. Council president only 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 and consistently blown away by her preparedness, her commitment, but more importantly, her vision and her principal and her willingness to give us tough, 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 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 One and is my neighbor, so that if that's not enough, I don't know what is. So you have to congratulations. You have to recuse yourself. Is that what you're saying? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Congratulations, Emily. Any other comments? Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just want to real quickly say, among the many things I appreciate in 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 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 done so. I really appreciate that history and that value for those that that's sort of. The. Value of that position that Emily holds. 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 i. I. Those opposed vote no. Motion carries. The appointment is confirmed and you can hear the self roro is 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. 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 health care, 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 in. The 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 the need to take a short break, I could have called for a recess. That's what I was contemplating. But we're going to keep trying to plow through it. But if you have personal needs you have to attend to, we'll work around it. Long as we have a quorum here, we should be. Okay. So please read the next Jan item. Agenda item three accountable 119 654 Relating to Hotel Employees Health and Safety Repealing Chapter 14.25 would settle on a spa code. The committee recommends the bill pass customary. Mesquita 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 to in some places, conflicting sets of policies on the books. And we want to make sure that we strike the original provisions of Initiative 124 so that when the four pieces of the 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. Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. Any questions or comments on this legislation? Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito. You've done a great job. All right, there you go. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Suarez, Macheda O'Brien Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell. I seven and they ran unopposed. The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda item forward council bill 119 615 relating to the multifamily housing property tax exemption program. The committee requirements of El Paso as amended. Customer Mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President. We're really excited about this piece of legislation. This is the NFT 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 engage with stakeholders over the last two months. As folks know, the MFT 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 tax exemption, new residential development projects are required to set aside a portion of units at rents affordable to families making between 60 to 80% of the area median income. So as we have the opportunity to look at the legislation in light of the changing demographics and increasing population size in Washington, 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 forgoing 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 and talking with nonprofit 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 MFT program with our goals of creating more affordable housing units and different sized 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 studios have more incentive to be affordable for our community. Our analysis and thanks again to central staff are working on this over the last few months. A few months indicates that this change that we've proposed in the legislation would not have a significant impact on participation in the MFT 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 MFT 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 advance labor equity efforts through the MFT program? So we wish our friends look at that 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 the annual reporting requirements to make sure that we at City Council get a better understanding and a 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 and analysis of the housing market conditions, recommended policy changes, especially if there's a significant downturn or upturn in the market state level. Well changes as we talked about and demographic data of who is living in our MFT 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. Thank you, Councilmember Esqueda. Any questions or comments? If. If not, please call the role. On the passage. Of the bill. Whereas I. O'Brien. Pacheco. So on Bagshaw Gonzalez. Purple president hero seven in favor not oppose. The bill passes and Sheryll Simon. I want to. Take a quick break I hope you can revisit five, six and seven. Yeah, I'm sure you too. Please read the next agenda item to. My. Part of the planning. Why do use and zoning committee gentile may clerk 5314 359 application of Matt Driscoll to rezoning approximately 4320 square foot site located 4730 15th Avenue Northeast. Can we recommend that the application be granted as conditioned. Elsewhere in Pacheco? So colleagues, this is a contract free zone application for 4730 15th Avenue Northeast on the east side of 15th Avenue in the University District. The reason I would take the parcel from low rise three to neighborhood commercial two with a 65 foot a height limit and would fill in a gap in the block that was left after the rest of the block face was rezone. The reason would facilitate the development of 127 Union apartment building with ground floor retail. The PLUS Committee recommended amended this application to increase the MTA requirements to the correct level, which would require 9% of the units be affordable or the developer pay $20 per square foot. Oh. I moved to a grant while I moved to Grant Clark file 314359 as condition. Very good. Any other questions or comments? So those in favor of granting the petition as conditions please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The chair was signed. The findings, conclusions and decision of the Council. Please read the next item. The Report of the City Council Agenda Item nine Council Bill 119 651 Relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32% Miss Baker to Page 1661, the committee recommends a steep scuse me no recommendation. Because we're in Pacheco. So this is the council bill associated with the previous contract reason it just grants the reason and accepts the property use and development agreement. Very good. Any questions or comments? I'll move to pass Council Bill 119651. Is there a second, please? Called the rule on the passage of the bill. Whereas Mosquera O'Brien Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell high five in favor not. Opposed. Bill passed in show side. Three 1010. And 11 place. Customer base of your vote in. Council member back can you call the roll on the can you extend the roll on the passage of the bill. Six in favor and. Unopposed. There we go now filibuster for me can you can you read items ten and 11 into the record. Agenda items 1011 council vote 119 649 approving confirming the plan of Roman place in portions of the southwest quarter in the southwest quarter, section 22. Can we excuse me, agenda item 11 clear file 314378 for you Unit Lot Subdivision Application of Black Hawk Investment LLC to subdivide one person to 14 unit lots and 5930 636 Avenue South . From Pacheco. Colleagues, this is the final plat approval ordinance of the 14 unit Raymond Place Subdivision in the Othello neighborhood. Our action today follows CCI permit approvals, preliminary plat approval by the hearing examiner, development of the project and final review by Stsci. As done as I confirm that all conditions have been met and recommend that Council grant final approval. This is the property located at 5936 36th Avenue South in Othello, a half block west of MLK Way. It's approximately 13,329 square feet. Originally zoned for low rise three was rezone under MHRA 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. Thank you very much. And you describe both the bill and the clerk following your description, correct? The clerk bill. Yes. So we have the bill and the clerk filed those. Both were read in the right. Okay. So I'll take them individually. So on the council, Bill 119649i will move to pass counts. Bill 119649. I can't move the second act. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Whereas Macheda O'Brien Pacheco so on. By John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell. I. Seven in favor and unopposed. Bill pass and show sign it I will move to accept and file clerk file 314378. Those in favor of accepting and filing the clerk file, please vote i i. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the Clark file has been accepted and filed. Very good. So please read items 12 through 16. Agenda items 12 through 16 appointments 1433 1434 Appointment of Twila minor as members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners for a term two September 30th, 2022 appointment. Michael Diaz as members of Housing Authority Board of Commissioners return to March 20th, 2023. A re appointment of Robert de Crutchfield and Paul Purcell as members of a housing authority board for Term two December 1st, 2022, and reappointment of Gerald Smiley as Member Sale Housing Authority Board for Term two March 19th, 2023. The committee recommends that these appointments be confirmed. Kathryn Pacheco. 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. Councilmember Mesquita, would you like to make some comments, too? Sure. We have to do. Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco, for your support. These are the five appointments to the Seattle Housing Authority Board that came through the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. The first is appointment of Twila Miner as a member. She is an exemplary saris. She provides an exemplary service to the community as a member of the Denise Harris community. She runs the Feeding Ministry at Greater Mount. Bigger Church, is an active volunteer for emergency feeding programs of Seattle and 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 authorities in 2006. And then we have three reappointment, the reappointment of Robert Crutchfield as member 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 and 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 State Board member committee. Recommends appointments of 1430 through 1434 be confirmed. All right. Any other comments on any of these appoint appointments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the reports of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item 17 Casper 119 648 Relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing superintendent to amend the existing ten year lease with the Seattle Children's Play Garden to add a third additional extended term of five years. Committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Suarez. Great. Thank you, madam clerk. As you stated, this is a parks bill that authorizes superintendent to amend the existing. Ten year lease. This program opens more recreational opportunities for children with physical challenges essentially located at Coleman PLAYFIELD, which is an ideal place for specialized recreational facility development. Public assets in their communities can be recommends for council passed this ordinance. Thank you, councilman. Words. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Whereas I must get out. Hi, O'Brien, Chaco. I so want Major Gonzalez Herbal President Harold Hi. Six in favor and opposed. Bill passenger side please read the next agenda item short title. Agenda item 18 Council Bill 119 655 related to the Seattle monorail approving a letter of agreement between the Seattle Monorail Services LLC and the Sale Center Department. Can we recommend the bill passes? Amended gets been worse. 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. It would authorize the call center director to negotiate to execute an amendment to the monorail concession agreement. The biggest piece of this for me is the implementation of the Oracle program as an option to use on the monorail, which will begin October 2019, I sponsored an amendment that requires Director Dellums to report back. To committee to finalize the agreement. If I don't. Like the agreement. So Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends full council pass council bill 119655 as amended. Thank you. There's any questions or comments. Councilwoman back quickly. Thank you, councilmember suarez wonderful job on this. I want to acknowledge robert nelms and and tom al brough. 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. Good. Those are our comments. Let's call the roll on the passage of the bill. Whereas. I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco. So on Mencia. Gonzalez Herbold. President Herald High seven in favor nine opposed. The bill passed. And Cheryl Simon, please read the agenda. Item number 19. Agenda item 19. Council Bill 119 647 authorizing the general manager, CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a memorandum of agreement between the City of Seattle and the Michael Shute Indian tribe. Can we recommend that the bill passed? That's been us. Thank you. And as Madam Clerk stated this an ordinance to execute a memorandum of agreement. The city owns. A collection of 12,000 artifacts and 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, cause cobblestones, flakes and fire altered rock, representing approximately 10,000 years of human habitation. The Indian tribe desires to. Obtain house and maintain nine pieces. That hold historic and cultural significance for the Moccasin nation and other tribes in the region. The Committee recommends Council. Full Council Pass Council. Bill 119647. Think you can summarize any questions or comments? Now please call the role on the passage of the bill. Whereas I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez. Purple President Harrell High seven in favor not opposed. The bill passed in show senate vs religion idea number. 2020 appointment 1426 Appointment of Andrea C Akita as member set up Park District Community Oversight Committee for Term two March 31st, 2022. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. Councilmember Suarez. Thank you. This appointment is a. Role that represents District two Council Council President Harrell's district for the Parks District Oversight. Committee. The PDC provides advice to the Mayor, City Council and the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation related to Sale 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 a 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 community. Enrich the Enrich Committee discussions. The Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends full council confirm this appointment. Get any questions or comments. Now those in favor of confirming the appointment please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. Most curious appointment is confirmed. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. The short title.