Seattle City Council 4/20/2020

Here.

Nine present.

Thank you.

Presentations is next.

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

The minutes of the City Council meeting of April 13th, 2020 have been reviewed.

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

Hearing no objections, the minutes are being signed.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes?

Right, if there is no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

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

If there is no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

All right, folks, so as I discussed this morning during council briefing, we are going to reintroduce and reintegrate public comment into our full council meetings and any committee meetings that we have in the future.

So at this time, we will open the remote public comment period.

Before we begin, I want to start by reminding my colleagues and the viewing public that this is in fact a pilot program that we are testing for the first time today.

I ask that everyone please be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains that we will have in implementing this unique tool.

So as we move forward, we will continuously look for ways to fine tune this process and hopefully add new features that will allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings to promote additional accessibility to those who wish to provide us public comment on items on today's agenda.

We will be, after this meeting, sending a survey to any of the folks who signed up for public comment today.

It is a voluntary survey.

It's just an attempt to gather more information from users of the system to make sure that we are taking your input and your feedback into account as we continue to evaluate the utility of this public comment tool.

So while it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included on future meeting agendas, the city council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that this system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we're able to conduct our necessary business.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

First, the public comment period for this meeting will be a total of 20 minutes, and each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

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

If you have not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to bit.ly forward slash council hyphen comment.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Third, once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt of, quote, you have been unmuted, close quote, will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

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

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

I want to remind my colleagues and all of the public commenters who signed up for public comment today that just because we're doing this virtually doesn't mean that the council rules don't apply.

In fact, the council rules related to public comment continue to apply in full force, even though we are doing this public comment virtually.

I will provide speakers with a 15 second warning as their time is expiring so that they know to wrap up their comments and their mic will be muted at the end of their allotted time of two minutes.

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

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, you can do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options that are listed on the agenda.

So the public comment will now be open.

Again, I had originally said we usually do 20 minutes.

We have about 20 minutes.

8 speakers signed up.

So we'll probably go a little bit over 20 minutes.

So I'm just going to go ahead and allot 30 minutes to public comment right now if there's no objection from my colleagues to do so.

All right.

So we're going to go ahead and open up public comment.

It is 2.10 p.m.

Public comment is slated to go until 2.40.

PM today and I will go ahead and call on the first speaker who is present to provide us with their public comment as soon as I set up my timer because it turns out I have to keep time.

All right.

Timer.

Two minutes, okay.

Our first speaker is Lisa Howard.

And I'm pulling up Lisa and Lisa is now allowed to talk.

Hello.

This is Lisa Howard commenting on item 119769. I'm the Executive Director of the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

The Alliance represents over 850 businesses in the Pioneer Square Historic District working to ensure Pioneer Square is a vibrant community.

Just a couple of quick things.

We support the proposed special review district legislation to address the COVID-19 impacts.

Temporarily granting the department and neighborhood staff administrative approval authority for certain types of common certificate of approval applications is critical to ensuring the economic viability and recovery of our historic district.

We encourage the council to support D.O.N. in creating a process consistent with the Open Public Meetings Act and the governor's proclamation to restart the board meetings using online methods as soon as possible.

And last we also support adding the single story penthouses to the list of elements that D.O.N. staff may administratively approve due to the clear standards within our code.

D.O.N. staff is well qualified to review and approve the new penthouses in this district.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today and for your tireless work during this crisis.

Thank you, Lisa, for that public testimony.

We'll move on to our second speaker, who is Brady Nordstrom.

Hello, my name is Brady Nordstrom and I'm with Seattle for everyone.

I'm here to comment on Council Bill 119769. I thank Council for the opportunity to speak today.

So let's begin from where we hopefully all agree on this bill that these are exceptional times, and they require us to pursue bold solutions.

So many options are on the table now that would not be otherwise.

So a key goal of this legislation to allow our master use permitting process to continue and to avoid procedural blockage of direly needed housing construction in the city.

So the solutions are within our grasp and I'd like to share three points of consensus across mission-based and for-profit housing developers.

So first, this bill should be passed today.

We've already lost what will soon be a month, and now we're dangerously close to a housing financing cliff, which will mothball or jeopardize projects, leading again to an exacerbation of the housing crisis through the pandemic.

So we have to ask, will we let these dual crises needlessly compound?

Number two, we caution against the amendments to remove affordable housing exemptions.

Our state leadership explicitly recognizes affordable housing is critically important during the emergency.

So these mission-based organizations have asked for our help to meet funding requirements and to keep their projects on track.

And again, we have to ask ourself, will we listen?

And number three, this order should be in effect for up to six months.

And some are concerned about the quality of the built environment if we temporarily suspend this process.

But we ask instead what is necessary to actually build that environment for communities.

And this is not a question of preference, but of necessity.

So I'll just say lastly that it's in the interest of housing providers to build a trusted partnership with the city.

So thank you.

All right, thank you so much, Brady, for your public testimony.

We're going to move on to the next person who signed up, who is Megan Cruz.

Thank you.

Megan Cruz, here to speak on CB 119769. This bill is supposed to be temporary, but it's going to eliminate public participation in design review process through most of the rest of the year.

Please make this a true emergency bill by setting a strict 60-day limit under Amendment 2. The purpose of the bill was to expedite affordable housing, but at the council briefing today, we learned affordable housing is already prioritized and receives administrative review.

As CM Morales pointed out, this legislation conflates and confuses affordable housing with neighborhood engagement.

And as she said, it shouldn't be a sacrifice during a civil emergency.

Citizens have a right to a say on how their neighborhoods function.

Many concerns raised today don't make sense.

Number one, it's difficult to set up and hold online meetings.

The Seattle Planning Commission, the Seattle Design Commission, City Council, and Town Hall have all gone to online formats in the past five weeks.

These meetings offer interactive engagement.

The city has a publicly funded state-of-the-art production facility that supports 24-7 civic programming.

It is up to the challenge.

Number two, an imposition on design review board members.

These boards are composed of sophisticated design professionals that have made a commitment of their time and do their work online now as we all do.

If an online discussion is too complex for them to comprehend, what hope does the public have to follow through on the trouble to sell a platform?

For the public, an online meeting is better than nothing at all, and that has to be prioritized, and it's just not in the current form of the bill.

This legislation is really aimed at inducing large commercial projects to step forward and submit proposals during the six-month window where community stakeholders won't be heard.

Please don't let this happen.

Council Member Swant was very passionate today.

She spoke about the need for public discourse and big decisions, and this applies to all legislation.

This is a big decision that goes to the heart of open government.

If you must pass this bill, please adopt the second amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We're going to move on to the next speaker, who is Alice Lockhart.

Hello, council.

This is Alice Lockhart with 350 Seattle's housing team.

And I so appreciate this opportunity to speak.

Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to get public comment back.

And we are speaking to Council Bill 11769, which we strongly support because it streamlines processes to create more housing at this time when it's manifestly evident It being unhoused puts people in mortal danger, and we all know how we got here with so many people unhoused.

We believe this ordinance simplifies governmental processes at a time when our government is working full out to confront the crisis.

We particularly appreciate the provisions that apply to affordable housing.

We support our city's work to keep us all safe, and we acknowledge how hard our local government is working for us in this moment.

We do not support amendments to shorten the time that the bill will be in effect or to reduce its scope.

While respecting their intent, we feel that they are overoptimistic with respect to how long we will be in crisis mode, first from the virus and later from its economic effects.

And with respect to its economic effects, we think it's really important to keep projects on track and keep good construction jobs.

because we'll really need them.

And specifically, we support the Strauss Substitute and Mosqueda Amendment 1 and not the other amendments.

Thank you so much.

Again, this is Alice Lockhart for 350 Seattle Housing Team, and you have my testimony in your inboxes as well.

Thanks.

Thank you, Alice, so much for that testimony.

We are now going to move on to our next public commenter, who is Emily MacArthur.

Thanks, council.

I wanted to speak to just I think it's important that the council is able to meet during this emergency moment.

And that's really there are a lot of urgent things that need to be acted on.

I'm glad that so many people before me have already talked about the need for housing.

I think this council knows quite well that the vast majority of working class people don't have any savings, and that a huge portion of people here in Seattle are suffering from layoffs and cut hours.

We urgently need housing and we also need a jobs program.

And the perennial question is how do we pay for these things that we need?

It was clear before the crisis that we had a regressive tax system here in Washington.

And I wanted to speak to urge the council to act swiftly in taking up council members Mosqueda, I'm sorry, council members Morales and a swamps bill to tax Amazon and big business for COVID relief, as well as funding housing.

And I would really appeal that these things not be decoupled from one another, because I think they are inherently linked, as the speaker before me highlighted, we'll be suffering from the fallout from this crisis for quite some time.

And the immediate cash relief is very important.

But an ongoing jobs program and housing is absolutely vital.

Thank you so much for that public testimony.

We're gonna move to our next public commenter and I have Nancy Helm.

Hello, thank you, council members for this opportunity to comment.

This is Nancy Helm.

I live in the Green Lake neighborhood.

I represent myself, a 30 year resident of Seattle and I'm here to comment on council bill 119769. Thank you for taking this important step to keep our city moving during this time of crisis.

We need this emergency legislation.

Without this legislation, many essential housing construction projects will be stalled by administrative requirements.

The need for housing and especially affordable housing is not going away.

We can't afford unnecessary delay in getting these projects permitted.

And as we emerge from restrictions, we will need jobs.

Having these construction projects permitted and ready to start will create good paying jobs at a time when they are most needed.

I don't support amendments that would shorten the effective dates of this legislation.

In fact, these are common sense changes and you should consider making them permanent to streamline Seattle's permitting process.

I don't support amendments that would limit the scope of this legislation.

I do support the amendments put forward by Councilmembers Muscata and Strauss.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Thank you so much for calling in today and giving us your testimony.

We will now hear from Suzanne Grant.

Hello.

Hello, this is Suzanne Grant.

I am in District 7, and I'm here to talk about CB 119769, which may potentially immediately gut protections for our urban forests.

This week is the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, and I was at the first one.

City Council must not make long-term mistakes for short-term gains.

These could become permanent changes.

If we are smart enough, we can provide housing and retain trees while we do it.

I urge you to do the following.

Support amendment one, to delete the provisions to exempt affordable housing projects from design review.

There's no reason why poorer residents and their neighbors should have to suffer from substandard architecture, poorly built environments and less trees.

Instead of passing amendment two, please move design review meetings to an internet format.

Allow online meetings as you are now, in lieu of in-person meetings.

Remove waivers on the landmark processes.

Add provisions to prohibit allowances and variances through design review for the exemption period.

All developers should have to follow the land use code without exception.

At a time like this, we need our trees more than ever.

Since 1993, Dr. Francis Kuo and William Sullivan of the University of Illinois have firmly established the importance of trees on human health.

Quote, a disappearing urban forest leads to a psychological, physical, and social breakdown, unquote.

Please use your power on the council to maintain the health of the citizens of Seattle.

Stay strong and do not allow FDCI to conduct only internal administrative reviews without the oversight by Seattle's many regional design review boards.

Please do not let this happen.

Thank you for your concern and your care about our urban forest.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Next up, we have Matt Hutchins.

Hi, this is Matt Hutchins.

Let's see.

I come today to, one, express the support of the AIA Seattle, We appreciate your undergoing efforts to protect the public, assist those most impacted, and support business viability in response to the combined COVID and housing affordability crises.

We believe this bill authorizes, or that authorizes temporary land use permitting process changes that prioritizes affordable housing.

It's an important way to expedite desperately needed affordable housing projects across the city.

We would like to make sure that we're to state that we want to support the six-month rather than the two-month amendment for this bill's action.

We just feel like that many of the projects that are going to be in the pipeline need that certainty.

And if it's only a two-month emergency action, it's going to be harder for folks to plan.

As a design board member in the southwest part of the city, I support this as well.

I think that as much as we can do to keep projects moving along, it's going to, one, assist the housing production that we need right now, and also make sure that we don't have a slowdown later when we do have a chance to rebound.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for that testimony.

We're now going to move on to our next speaker, Maiko Winkler-Chin.

Hi council members.

Um, this is Michael Winkler with the Seattle Chinatown and international district preservation and development authority.

I'm calling it regarding council bill one, one nine, seven, six, nine, uh, two parts of the bill.

One, uh, I wanted to talk a little bit about the administrative design review for affordable housing.

Uh, very specifically, our team looked at it for our North lot project up there, North of the Pacific medical tower.

Um, this, uh, administrative design review would allow us to reduce our architectural work and product and thus reduce our costs to the project.

It gets my project in ahead of potential code updates, which potentially saves the project $1.5 million.

And it moves the project along so I can make my low-income housing tax credit application deadline, which is in December, which then means I can then hopefully get funded and get the construction project underway more quickly and the project up and operational more quickly.

The second administrative review point that I wanted to touch on is very specifically related to the International Special Review Board.

Allowing administrative review of certain items was something community members have been working towards.

Certain community members have been working towards.

Items like paint color choices, blade sign installations, and outdoor cafe seating should be handled administratively, allowing these projects to move forward and allows the board to focus on new buildings and substantial alterations.

We will see an increase, unfortunately, of change of use applications due to the economic impacts of COVID-19.

and we must be ready to manage those quickly so new businesses and community property owners can get moving in a timely manner.

We ask DON to think through how it can allow the broad range of community members to participate in the process and what we may want to continue after this pandemic in order to assure a timely process and wide engagement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael, for that testimony.

We're now gonna move on to the next speaker.

Sorry, just hold just a moment.

There we go.

There we go.

Okay, our next speaker will be Colleen McAleer.

Close enough.

Sorry about that.

Yes, this is, oh, that's okay.

It's Colleen McAleer, and I represent Laura Hearst Community Club, and it's 2,400 members plus our small business community as well.

And a few things about this bill just keep going over and over, and they don't sit right, because they're taking out public comment for land use policies and also the administrative review process, which is a wonderful thing in our Seattle Municipal Code.

The term and the scope are too long.

Six months is way too long, and there's another pipeline for six months to circumvent the public process.

And surely a city of our capabilities easily make it accessible to other people for public comment review boards to meet.

That excuse is a poor one, and I think we should almost be embarrassed by that.

We've written up some comments and received them all, but I think that's no excuse for cutting out public comments for all of these projects, and particularly MHA.

The affordable housing projects are near and dear to all of our hearts, so we all supported them, and SEPA reviews were waved away by the last city council.

So the last insurance of livability of all of these new projects and residences really is the Seattle Municipal Code.

And the sidewalks, tree protections, the elements of livability and the quality of life is so important to these projects.

People of low income should have just as much ability to have good neighborhoods with good design standards.

And that should not be an excuse to pass this legislation.

The legislation goes much farther.

And it talks about landmarks, et cetera, and the employees of the city.

The employees are asked to do things from DON and the Department of Construction inspections that are kind of out of their ballpark.

So having them have their regular workload without the technology at hand, and then in addition to that, be responsible for some of these decisions that are not complete with design review and public input, those people who are in the situation, it's not a good policy.

So basically the legislation is bad and it should not be passed.

And there's so many amendments and it's too long and it's just a bad legislation.

And I think city council should just say no.

Thank you so much.

All right, so we are going to hear from our next speaker, who is Robert Turk.

This is Robert Turk speaking on behalf of Landmark Properties in regards to CB 119769. Landmark Properties is the largest student housing developer in the country, and we are working on our first project in Seattle, which represents our largest project to date.

In addition to adding much-needed housing for University of Washington students, the development will pay $12 million in MHA fees, drastically increase the tax base, voluntarily landmark a historic apartment building on the block, create a public through-block corridor at 12th Avenue Northeast and Brooklyn Avenue Northeast for safe, lit, and active public space, add 8,500 square feet of retail to the university district.

On top of this, the project will create hundreds of jobs through, among other things, construction, project management, contractors, and on-site staff.

With these facts in mind, we respectfully request that the council, one, pass the legislation today as emergency legislation for six months in order to establish a level of predictability in the process.

Two, pass the Mosqueda Amendment, number one, because it provides the necessary predictability for projects that will avoid inevitable delays for projects that are still moving forward.

Three, reject the Herbold amendment number two, limiting the legislation to two months.

This does not give staff sufficient time to review projects administratively and will ultimately cause additional delays because every project will have to start the design review process again and wait in line to get before the board.

If the staff has not published our design guidance by June 20th, the project will have to wait in line with all the other projects that have missed board meetings.

The DRB meets twice a month and is a voluntary board.

So even if meetings are delayed, the delay could be a couple of months.

Every additional week of delay here is putting this project and its $12 million in MHA payments at risk.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much for that testimony.

We'll now move to our next public commenter, Erica Johnson.

Hi, my name is Erica Johnson and I'm commenting on CD 119769. I work at Lake Union Partners of Seattle and we are a small local company with a focus on preservation work in the city.

I'm a project manager on three preservation projects in the neighborhood, and I'm concerned about any legislation being proposed that would not allow the design and review of projects in Pioneer Square to proceed with administrative staff review, just like they are online and just like they are for the rest of the city.

My job depends on being able to keep working and moving the city process along, including important certificates of approval.

The same goes for all of the small shops we hire for design, engineering, along with the retail shops in the neighborhood who need approval to keep their businesses running.

I plead with you, please approve Council Member Strauss's amendment, which allows the process to continue during the COVID-19 situation and reject any proposal which would be countered to Council Member Strauss's amendment.

People's livelihoods are at stake, and I ask you to please vote for Council Member Strauss's proposal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Erica, for calling in today.

We'll now move to our next public commenter, Freya Johnson.

Hello, thanks for hearing my testimony today.

I am an architect with Environmental Works.

We were founded on Earth Day 50 years ago and celebrating our fifth year anniversary this year.

I am the project architect of the LGBTQ Senior Affirming Affordable Housing Project, which will be located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on Broadway between Pike and Pine.

It will provide 122 housing units.

Additionally, I am a transgender woman and therefore a member of the community that this project will house.

This will be the first project of its kind in Seattle.

Our city lags far behind similar sized cities in providing dignified, affirming housing and community centers for their LGBT community.

A community that has been disproportionately affected by this crisis.

The human rights campaigns brief titled, The lives and livelihood of many in the LGBT community are at risk amid COVID-19 crisis.

This brief provides the following insights.

LGBTQ people are more likely to work in jobs in industries that are currently highly affected and will continue to be affected long after the crisis.

The Human Rights Campaign's 2018 General Social Study found that the top industries in which LGBT adults are most likely to work are health care, restaurants and food service, education, including K-12 schools, colleges and universities, and retail.

Due to the housing and unemployment discrimination, nearly one in 10 LGBT people in the U.S. were unemployed, nearly one in five in poverty.

LGBT seniors are more likely to be living alone.

They are four more times likely to not have children.

putting them at risk of lack of care or support from the family.

A survey of LGBTQ seniors by AARP found that three in four respondents were concerned about having enough support from their family and friends as they age.

In short, we need LGBTQ affirming housing now.

So how does this bill affect our project?

Our project site contains a landmark building, which will remain largely in touch, but will nonetheless require the approval of the Landmarks Board.

This bill will allow the Landmarks Board review process to happen within schedule.

Furthermore, our project is funding.

Can I just ask you to wrap up?

Your time is up.

Can you just wrap up?

Okay.

So our current project schedule has the submitting for permit just for the adoption of the new energy code.

Any delay due to design review or landmarks board review subjects the project to these impacts.

I ask that you please pass CD 119769 to provide dignified housing for a community that has struggled prior to this crisis and will struggle long after the crisis is over.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll now move to our next speaker, who is Eva Metz.

Hi, my name is Eva, and I'm speaking as someone who's been involved in the Taxi Amazon movement, and I think it's becoming more clear every day that the coronavirus pandemic continues, that the need to adopt council members want Morales' legislation, to taxing big business for coronavirus relief, housing, jobs, and Green New Deal programs couldn't be any more urgent.

I think it's important to recognize that the scale of human devastation under this pandemic is no accident, and as working people are suffering, big business is getting trillions of dollars in bailouts.

Amazon's profits have actually reached an all-time high, and The Guardian reported that they're making $11,000 per second, which is absolutely stunning.

but they're still refusing to pay their workers fair wages, even give them basic protective equipment.

Also, Governor Shea Inslee has slashed $450 million from the Washington budget, and 22 million people have filed for unemployment.

I think, again, it's more urgent than ever for city council to pass progressive funding and build affordable housing, create thousands of jobs.

I also wanted to say, I think it's an outrage that nobody from the tax Amazon movement has been invited to present in the budget committee meeting that's going to consider the tax Amazon legislation starting this Wednesday.

And that's why over a thousand people emailed and called to demand the legislation be sent to council members who want the committee.

We didn't trust the council to move fairly, and we can see that they're already trying to silence the voice of our movement.

We also saw in 2018 how big business fought viciously against paying any sort of tax and a majority of city council backed down.

And I think city council absolutely should not repeat this mistake and should stand up to big business pressure.

But I don't think we can rely on that, which is why our movement has been organizing and gaining momentum to take our tax Amazon legislation to the ballot and to voters if city council fails to act.

Thank you for calling in today.

We will now move on to our next speaker, who is Addy Smith.

Is Addy Smith on the line?

I am not seeing Addy Smith on the line.

All right, we will go ahead and move on to the next speaker, who is Jack McCullough.

Thank you very much, Madam President and Council Members.

I haven't talked to you in a while.

Jack McCullough, and I'm here to ask you to support the adoption of CD 119769 with the Straus and Muscat Amendment.

You learned last week that the city is facing a $200 to $300 million budget deficit this coming year.

None of us have ever seen times like this, and we obviously need leadership to keep the local economy in motion.

Construction, we all know is what the state and region rely on for municipal finances.

It has three parts, MUCS, building permits, and active construction.

Now, building permits and active construction are moving along fine.

This legislation creates a path for MUPS to proceed.

The AIA reported last week that 80% of local firms had seen a slowdown or stoppage in housing projects in the city.

But amazingly, dozens of major projects want to keep moving here if there is a path.

So the question to you today is, do you give them a path or not?

If not, you must assume that these dollars for these projects go to other cities and other projects.

This legislation is about thousands of housing units, thousands of jobs in construction design, thousands of jobs at the city, millions of dollars in MHA funds, millions of dollars to the city.

But mostly it is about one thing.

It is about hope.

People are looking for leadership to demonstrate that life will continue to move forward.

And on the other side of this crisis, there will be jobs and activity and things to sustain them.

You have the power to shut down this pipeline, but you do not have the power to get it flowing again.

But this is about jobs today and tomorrow, and it is about the power of hope.

If people are ready to be hopeful about their future and proceed with their projects, which is our future, it would be a crime to crush that hope.

Unfortunately, you will not have a second chance to make a good decision here.

So I encourage you to make a good decision and be well.

Thank you, Jack, for calling in today and giving us your public testimony.

We're now going to move on to our next speaker, who is Derek Lum.

Hey there, everyone.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Cool.

So my name's Derek.

I'm calling on behalf of Interim's EDA.

So we are part of a group of of people in the Chinatown International District writing in to express our concern regarding a very specific amendment or like sub-amendment to CB 119769. So the main point is that meetings held electronically in Chinatown International District during COVID-19 crisis are by nature not public.

The CID is home to many low-income limited English-speaking seniors, immigrants, and refugees.

and people generally do not have access to internet, the equipment, the experience, or the comfort levels needed to participate in electronic meetings.

Our low-income community members who are most impacted by the threats of gentrification and displacement are the very people whose voices will be excluded from electronic public meetings.

We hold deep concern about any measures that limit or omit opportunities for community voice, especially during a time of crisis, when community organizations and advocates are rightly focused on meeting the immediate and basic needs of vulnerable community members.

Please do not let developers with a speculative stake in the Chinatown International District, whose projects are feeling gentrification displacement, take advantage of this kind of crisis.

Do not let them sidestep public process and suppress community voices when our community is facing urgent life and death matters.

We oppose electronic international special review board district meetings in the Chinatown International District.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Derek, we're now going to move on to the next speaker, Patience Malaba.

Hello.

Patience.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Council President For the record, my name is Patience Malava, and I am with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle King County.

As an association, our members have been partners to the city.

They have been working on the front lines of the COVID-19 and housing practices in every part of our King County region.

We were grateful for your partnership at the state level as we advocated for affordable housing to be recognized as an essential service during this crisis.

And now this emergency bill is the opportunity for a bold decision to support current affordable housing production as a critical tool for economic stabilization, as well as advance a pipeline of future projects that will be shovel ready when we are through this crisis.

I want to emphasize on three specific points.

Number one, that this legislation should be six months in duration and adopted as an emergency for you to support projects.

Number two, please prioritize including the affordable housing exemption from ADR for projects that apply for bills and payments in the next six months.

And if as council, you do not get to that consensus, we ask that you immediately introduce legislation that will make the exemption from ADR for affordable housing a permanent legislative decision.

Affordable housing production is our only long-term housing strategy for the housing crisis that we were already grappling with before COVID-19.

Even then, the ADR process was slow.

And now more than ever, we need more innovative strategies to help meet the housing need that is being exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis.

So with that, thank you, council members, and we hope that you will be voting today on a legislation that supports affordable housing.

Thank you, Patience.

Colleagues, we've been going for a little over 30 minutes, which is what I had allocated to begin with.

We only have about Well, more minutes worth of public testimony.

If there's no objection, I'd like to just go ahead and finish off the list.

That would put us at finishing around 3 o'clock p.m.

Is there any objection?

Hearing no objection, we'll go ahead and continue on with public testimony until 3 p.m.

Our next speaker is Anna Bonilla.

Good afternoon.

My name is Anna Bonia and I'm with Enterprise Community Partners here to express my support, strong support for proposal 119769. And I will be brief so as to not repeat what others have said already.

First, we support that the legislation should be six months in duration, but so projects can move forward.

Secondly, we also believe that the affordable housing exemption from AB our project should be included.

And lastly, in regards to the landmarks process, we are supportive of giving broader authority for review and approval of projects that would address those that are caught between nomination and designation.

This would immediately impact the project that we have been facilitating and working on.

And without this change, this project could be held up indefinitely because it is caught up in the limbo in limbo with the landmarking process and passing this bill with this amendment would help move ahead housing that will get vulnerable people off the streets.

So thank you so much for your time.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Next speaker is David Murray.

Thank you.

This is David Murray, architect in Andrew Lewis's district seven regarding the emergency bill CB 119769. And again, thank you for the city council for promoting this motivation to the department of construction to basically conduct online meetings.

Why would we need six months to make that happen is a little bit of a question, but also what's questionable is what is it being applied for?

This bill should be 100% applied for affordable housing, definitely.

Affordable housing should always be prioritized over market rate, profit, and interests.

That's not what I'm hearing so far from some of the people that are calling in.

But what we really need to do is provide affordable housing incentives and not a design review that was gonna take place, say for example, on April 1st in my area, for 130 condo units, selling $3.5 million and $1.5 million each.

With this bill, they would be able to bypass the traditional design reviews.

I'm also not quite sure why we can't employ this common technology instead of looking at that as the key problem, rather than trumping over code-established processes.

There's go-to meetings or Zoom meetings that we all use.

At the same time, we're spending all this time to create this bill.

Definitely support not doing six months in Lisa Herbold's proposal to do two months and adding on to that to not support promoting those that decided not to go for affordable housing, but only for those that are providing affordable housing for this community.

should be benefiting from any bypass.

And finally, why is the Department of Construction Inspections, the ones who are supposed to be creating this process, a key benefactor in this?

Paragraph M states that the design review recommendation is made by the director of the Department of Construction Inspections rather than a design board.

They're creating the problem, and yet they're going to benefit from this problem.

Instead, If there is going to be such a process, let's keep it in the hands of the Design Review Board and not in the hands of the Department of Construction, who are responsible for this delay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Murray, for calling in today.

We're going to go ahead and move on to the next speaker, who is Tawny Bates.

Hi, my name is Tawny Bates, and I'm speaking to 119769. Design review is the only method which the public has to understand and comment on large projects which directly impact them.

The process is beneficial to neighbors and developers and results in better designs with little delay.

Any change to the design review process due to COVID needs to be for the absolute shortest period possible.

During that time, virtual meetings and video presentations should be mandatory and available.

so that the public can understand the project and comment.

Building plans are complex.

Normal people are not skilled in this field and need the meetings in public and the presentations to understand and comment on projects.

Up zones have increased in the last few years and design review has been massively reduced.

We need a robust design review, not simply a process where DCI makes all the final decisions.

Citizens have a right to participate in this process.

and need the support of the design review boards.

This is essential for Seattle to be the best city for everyone, the best for all possible.

Please limit the impacts on the design review process during this difficult time by supporting amendments one and two, and always following land use codes without exception, even during this period.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

We're now going to move on to our next speaker, Sarah Patton.

Hello, this is Sarah Patton.

I'm the chair of the Friends of the Market Advocacy Committee.

Thank you for taking my comments today.

I am commenting on Council Bill 119769. And I also sat on the Market Historical Commission for 10 years before retiring.

And we had two big concerns.

One was with the elements of the council bill that impacted the Landmarks Preservation Boards.

And with regard to those concerns, I want to endorse the comments that you received from Eugenia Wu this afternoon.

She did comments which made us feel that the amendments that are being considered and the legislation I will not have a problem with that.

The biggest item that we're following on the landmarks preservation board right now, which is the show box issue, quoting from her comments, it is our understanding that this legislation is not intended for large or major projects to go through administrative review for landmarks or in historic special review districts.

That being the case, that's the end of the quotation.

We're not as worried about those issues.

The second issue is the changes in what would go before the Market Historical Commission.

We're concerned about the legislation giving the Department of Neighborhood jurisdiction, even for a very short period of time.

We think that if the council, and you're doing a great job of it, can do Zoom or other platforms to get public comment and to have this kind of a hearing that the Market Historical Commission can too, with some concerns as raised earlier by Derek Romm about the access of non-English speakers and people who don't have smartphones.

But that can still be handled, we think, and we think that that would be the best way to do it.

We have been concerned over the last several – my time is up.

You've got about 15 – 10 seconds.

Okay, well, I will just thank you again and be concerned that the Department of Neighborhood has attempted to reduce the market historical commission authorities in the past, so we're concerned about that again.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for taking the time to call in today.

We have about three speakers left, colleagues, so our next speaker is Joe Kunzler.

Wow!

The first ever tele-meeting of the Seattle City Council.

I want to thank Council President Gonzalez for being an awesome Council President and starting this new process for a new day of public input where people can call in from home.

I think that's the way to go.

And I want to congratulate Council President Gonzalez on being President.

And I hope she reads the book, Tackling Zimmerman, because she's such a great leader for our commons.

And I hope this continues.

after the pandemic, which I hope the end is in very close sight because the great work of all the health workers in Seattle.

And with that, I'm going to stand down with the next person in the pattern.

Thank you so much, Council President.

Thank you so much for coming in today.

Our next speaker is David Garrity.

Thank you.

I would like to step back and discuss what the purpose of this was.

described, the purpose was to respond to the prohibition against open meetings.

But as I listened to all the comments, it sounds like the purpose was to streamline the development process.

That doesn't seem right to me.

It sounds from some of the developers that they're just chomping at the bit to see if they can get their projects through in a certain number of months.

That's not what the emergency calls for.

And that's not what the emergency bill pretends to be about.

And I think there ought to be some rethinking about what bill are you really putting forward.

I'm especially concerned about the historic preservation aspect of this bill.

It's one person.

I don't see where the public even finds out about Landmark's projects.

Maybe I missed something in the bill.

But there's got to be something in here to give public some information.

And I would like to see the Landmark review boards at least meet by Zoom or something akin to what you're doing now.

There's no reason they can't.

And that's about all I have to say.

I would like to say I am in favor of streamlining or at least favoring low-income housing.

I have no objection to that.

But really, I think there's got to be some examination.

What is the purpose of this?

Is it really just to push through development?

Thank you.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Our last speaker who is pre-registered to speak today is David Della.

Hello, Council Member Gonzales and Council Members.

Thank you all for having me on.

I'm a former city council member, and I applaud you all for the hard work that you're doing, especially during this challenging time.

I'm calling regarding Council Bill 119769, and I just want to say that I represent a number of stakeholders in the Chinatown International District, International Special District Review Board, who signed a letter to all of you, 21 stakeholders in the community that represented stakeholders people who have projects, business owners, property managers, family associations, and community organizations that wanted to make sure that we support the emergency legislation, but that the international district be treated equally as other projects and being able to have projects heard with the help of online virtual means that would allow our projects to be reviewed through the ISRD.

And to do that, keeping in mind the language differences within the community.

And someone, an earlier speaker, mischaracterized the amendment that was trying to be pushed, which is merely to say to allow the city to work with the community to find means to, through virtual means, to hold review and meetings, including language.

And we'd be willing to help do that.

in order to be able to continue review of those projects.

So a number of amendments that are in front of you do talk to that about finding virtual means to hold meetings, including language.

And so I urge the council members to support those amendments that include that, to have the city work on a process by which that can happen.

So thank you very much.

I hope that we can come up with legislation that's going to work for all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

I am looking at the list one more time of people who are registered just to make sure I didn't miss anybody.

And I noticed that I, in fact, did miss somebody.

And I want to apologize for that.

We will hear now from Andrew Grant Houston, who is on the line.

My apologies to Andrew for inadvertently skipping over that name.

No worries.

Thank you, Council President.

Hello, Council.

My name is Andrew Grant-Hewson, and I am a queer architect of color living in District 3. I'm speaking today in favor of CB 119769, the Emergency Design Review Legislation, and given the number of substitutes and amendments, I will first address them in order as presented on the table.

No to the Morales substitute, yes to the Strauss substitute, yes to the Mosqueda Amendment, no to the Herbold Amendment 1, 2, and 3, and no to the Herbold and Strauss Amendment 6. I believe that this legislation provides us with the opportunity to do two things.

Number one, close the gap in housing units needed, and number two, reevaluate the design review system to allow anyone from any background using any language to be able to participate.

Number one, this current crisis does not erase the housing crisis, or the climate crisis that our city faces.

I will note the McKinsey report released in January that noted a gap of 37,000 units to stably house all homeless and rent-burdened households in Seattle.

Microsoft took this gap at over 300,000 units in the Puget Sound region as of the end of 2018. As much as I enjoy spending two-plus hours on a weeknight listening to mostly wealthy white homeowners discuss why a building is too tall or has too many windows looking into their yard, These delays mean that we do not provide the housing necessary for those that are still living on our streets, which, although we can argue many points about the issue, can agree that these hypermobile individuals maintain a high risk of continuing the spread of COVID.

In terms of climate, I ask that deep green buildings be exempted from the design review during this emergency.

These highly technical buildings can reduce our energy consumption, are built to the highest quality to ensure performance, and in many ways, their design runs counter to our existing design guidelines.

Lastly, number two, I find it funny that many of the comments so far express concern in low income communities being able to participate in the design review process, given that the current system does not allow for citizens who do not speak English for third shift workers and who have families to tend to, to be able to have an equal say in the process.

And I will end.

Thank you so much, Andrew, for calling in and giving us your testimony.

That is the last person who signed up pre-registered for public testimony.

So I will go ahead and now close out the public comment period of today's meeting, and we'll go ahead and continue to move through our agenda.

Payment of the bills.

Will the clerk please read the title?

Council Bill 119777, appropriating money to pay for either claim to the week of April 6, 2020 through April 10, 2020, and ordering the payment thereof.

I move to pass Council Bill 119777. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Are there any comments?

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

Council Member Mosqueda?

I. Councilmember Peterson.

I. Councilmember Sawant.

I. Councilmember Strauss.

I. Councilmember Herbold.

I. Councilmember Juarez.

I. Councilmember Lewis.

I. Councilmember Morales.

I. Council President Gonzalez.

I.

9 in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

All right.

Item 1, agenda item number 1. Will the clerk please read the short title into the record?

Agenda item 1, Council Bill 119769, relating to the land use review decision and meeting procedures, temporary modifying and suspending procedures in Title 23 and 25 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119769. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Council Member Strauss, you are the primary sponsor of this bill, so I am willing to yield the floor to you to address Council Bill 119769. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Council President.

This emergency legislation addresses design review, historic preservation, and permitting processes during the COVID-19 emergency.

The intention of this is to allow critically needed housing projects, especially in affordable housing, to continue moving through the permitting process in a way that preserves public input and engagement and protects public health.

Specifically, this legislation would allow projects to opt into administrative design review for six months or until design review boards are able to meet virtually or in person.

It would allow for the pre-application community outreach to be done virtually and explicitly provides ways to accomplish this.

It would allow for minor design decisions related to the historic landmarks or historic and special review districts to be made administratively.

while suspending meetings and the major decisions of the landmarks and special review boards.

Because legislation is being enacted on an emergency basis, all provisions would lapse after 180 days, and we would be required to hold a public hearing within 60 days.

We discussed many amendments this morning, and I've had many conversations with Most, not all of you.

And there have been a few changes made since then, which we can discuss as we move into amendments.

Thank you all for the consideration of this legislation.

And while I know that there are small changes needed to be made for some folks here and there, I really do stress the importance of passing this bill today.

Again, I'll finally end with, while I have staffed this, of work, permitting and design review and any land use work for over two years at this point.

The level of complexity and nuance is great, so much so that I have had to be rebriefed on many sections of this bill.

And so please, if you do have questions upon nuance, do not hesitate to ask.

And I do urge passage of this bill today.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss.

So we have lots of amendments and lots of things that changed sort of at the last minute before we were convened.

So I'm going to go ahead and call for any comments on the underlying bill.

I know that Councilmember Strauss, I wanted to recognize that between the end of our council briefing meeting and now, you were able to successfully work with some of the amendment sponsors to incorporate previously circulated amendments, many of the amendments that we discussed during council briefing this morning, into an updated substitute bill that is now being identified as the Strauss Substitute Version 2. My understanding is that this version includes the following amendments.

Mosqueda Amendment 1, Herbold and Strauss Amendment 6, and Herbold Amendment 3. There is additional language that was added to Version 2 of this substitute, the Strauss Substitute Version 2, that has not been previously circulated, and I will need to request that you describe the language once you address the substitute.

So because of this new language, we will need to move to suspend the council rules to allow the council to consider version two of the substitute, again, because it was circulated during the noon deadline.

So if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow consideration of the Strauss substitute version two that was not previously circulated.

Correct, so I moved to amend council bill.

You can't move to you can't move anything until I go through the process of seeing if there's any objection to even consider it.

So I hold for any objection to considering.

Strauss substitute version two.

I'm not hearing or seeing any objection.

So hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and we can proceed with consideration of version two of the Strauss substitute.

So now, Council Member Strauss, I will hand it over to you to move your substitute.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 119769 by substituting version two for version 1A as presented on version two of Straus substitute recently distributed.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

It's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill.

Council Member Straus, I will hand it over to you to address the substitute.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

This amendment makes several technical and clarifying changes to the legislation that were suggested by different council members.

I'd like to thank Councilmember Mosqueda, Herbold, and Morales, especially for their collaboration.

In addition to the items discussed this morning, we were sent a new version of this substitute amendment to council members, which adds in several of the non-controversial amendments discussed this morning.

It now includes Councilmember Mosqueda's amendment one, the Joint Amendment 6 from Council Member Herbold and myself, and Council Member Herbold's Amendment 3. Additionally, this substitute amendment adds new language from Council Member Morales's substitute, which would remove the administrative decision authority for the International Special Review District, and adds language access requirements for any virtual meetings of any other body, and adds language prioritizing projects that are important to the community.

So it is my understanding, oh, in addition to these new additions, it would allow Seattle Housing Authority to utilize design review exemption for affordable housing, clarifying community outreach requirements, improving tree protections, allow for administrative approval of dorm window replacements in historic and special review districts, allow for administrative approval of penthouse installations in Pioneer Square, allow for administrative approval of certain certificates of approval when landmarks boards have granted preliminary approval, and requests SDCI and OLS to investigate a rule to protect construction workplace safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It finally requests reporting in 60 days on the progress towards implementing virtual meetings.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues again who contributed to the development of this amendment handed off to anyone else.

And I would like to clarify with Councilmember Morales that this Language does, in fact, include the ability for the special international special review district to elect to, uh, allow for any projects that they deem that they want to put forward to administrative review that they would be able to.

I know there were a lot of last minute discussions, and I just want to double check that this meets your the criteria in which you've requested.

Okay, thank you Council Member Strauss for that description of the substitute.

So again, colleagues, the substitute as described by Council Member Strauss includes the following amendments that we discussed at the council briefing.

One, it includes Mosqueda Amendment 1, listed on the attachment to the agenda.

It also includes the Herbold and Strauss Amendment 6, and the Herbold Amendment 3. There is, again, some additional language in there as described by Councilmember Strauss.

So that is the version of the bill that is before us for consideration.

I'm going to go ahead and call now for any additional comments or questions on the substitute version of the bill.

If I raise a hand.

Council, okay, I saw Council Member Peterson first, and then Council Member Morales.

Council Member Peterson, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Council President.

Just to clarify the process, what we're about to vote on is simply just swapping out the bill with the new substitute.

We're not actually voting on the substitute itself, correct?

That is correct.

So at this point, we are actually, I mean, Let me go back to that.

So we are considering the substituted version.

And so what we are considering now is to just the procedural act of substituting the bill.

So we will get to a point where we can talk about the substance of the bill, but right now we're just talking about the substitution before us.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Council Member Morales.

That was my question as well.

Thank you.

OK, any other questions about the substitution?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the role on the?

Yes, well, the clerk please call the role on the on the adoption of version two of the Strauss substitute.

Mascara I Peterson.

Aye.

DeWatt.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the substitute is adopted and version two of the bill is now before the city council.

So again, I'm gonna open it back up to comments on version two of the bill that is before us.

So before I do that, I just wanna make sure Council Member Schell, so you don't have anything else to add to this version, correct?

I'm seeing you nod your head.

That is correct at this time, Council President.

Thank you.

All right.

So we'll go ahead.

And I know that this is where we want to consider several amendments.

And I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Herbold, who is going to move her amendment first.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 119769 as presented on the Herbold Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill.

Council Member Herbold, please feel free to address the amendment.

Thank you.

So amendment one would delete the proposed provision that would exempt affordable housing projects from meeting certain requirements from design review, specifically in this case, the requirements associated with this administrative design review.

Affordable housing projects are currently subject to administrative design review, which do not require in-person meetings.

Everything else in this bill before us today serves to restore public process to certain projects via virtual meetings as necessary during this COVID-19 crisis when we cannot meet in person.

If this amendment fails, by merit of exempting affordable housing projects from administrative review, affordable housing projects will not benefit from these future virtual meetings that we're working to stand up.

Yesterday, Director Torgelson confirmed for me that affordable housing projects as a matter of business practice at SDCI are currently prioritized in the administrative design review process and throughout the entire permitting process.

Director Torrelson also confirmed that the four affordable housing projects referenced in his memo to the city council, one located in Lake City, one in Bitter Lake, one in Columbia City, and one in Rainier Beach.

These projects not only have priority in the administrative design review process, but all of them will be able to complete the early community engagement and outreach process.

I am hearing from folks that even though the administrative design review process for affordable housing was legislated by the council very recently, it only went into effect In July of 28, I am hearing that people really feel that we need to reform that process for affordable housing.

And I would support working on that effort.

But it's really concerning to me that the council would take up a provision in this bill during this public health crisis.

And that is really a policy conversation that the council should be having with broader community participation.

The State Attorney General has issued guidance on the Open Public Meetings Act, and that guidance states that legislation that we consider must be either necessary and routine or necessary to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak and current public health emergency.

Just a little bit more background on that.

This guidance from the State Attorney General came after the March 24th Governor's Proclamation, Proclamation 2028. That proclamation says, subject to the conditions for conducting any meeting as required above, agencies are further prohibited from taking action as defined in RCW 42.30.020 unless those matters are necessary and routine matters or matters necessary to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak and the current public health emergency until such time as regular public participation under the Open Public Meetings Act is possible.

The March 26th Attorney General guidance went on to say that put another way in this unusual and urgent time when members of the public may not be attending agency meetings as they normally would, we need to ask whether or not agencies could hold on some matters until life returns to normal.

They go on to say, since March 6th, state and local agencies have placed more restrictions on the public's movements and activities as the mean to help stem the spread of the virus.

Consistent with the general approach in the March 6th guidance, asking agencies to focus where possible on holding meetings, only on those matters that must be considered under the proclamation.

Agencies must now specifically ask two questions on those matters where they want to take actions.

They are whether or not the matter is necessary and routine or necessary to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak and current public health emergency.

If the matter does not meet those criteria, then the matter must wait.

The Guidance from the state attorney general even goes so far as to define action as hearing briefings or reports and committee, not just taking legislative action.

And so, again, this really for me. makes our decision today as it relates to this particular section of the bill.

Really something to be taken very seriously at a time when we are playing with the members of the public to take the proclamations from the governor seriously.

I feel that we have to really model that behavior as well.

The language in our own ordinance as it relates to the findings for the need to act on this section of the ordinance basically says that the ordinance provides an exemption from design review for certain affordable housing projects if they can file a permit application in the next six months.

potentially long beyond the restriction of meeting in public.

The Office of Housing is funding a number of affordable housing projects that will serve populations particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including seniors and people at risk or of existing homelessness.

and that are far into the permitting process.

These projects are currently subject to administrative design review, which allows certain departures to be granted.

Exempting these projects from design review and allowing departures to be granted outside of the design review process will shorten the time required for these projects to complete the permitting process, advancing the date by which they can be constructed.

All good things, but nevertheless, The focus of this part of the bill is related to recovery, not addressing the public health challenge posed by in-person meeting requirements on the role of boards and commissions in development decisions.

And the affordable housing built that might be exempt from administrative design review wouldn't come online to house people impacted by COVID-19 for a year at best.

So exempting affordable housing from administrative design review will not house people who need housing now.

One testifier correctly said that the COVID-19 emergency did not create the affordable housing crisis.

This particular exemption in the legislation could help those people later after the COVID-19 crisis has passed, but the affordable housing crisis will still be with us.

And I am committed to working with housing providers on administrative design review reform when we can do that in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.

That's all, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Is there anyone else who would like to give comment?

Council Member Mosqueda, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Council Member Gonzalez.

Council President, I appreciate your stewardship of this conversation remotely and the public testimony that you made possible today.

Also want to thank the sponsor of the legislation for all of your hard work to include a number of amendments, including the two that we talked about this morning and the amendments from Council Member Herbold and Council Member Morales, which I very much support.

So appreciate your tough work on that.

Colleagues, I do want to speak to the amendment that Council Member Herbold just spoke about, which would remove the provision exempting affordable housing project from design review.

Unfortunately, as Council Member Herbold knows, I am a no on this amendment.

I'll be voting no because I disagree with the premise that affordable housing is not part of our emergency response to COVID.

I wanna draw your attention to two articles that we received as submitted as public comment today, if I might, Madam President.

Yes, you may, please.

Thank you very much.

One is from an email that we received from the AIA from Michael Davis this morning at 1150. He says we're in a critical time regarding affordable housing in the city of Seattle, a crisis only exacerbated by COVID.

This bill, by including affordable housing in, will help shave off critical time in the process and aid and facilitating the production of more units more quickly.

The housing crisis Here in Seattle in the metro region across the nation is bound to become considerably worse once we've emerged from the pandemic with countless numbers of renters homeowners already in a precarious financial situation.

At the federal level, we've seen a lack of leadership.

Even historic legislation passed by the federal government fails to adequately address those directly affected, including those who are housing insecure, elderly people, people with immune compromised systems, people of color, and those who have been disproportionately affected by the disease and its economic impacts.

It is precisely because of this, he writes, that is why we are so critically, it is so critically important that we see action at the local level to address these challenges and that those measures be sufficient in duration to actually have an impact.

These measures need to be six months and include affordable housing.

Christopher Peterson from CEO of Capital Housing wrote this morning, as I know you are all aware, our projects were determined by the governor to be exempt from restrictions under his stay home, stay healthy proclamation.

because our projects are deemed essential.

For many affordable housing projects, delays in their timing could render them infeasible or at best delay them for months, thereby eliminating or delaying our vital affordable housing efforts for the people impacted by COVID, and particularly the homeless.

Our project, a partnership with Youth Care, will house very low-income people, including formerly homeless youth.

Without this fix, the project could be delayed for a year.

We know that SHA and other affordable housing developers are facing serious delays without this legislation, so the impact goes well beyond this project.

It is not an attempt review or landmarking.

It to move housing forward i it may not seem like it m of an emergency.

I can as So colleagues, I would propose, as I talked about this morning, that it is precisely because of the length of time that it takes to build affordable housing that this is exactly why we need to include affordable housing in this ordinance being considered today under the umbrella of COVID being a crisis that is directly affecting whether or not people can have access to healthy, secure housing.

We cannot change how long it takes to actually build and create these affordable housing projects.

but we can change the city's role and the timeline it takes to allow for affordable housing to move forward.

Just because a project takes a year to actually build doesn't mean we should not act now.

In fact, I think COVID-19 underscores why it's so important for us to figure out a way to expedite some of these provisions.

I appreciate that Director Torkelson was reached out to, and I know that the Office of Housing was reached as well, but the comment that affordable housing is always expedited doesn't recognize that the office has created an office of policy and innovation that was going to set up a process where affordable housing projects are actually stewarded through the process.

We know right now it takes far too long for affordable housing to get through, and we wouldn't have be setting up this office to steward affordable housing projects if they weren't being prioritized more.

Affordable housing is critical for creating the ability for people to socially distance.

You cannot social distance in overcrowded shelters or in supportive housing that is at capacity.

We cannot move people out of shelters and into housing without building the affordable housing.

The order from the governor says stay home in order to stay healthy.

We need people to have homes.

This is necessary to respond to the COVID outbreak and the current public health crisis by definition.

Housing and it's a necessity for responding to this public health crisis.

So I will conclude by just saying, I understand the importance for us to make sure that the public has every possibility to engage in the process, even as we're expediting and leaning heavily on staff to, in this moment of emergency, move as many projects forward as possible.

But we knew we were in an affordable housing crisis before this.

The fact that we have COVID linging over our community means that it is essential that we construct and move forward with affordable housing wherever possible in keeping our workers healthy, but in recognition that affordable housing is a way for us to address the crisis of COVID and the public health concerns.

I don't think it's accurate for us to say that in a year from now when in a year from now when t be moving through the pro somehow be out of this cr know that we, the best c a vaccine is 12 to 18 mon that in a year or in 12 be able to see our way ou think that building housi process, ensuring the c as it has a venue, as this ordinance has articulated, to engage in the process and make sure that we are providing the necessary oversight and input, but that we are building housing now is exactly what we need to be doing in order to make sure people can stay home, can stay healthy, have a home to go to, can move out of overcrowded shelters.

And in an effort to be proactive about what is on the horizon, I would encourage our colleagues to keep the affordable housing provision in Unfortunately, I'm a no on this amendment.

Okay, thank you.

I have three people in the queue now.

Council Member Sawant followed by Council Member Strauss and then Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Sawant, the floor is yours.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

The COVID-19 crisis goes far beyond the tragic medical impacts of the coronavirus itself.

As Council Member Mosqueda was saying, it's also causing a recession that is rapidly developing into a depression.

The need for a public jobs program and affordable housing after the medical crisis is abated, and there is a lot of uncertainty on when the medical crisis can be abated.

So, therefore, jobs and affordable housing have to be an important consideration in addressing this emergency, and I do not believe that they can be separated.

And we have to do absolutely everything in our power to build of social housing and create jobs through that.

I've heard members of the community expressing the concern that affordable housing will become low-quality housing if it's exempted from the design review.

However, I'm not convinced by that argument because the things that determine the quality of affordable housing, such as the apartment size, appliances, bedrooms, factors like that, are generally driven by funding, not by design.

review.

So while I understand the sentiment behind this and sympathize with it, I will be voting no on this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Strauss and then Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

And to Council Member Herbold's points, we had a long, robust discussion about this this morning, and I will summarize, which is just to say, since affordable housing projects are already able to move through administrative design review, this legislation simply allows them a bypass for six months, much like the work that we allowed for volunteer design review boards to be moved to administrative design There is limited staff time in this tranche, which means that we need to alleviate that pressure.

So I believe that allowing for affordable housing within this bill is regarding the operationalization of this bill and not outside of.

uh, our abilities and our parameters under the governor's orders.

I will say that I will.

I agree with everything that Councilmember Mosqueda said.

Uh, and with that, I will be supporting Councilmember Herbold's bill amendment simply for the fact that I would prefer to see this entire bill passed today than to see it fail.

Um, so again, to radiate to read your reiterate Thank you.

I'm going to support this motion, and I still believe that this, including affordable housing, remains within the spirit of the legislation and under the governor's orders.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Lewis, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President.

So I'm going to be voting in favor of this amendment today.

I would say in response to Council Member Mosqueda's points, which as a matter of policy, I very strongly agree with, I don't know that this particular legislation reflects some of the concerns, I think it would if affordable housing was on the same footing as other similarly situated development that is subject to review board process, like all the other development that we are going to put into the administrative review.

I don't think that since the affordable housing is already subject to administrative review, that we're effectively putting it on the shelf or deprioritizing it as a city or deprioritizing it as a department.

If we were in a position where the development of affordable housing was not able to proceed because it required in-person meetings, I think a lot of the concerns that Council Member Muscat articulated would be a reality.

But since it is subject to administrative review and it is the highest priority of SDCI, I am not in a place where I think it's warranted to move forward with this particular portion of the bill, which is why I'll support Council Member Herbold's amendment.

You know, I think that it would be something that we should consider as a council subject to a process and Council Member Strauss's land use committee.

I think it makes sense as an incentive to figure out if we can exempt affordable housing projects entirely from the design review process from where they currently are in administrative review to the representations of the department as to how this could be connected to the emergency response.

And that's essentially the process that Council Member Strauss just articulated where because of the switch that we're gonna make of going from the board process over to the administrative review process for other projects, which is going to result in a potential bottleneck there and require us to make further exceptions for affordable housing, which is already an administrative review.

My hope is that that point is going to be largely moot in the case that we do transition over to the virtual board meetings.

which all of us should be hoping that we are doing in short order rather than in long order.

I don't want us to go forward with the assumption that what we are passing right now is an ordinance where we are expecting the entire six months to be taken up by this process where the review boards are going to be completely sidestepped.

In that case, if the review boards can resume their work, that takes care of the bottleneck that will be created by the expansion of the administrative review.

At that level, that's an incentive for SDCI to develop an ability to conduct the virtual meetings faster, which I think is something that this substitute that Council Member Strauss puts forward makes as a big priority.

All of us want to see the virtual board stood up as quickly as possible so that we can retain that due process while at the same time not limiting essential projects that we know if we do not take some kind of action are going to languish and are not going to be able to be completed.

So I think it is fully appropriate that in the interim of setting up the virtual process, there needs to be some kind of administrative stock gap, which is what this bill does.

And on the whole, I'm very supportive of that process.

This particular process where the affordable housing is moved completely out of any kind of design review feels to me to not be connected to the exigent issue trying to solve as a council.

I think that it is a valuable and good piece of policy that we should be exploring, but I don't know that this is the proper forum for it.

So with that, I'm going to vote for a council member Herbold's Amendment and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis for those comments.

Are there any other questions or comments on Council Member Herbold's Amendment 1?

Okay, I'm not seen or hearing any additional comments on the herbal amendment once so we can go ahead and move through the process of voting on this particular amendment.

I would say that.

In voting on this issue, I think it's important that the public hear that this council is committed to expediting the construction of affordable housing projects.

I appreciate and understand the concern that is being expressed by the proponent of Amendment 1, Council Member Herbold, who has very carefully gone through the process explaining her rationale as it relates to that particular amendment.

I do think that when we are talking about housing infrastructure, it's important for us to acknowledge in the context of this emergency response that really what we are called upon to do is to, in this emergency response, deal with the realities of how COVID-19 and the governor's proclamation order impacts the way we do business and the way we can do business.

And so for me, I see this bill as a whole as a shift in how we operationalize the work that we do that is necessitated by the realities of the public health emergency.

And when we're talking about this in the space of land use, we know that land use is one of those areas where public comment and public testimony and public engagement is a cornerstone of the way we do the work as it relates to land use.

And as a result of that, this bill I see as a response to the realities, to our new reality of not being able to engage in that work the way that we would ordinarily.

I absolutely support the policy and at this juncture can't support this particular amendment, but I'm looking forward to seeing how we can continue the conversation if this amendment does pass.

I do hope that we can come together and have a robust policy conversation.

that frankly potentially goes even further than this to make sure that we are truly expediting the process of construction and development of affordable housing.

in the recovery phase of COVID-19.

So with that being said, Council Member Herbold, do you want to have any last words on your amendment?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

I just wanted, excuse me, I do want to clarify that I do believe that affordable housing is part of a COVID-19 response, but for purposes of adherence to the OPMA Act, that would be restricted to the affordable housing units that we can open up now while we're in this crisis, not units that we open up later that are very, very needed in our affordable housing crisis.

That is part of a recovery.

not as required by the state attorney general's guidance and the governor's proclamation as it relates.

So I just there was a statement that attributed to me that I did not believe that affordable heart housing was was part of a COVID-19 emergency response.

I do believe that, but that would be for units of housing that we're opening up now.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

I appreciate you, again, stating your clear position.

in terms of wanting to be consistent with the governor's order and proclamation.

I think, frankly, I have gone back and forth in my own mind on this particular issue.

I think that reasonable minds can disagree and differ in terms of the conclusion in this particular space.

So I do appreciate the opportunity to have a really respectful conversation and to sort of put out on the table in a very public, transparent way the different ways that folks can think about the same issue and come out with a slightly different outcome.

But again, regardless of how the vote comes down on this particular amendment that is related to how we review affordable housing projects, I want to make sure that the public hears clearly that this city council is united.

in the ultimate effort and desire to quickly construct affordable housing that will last in our communities for years to come and that will be easily accessible to those who need it the most, whether it's now or in the coming years.

in the few coming years, which will be difficult for us in this economic recovery as a result of this crisis.

So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and move us along so we can go ahead and take a vote on this one.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Herbold Amendment 1.

Mosquera.

No.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

No.

Strauss?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

Juarez?

No.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

No.

President Gonzalez?

No.

Four in favor, five opposed.

Okay, the motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Are there any other comments on the bill as amended?

Council President, may I ask you a few words quickly?

Yes, you may Council Member Juarez, you are recognized.

Thank you.

First of all, thank you everybody for all the hard work you've done.

and how we went through this vote.

And in particular, thank you to Council Member Muscata and Council Member Sawant.

I do appreciate what my other colleagues said, but I just want to share that your words really spoke to that we are in unique times and we have to do extraordinary things.

And if there's ever a time for us to move things forward, this would be the time.

I know it was an easy vote on a 5-4, But I want to appreciate everybody's hard work.

And so, um, I just wanted to end it on that note, because again, as count as council president shared, we may have some differences on some of these.

Um, inclusive issues, but the overall general picture, um, under the governor's proclamation and what we're trying to do, uh, through zoom and, um, all these other technical, it has caused us to, um, try to do our jobs in different ways, but still move our city forward.

and addressing affordable housing.

So with that, thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Juarez for those words.

Okay, we're gonna, are there any other comments on the bill?

Yes, Council Member Peterson, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Council President.

So just so I'm clear, there are no more amendments at this point, is that correct?

I believe there are no additional amendments to come before the council, unless Council Member Herbold, did I forget one of yours?

I did have an amendment too, but I'm withdrawing it at this time because of other items that were included in the substitute and also just don't need to at this point based on the vote that just occurred for my purposes to bring forward amendment two.

Great.

And your amendment, Council Member Herbold's Amendment 3 is already incorporated in the substitute.

And my understanding is that Council Member Morales will not be advancing her substitute bill.

Is that correct, Council Member Morales?

That's correct.

Okay.

So all amendments have been considered and any All of the remaining issues that were pending as of our council briefing this morning were rolled into one single substitute bill, which we are now considering.

So we have a substitute bill.

and it is ready for discussion and vote.

So you are now officially having a conversation about that bill.

So Council Member Peterson, why don't you go ahead and provide us with your comments and then I see Council Member Mosqueda has her hand up and we'll hear from her after we hear from you and then Council Member Morales as well.

Thank you.

I'm really grateful to Council President Gonzalez and the Land Use Chair Dan Strauss for providing more time for the public to consider this complex land use legislation from the Durkin administration.

I also want to thank my other council colleagues for digging into this and offering amendments to try to make the legislation better.

Thanks to our central staff analysts for rapidly organizing those amendments.

Over the past couple of weeks, our office heard from both supporters and opponents of this legislation.

The supporters of the legislation seem to be mainly from the real estate development industry, and I want to state for the record my concerns with the legislation.

The bill is presented as an emergency, and based on my experience managing analysts in the field of commercial real estate and working with investors, I do find it hard to believe that projects, that we cannot solve the technological challenge that we have here for design review in our highly advanced tech city.

I feel that I'm concerned that when there isn't an oppor to weigh in that um the q can go down.

There can b from some constituents ab And so I think that's very serious, and I want to put that concern out on the table.

It was mentioned before, low-income tenants deserve the benefits of design review, including administrative design review.

And so I think that, again, quality of the The housing sometimes suffers when there's not that public input and the public input has been watered down over the past few years.

I think that's important context to have here.

And ultimately, there have been amendments to substitutes, but no matter how many times we try to amend this bill, we're stuck with the official title of the legislation, which literally declares an emergency.

I think Council Member Herbold really laid it out well in terms of her concern about the governor's proclamation and the Washington State Attorney General's interpretation of that.

There's some additional nuance here.

We're also invoking the emergency under the city charter, city charter title four, section one, which states when an emergency exists in which it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, that an ordinance shall become effective without delay.

So this ordinance is invoking that, and I'm concerned about that asserting that there's an emergency, an emergency need to essentially water down the process of public input for real estate development projects.

Our city is a world leader in technology.

Again, I think others may find it hard to believe that we don't have the technological means to fix this.

I'm concerned it will not survive legal scrutiny or challenge in the courts.

And ironically, a legal challenge could result in the opposite goal of this bill, because any legal challenge would create even longer delays.

So I just want to put these concerns out on the table, and we'll be voting no on this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson for those comments.

Councilmember Mosqueda, and then we will hear from Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President, and I want to thank Councilmember Carbold.

I think that the legislation that has now been amended with your amendment number three in the underlying bill, if I have the amendment numbers correct, was a strong addition to the legislation and I want to thank the prime sponsor Councilmember Strauss for all of your work with Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Morales, myself and I know a number of others have been trying to work to to the extent possible role of various amendments into the provision there.

So wanted to really underscore my appreciation for all of our colleagues and specifically to the good member from District 1. I definitely did not mean to impugn any motives.

I know that you know that housing is a health care issue.

I think as Council President Gonzalez said eloquently, perhaps different reasonable minds can differ on what the definition of now might be given the length of the COVID crisis.

So I appreciate your clarification on that.

I definitely want to underscore how strong of a housing advocate you have been, especially around housing for those who are low income and unsheltered.

You have been a true leader and I appreciate your heroic effort over the years to make sure that housing is created and temporary housing is built as well.

So I thank you for that clarification.

And lastly, I just I think that the legislation in front of us with the leadership of Council Member Strauss has put forward some provisions to make sure that we not only are able to ensure that projects move forward, but they are able to to the extent possible, build in that engagement strategy in a robust way.

And as soon as possible, make sure that we are getting that public feedback up online.

As Councilmember Peterson noted, we have technology in our backyard.

I know that it will be a quick process with our departments to make sure that we are creating a full engagement process as we go forward.

Last thank you would be to the Building Construction Trades Council and our last two Teresa Tuesday updates we've sent around both the Washington State Building Trades and the King County and Seattle Building Trades COVID-19 safety guidelines for construction on the workplace.

While we have deemed a number of workers essential workers, it is essential that we keep their health protected.

And we want to make sure that any building that goes forward in this era, not only maintain these guidelines in effect as permitting is approved, but that we are quick to shut down any construction site that does not meet those guidelines.

And it is imperative that we continue to push out the message and the contact numbers for anybody who feels that their worksite is not in compliance with public health requirements.

And with that, I just wanna say how much I appreciate all of your feedback on that.

And Council Member Kerr, well, I just wanna make sure I clarified my point as well.

Thank you.

All right, next up is, I think Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

So, you know, I will be voting for this legislation today.

I think it's important to note a couple of things about it in advance of voting for it.

And I just wanted to flag those things now for my colleagues and for the public.

And the first really critical component of this is once the virtual meeting system is stood up, which SDCI has insisted that they're working on to be able to do the design review process remotely.

Under the terms of the substitute bill, that's going to revert everything back to a fairly familiar design review system, albeit one that's going to be done remotely and through remote meetings.

And I'm just imploring SDCI here in my final remarks to please work to stand up that process with urgency, even though under this bill, there's six months to do it, even though under this bill where there's gonna be certain urgently needed exemptions, to make sure that a pipeline jam up of projects that would do irreparable damage to our economy and our recovery, to make sure that that buildup does not occur, it's essential that we have this streamlining of the process temporarily.

That it has to be temporary, and there's frankly, I'm not convinced of the excuses that have been given from SDCI on why it's gonna take an exuberant amount of time to stand up this remote meeting process.

I understand that it could take up to 30 to 45 days to do it, that it's complicated, that we as a council took two months to develop the process to get public comment in our meetings.

It wasn't until today that we were able to accept them, but we did it, and we did it within 60 days.

There's no reason why, as a council member who's had a town hall where there was interactivity with members of the public, as a council that's been meeting on the Zoom platform for several weeks, that it's going to need to take an exuberant amount of time to set up the design review process.

I'm frankly not convinced.

Um, that, uh, for example, the training, um, uh, needs of the department that were flagged are insurmountable or not surmountable in the short term.

So I'm just, I just want to say for the members of the public, um, The underlying protections of the design review process are going to step back once we have the ability to conduct these design review meetings remotely.

I know that Council Member Strauss and all of us on the council are going to be pushing to make sure the department does promulgate those meetings.

And frankly, you know, I feel like based on the predictions that have been made, not only by some of the people that commented publicly today, but people from the departments on the irreparable harm that could happen to our economy, that this is essential legislation that needs to be passed.

I wish the attempts to amend it had gone better, but I feel like where we are now, it has to go forward and the department should take the cue that sooner rather than later is better to set up the virtual process.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis for those remarks.

Are there any other comments from my colleagues?

Council Member Morales.

I think you're on mute still.

Thank you.

Got it.

Thank you, everyone.

I know that this has been a a lot of work for everybody, including central staff who once again spent the weekend trying to answer all of our questions and help us get to a place where we could move forward.

I want to make sure that as the representative from District 2, it's really clear to my colleagues that I believe we should not be pushing projects through without the community process, especially in the CID and the South End where the possibility for disaster gentrification is especially high.

I did my substitute bill and asked central staff to draft an amendment that would remove the ISRD, the International District Special Review District, and preserve the status quo during the crisis.

It would allow the community to retain the ability to expedite certain projects that they prioritize for administrative review.

And I did ask Council Member Strauss to incorporate that into his language.

I do want my colleagues to be aware of what this bill will and won't do for affordable housing and major projects in historic districts, you know, the memos that we've seen in none of the memos that we've seen related to this bill.

is a real explanation about the fact that certificate of approval in project and design processes are what the bill addresses.

We need to be clear that the decisions related to certificates of approval outside the limited authority given to DOM won't be proceeding.

This includes some certificates of approval for affordable housing and for major projects.

And two-thirds of the bill addresses a perceived administrative backlog But we're still not achieving our goal of moving forward affordable housing projects that haven't received that designation, the Certificate of Approval designation.

I also want to say we all just received an email from the Department of Neighborhoods that highlights why this is so concerning to me and why I really see this bill as a vehicle for promoting downtown development.

There are eight new construction projects in the CID.

One of those projects is for affordable housing.

The rest are for market rate housing, condos, and hotel projects.

Council colleagues, I want you to understand that neighbors in the CID are worried about a very real existential threat to the historic nature of the community and for what it means for the preservation of their culture and their community.

Neighbors there don't want a Disney-fied version of the CID where hotels and chains move in and look Asian-y.

They want to preserve the ability of the low-income Asian families who have only ever known life in the city to stay in their neighborhood.

I realize that some consider my previous proposal as a drastic amendment, and I disagree.

What is drastic is a proposal to exclude community from processes that affect their neighborhoods.

The department argued that shifting decision-making to them is necessary to handle a backlog of projects and that these are only minor, benign decisions.

But that is in the eye of the beholder.

You know, the addition or removal of park benches, for example, might seem benign to some.

It might seem like an insignificant decision.

But these projects that allow elders to age in place and to do that well requires input from community elders.

They're the ones who should be making decisions about whether a park bench is in the right place or not.

The people of District 2, especially in the CID, believe that these boards and committees were intended to give community input to the decision of how their neighborhoods function.

And this proposal excludes them from giving that input.

And to presume that everyone has easy access to technology or to the language skills needed to follow these processes in English is to demonstrate a poor understanding of our racial equity goals.

So I am I'm glad that the amendment is included in this language.

I still believe firmly that this should have been two separate bills and that it conflates the issue of participation with the issue of affordable housing.

While I'm very supportive of affordable housing and know that that is not going to be problematic in this process, I do believe that we need to be very clear that protecting the ability of our community members to participate in these processes is important.

Thank you, Councilor Morales, for those remarks.

And is there anyone else who hasn't yet spoken who wanted to provide a comment?

And I'm gonna give Council Member Strauss the last word on the bills, on the substitute version of the bill.

But I did wanna check in with Council Member Juarez, who's on the phone and whose face I can't actually see.

So I don't know if she's raising her hand or not.

But Council Member Juarez, do you have any comments on the bill?

No, I don't.

And thank you for checking in on me, because you know how I feel about Zoom.

Yeah, I do.

I do.

And my only regret about you coming in is I can't actually see your facial expressions while we're meeting.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm good.

Okay, good.

Thank you so much.

Just wanted to make sure I didn't skip you.

So it looks like we don't have any other folks who are wanting to speak on the underlying bill.

And Council Member Strauss, before I hand it over to you for the last word, I just wanted to also express my gratitude to you and to our Council Central staff for doing a lot of tremendous work on these bills over the last several weeks.

I think for some council members who just started to engage in the last couple of weeks, it's important to recognize that Council Central staff has been working on these bills for a little bit longer than that, trying to work through many of the issues.

I do appreciate the difficulty of having to tackle a complex land use issue remotely when we're not all co-located.

It makes it a little bit more difficult.

And when we are left with the only viable venue to have a robust discussion on this being council briefing, it makes it a little difficult.

But I appreciate your all's patience and you're willing to engage in the ongoing conversation here.

I do intend to support the underlying bill as amended and represented in the substitute bill.

I want to thank all the amendment sponsors.

including Councilmember Herbold, who, again, I have a deep amount of respect and affection for you, Councilmember Herbold, not only as my colleague, but as my district representative, and really do appreciate your stalwart commitment to making sure that we are maintaining consistency as it relates to your reading of the proclamation and how this bill fits in or doesn't quite fit into that rubric.

I think that was a very reasonable conversation for us to have, and I really appreciated you bringing it forward so that we can have that conversation.

And when Council Member Morales speaks about the needs of District 2, it's a very powerful reminder that communities of color, communities who have limited English proficiency, have been historically and continue to be excluded from many of the systems that we have in place that are represented by government and certainly by our land use codes.

And I think it's important for us to recognize that when we talk about the recognition of history and the cementing of history in our city, We oftentimes don't see the history of people of color and immigrants and refugees acknowledged or captured throughout our city.

Chinatown International District in Little Saigon is an exception to that.

It is a amazing representation of the rich history and cultural contributions that that community has historically made and had right here in our own city.

and I deeply respect the perspective that Councilmember Morales is lifting up when she talks about racial equity and as it relates to this particular issue and frankly, many, many more.

But with that being said, I do think it's important for us to acknowledge the operational difficulties in this particular period of time and do believe that they are temporary in nature and have the same expectations as Councilmember Lewis the department and agencies will act swiftly to implement the processes needed in order to address the public comment and input participation piece of the work that belongs to them.

So with that being said, I'm gonna hand it over to Council Member Strauss, who's gonna take us home, and then we'll go ahead and take a vote on this bill.

Thank you, Council President.

Overall, I want to thank all of my colleagues here, Council Member Herbold-Lewis, Council President Gonzalez, Council Member Peterson, Council Member Mosqueda, Council Member Sawant, Council Member Juarez, even though I don't see your face, and of course, Council Member Morales.

I want to highlight the importance of making sure that we do not pass new decisions without public input.

We are responding to an emergency.

Virtual meetings can be very difficult.

They can be very difficult, especially when you are engaging in deep policy analysis of complex issues.

For instance, today, just getting back on to full council this afternoon, I was kicked off three times and I'm not even sure that my Zoom is working correctly.

So Um, and and here we are, you know, two months into this.

And so, you know, again, everything the council president said and Councilmember Lewis is you summed this up very well.

This is intended to be a temporary, uh, procedure of moving decision-making to departments.

We hope that virtual meetings will be up and running as fast as possible.

Councilmember Herbold, I know that you are dedicated for affordable housing, to creating affordable housing, and I appreciate all the questions that you raised in this process.

Overall, I really want to thank Council Central staff, Ketel, Lish, Allie, for being on phone calls with me over the weekend, late into the evenings, all last week.

I want to also thank Noah in my office, Vian Council President's office, Aaron House, Noel Aldrich, again Councilmember Mosqueda, Council President Gonzales, Councilmember Herbold, and Councilmember Morales for making this a more robust bill.

It is our intent that these practices, that the virtual meetings will be up and running as soon as possible.

And I thank you all for your coordination on a very complex subject matter over Zoom, and I think that that is telling as to the complexity of setting up these virtual meetings that have very complex subject matters.

So thank you all for your time, and I urge your support of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I really appreciate those words.

I just want to check in, speaking of Zoom and technological difficulties, I just want to check in to see if Council Member Morales is still with us.

She is.

Yeah, I've been kicked off twice in the last five minutes, so.

Okay.

Okay.

It looks like we've got everybody else still.

So, um, before you get kicked off, let's, let's, let's call this one to, let's call this one to a vote.

Um, okay.

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

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

No.

Sawant?

Aye.

Strauss.

Hi.

Okay.

Excuse me.

No.

Thank you.

Juarez.

Hi.

Lewis.

Hi.

Morales.

No.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Six in favor, three opposed.

So colleagues, this is emergency legislation which requires seven votes in the affirmative.

We only have six votes in the affirmative, so the motion fails and the bill as amended does not pass.

for a lack of having the seven required votes.

So we have a couple of options.

We can let sleeping dogs lie, or we can resurrect a motion for reconsideration that would allow us to find an alternative way to move forward.

I will say that on a motion for reconsideration, only the prevailing party is allowed to make a motion for reconsideration.

And in this case, the prevailing party are one of the no votes.

Council Member Herbold, you're recognized.

Thank you so much.

I move for reconsideration of the bill before us, including amendment one and open to a friendly amendment to that to include other sections of the bill.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to reconsider Council Bill 119. Excuse me.

I've just lost the bill number.

7, 6, 9. So, colleagues, we're going to just take a vote on the motion to reconsider.

So we're not considering any amendments at this point.

We have heard a intent statement from Council Member Herbold, who is part of the prevailing party.

She intends to bring this back for reconsideration with a reintroduction of her amendment, as well as the invitation for other potential amendments to the substitute bill.

But right now, we are voting just on the motion to reconsider Council Bill 119769 as it appears on the agenda.

So are there any- Council Member Gonzales, I'm sorry, excuse me, this is Amelia Sanchez.

Yes, clerk.

Because of the fact that the council did not pass the bill at this meeting, the motion to reconsider is correct at this point, but actually following through on the motion for reconsideration needs to happen at another meeting per the city charter.

And I can quote the city charter if you'd like for me to do that right now.

Could you please?

Because I think that's inconsistent with some motions and motions for reconsideration that we've done in the past.

Okay.

If a bill is moved for final passage and fails to pass and a motion to reconsider is made, the motion to reconsider shall not be voted on before the next meeting of the city council.

Council President and- Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Okay.

So it is, so, uh, Amelia, last week we had, um, last week or two weeks ago, we had a motion for reconsideration on the introduction and referral calendar and voted on that motion for reconsideration at the same meeting.

Why is that?

Correct.

Correct, and those are motions relating to the adoption of the Intersection Referral Calendar, not bills, that the charter requires that bills, if failed, cannot be reconsidered at the same meeting, but at another meeting.

So because I want to make sure, because I want colleagues in the public to make sure that we have some consistency and understanding of how this rule applies.

So what I'm hearing from you, Amelia, is that as it relates to a motion for reconsideration, because this is a substantive bill, the charter requires us to wait until next Monday to hear the motion for reconsideration.

Now, we were able to take the reconsideration vote on the introduction referral calendar because that wasn't substantive legislation.

Is that accurate?

That is accurate.

You can reconsider any vote except for a passage of a bill that did not pass.

So at this juncture, Can we vote on a motion to reconsider but have it slated for next Monday?

Is that the clerk's recommendation?

The clerk's recommendation is to do this at the next meeting of the city council.

So no motion for reconsideration at all right now?

Correct.

It'll stay pending until the next meeting of the city council.

Okay.

So colleagues, unfortunately, we've heard from our clerk that this is not appropriate for us to consider under the charter rules, which is news to me.

But it is what it is.

And so we will have to convene with our law department and the clerk and and discuss what to do next as it relates to Council Bill 119769. Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

I also have Council Member Morales on the line because she has been kicked off.

I've got her on the phone up against my computer.

A question for you and the clerks.

Is there an ability for council members to change their votes on the previous action?

That is what a motion for reconsideration is designed to do, and I'm hearing from our clerk that it Council for a motion for reconsideration on a substantive bill is out of order.

And there's no opportunity for a suspension of that rule.

Is that, is that a correct understanding?

Madam Clerk.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, a member may actually change their vote if there's a unanimous consent.

But unfortunately, because the actual, um, the city charter preempts the Robert's Rules of Order, And the motion has been made to reconsider.

It cannot be made today.

So unfortunately, the only opportunity that we have at this moment would be to reconsider it.

At a future council meeting.

Correct.

Not today.

Thank you, Council President, for expressing my deep disappointment in this motion.

Thank you.

Okay, colleagues, unfortunately, that bill fails, as I mentioned.

So my office will consult with the law department and the clerk's office on identifying next available steps.

My understanding was that this was time-sensitive legislation and needed to occur today.

So the fact that it is not occurring today and has not been successful today may have some intensely negative consequences for some of the issues that we were discussing here.

I will go ahead and move along in our meeting now so that we can continue on the other items of business on the agenda.

Will the clerk please read agenda items two and three into the record?

Agenda items two and three, quick file 314428, full unit lots of division of Nolan.

development LLC to subdivide one parcel into 21-unit lots at 8559 Mary Avenue Northwest.

Agenda item three, Council 119776, approving and confirming the plaque of Verona Roy in portions of the southwest quarter of southwest quarter of section 36 Township, 26 North, range 3 East WM in King County, Washington.

Thank you.

I will move clerk file 314428 be placed on file.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to place the clerk file on file.

Council Member Strauss, both items two and three have been read into the record.

We are gonna take separate votes on each item, but I think it makes sense since they're related for you to address items two and three together.

Great, thank you, Council President.

And I also have Council Member Morales on the phone because she's not able to call into this virtual meeting.

Not that this has anything to do with the previous piece of legislation that we just voted on with technological issues for meetings.

Councilmember Strauss, thank you so much for reminding us that Councilmember Morales is continuing to have technological issues here.

If I can have the Legislative IT Department try to contact Councilmember Morales while you continue to have her on the line, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, yes, my question is how is best to move forward.

So I will speak again to items two and three, clerk file 314428 and Council Bill 119776. This is the final plat approval for the Verona Roy at 8559 Mary Avenue Northeast in the Crown Hill Urban Village.

This plat would divide one parcel into 21 units for the sale of individual townhomes.

These townhomes have been constructed.

Council's role in this process is to certify that the plat has met the conditions placed by the hearing examiner.

And we are, as a council, are required to act within 30 days of the final plat being filed.

SDOT, SDCI, and Council Central staff have confirmed that the plat meets the applicable conditions and recommend that we grant final approval.

Is this the time for me to move the bill or no?

I've already moved the clerk file, so we're gonna take a vote on the clerk file first, take comments, and then we'll move for the bill.

So are there any questions or additional comments on agenda items two or three?

Okay, hearing none, no comments on the clerk file, will the clerk please call the roll on the filing of the clerk file?

Mischetta.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the clerk file is placed on file.

Uh, well, uh, the clerk has already read, um, agenda item three into the record, which is council bill 1 1 9 7 7 6. So I will move to pass council bill 1 1 9 7 7 6. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Council Member Strauss, anything else that you would like to add to this discussion?

Nothing further to say at this time.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other comments or questions on the bill?

Okay, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Seeing none, that is the last item of business on our agenda for today.

The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 27, 2020 at 2 p.m.

There is, again, nothing left on our agenda, so we are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone, and enjoy the rest of your day.

Bye.

you