Public Assets & Homelessness Committee - 8223

Thank you so much.

This meeting will be called to order.

And this is the August 2, 2023 meeting of the Seattle City Council's Public Assets and Homelessness Committee.

It is 2.01 p.m.

I'm Andrew Lewis, chair of the committee.

Council Member Morales has been excused from today's meeting.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold.

Council President Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Here.

Chair Lewis.

Present.

Chair, there are three members present.

Approval of the agenda.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now move on to the public comment period.

Given that we have quite a few people signed up for public comment, and we have a very, very packed agenda today, I'm going to set the public comment at one minute per speaker.

The chair will preside over the public comment period.

Mr. Chair, or the clerk, rather.

Mr. Clerk, you may proceed with the public comment period.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

I also note that Council Member Herbold has joined the meeting.

Our first in-person public commenter is Scott Bonjukian, who will be followed by...

For example, there's the fact that the U.S.

Congress has established an unprecedented $4 billion program to fund freeway lids and similar projects.

Close to the home, the Washington legislature is planning an I-5 master plan, and as part of that study has already awarded $200,000 to Seattle.

There can also be mentioned that the new downtown action plan includes letting I-5 as an opportunity.

Detailed comments in writing, One again, thank you for your leadership and looking forward to having this resolution move forward.

Our next public commenter is Pete Donahue, who will be followed by Peter Condit.

councilman lewis first of all uh congratulations on the primary results uh last night you did very well i think you'll we will have a good good race in the fall something else coming up in the fall is cold weather temperatures and there are going to be quite a few unhoused people on the streets this winter and i think you're also going to recess for the summer is that as I understand that's true.

So maybe we could get something up on the council before it gets too late, before people go into recess, before you go into recess, before it gets too cold.

We get some legislature up on the board so that we can get people off the streets for the winter.

Thank you very much.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Pete.

Our next public commenter is Peter Condit, who will be followed by Jay Jones.

Followed by Clara Coyote.

Hello, I'm a resident of District 4 and I would like to voice my support and encouragement of the council to pass legislation banning winter and extreme weather sweeps.

To me it is brazen that in the wake of Kitchen v. City of Seattle that the King County Superior Court found that sweeps are cruel and unusual as well as a direct violation of our unhoused neighbor's right to privacy and that it's not on the agenda today.

So I would please urge the council to consider this at the next available meeting or as soon as possible.

Please understand that sweeps kill.

It is estimated that 1 in 13 people who died during the heat dome of 2021 were houseless and they continue to kill.

Every day that we keep having sweeps, every time that we have an all-star game, sweeps continue to kill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lucas.

Our next public commenter is Clara Coyote, followed by Wade Phillips.

Thank you.

Thanks to the city of Seattle's status quo of sweeps, even during extreme events, homeless Seattleites are climate refugees.

Forced to fight for survival during extreme heat, smoke, and storms caused in part by our own environmental inaction, banning extreme weather sweeps is the least the council could do to prevent the death of unhoused Seattleites.

The truth is the current status quo of sweeps guarantees the city-sanctioned death of our neighbors.

Everyone on this council who passively or actively allows for the continued sweeps of homeless city residents has blood on their hands.

Sweeps rob residents of the few belongings they have that allow them to survive.

They disrupt important social networks and communities that encampments represent.

Could any of you survive outside in extreme heat, smoke, snow, or constant rain while being endlessly harassed and robbed by police?

Could any of you bear that torment?

I don't think that I could.

The least, and I mean least, we could do is allow them freedom from sweeps in extreme weather.

Our next public commenter is Wade Phillips, followed by Rose King.

Hi.

My name is Wade Phillips.

I'm a member of Seattle's chapter of the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines.

I'm also a public servant with King County Wastewater Treatment Division here on my day off to provide public comment.

I think it's a severe travesty that in light of this unconstitutional ruling from the ACLU, this is not on the agenda to ban severe weather sweeps in Seattle.

I think it's a travesty that we spend $800 billion in this country on militarization, which is extending down through our police forces to spend time and money sweeping individuals in this city.

I think everyone on this committee and city council has a responsibility to address this, and I urge them to work with the services, not...

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter will be Rose King, followed by Julia Buck.

My name is Rose King.

I work full-time at a shelter for unhoused young adults and part-time as a teacher at UW.

Even with these two jobs, I struggle to both pay rent and to provide for my family.

Today, I'm here to speak about the recent lawsuit the ACLU brought against the City of Seattle, where a King County Superior Court ruled that Bruce Harrell's no-notice sweeps without justification are cruel and unusual punishment of American citizens.

With this ruling in mind, I urge this committee to ban winter sweeps.

If sweeps themselves are considered cruel and unusual by the King County Superior Court, surely sweeps during extreme weather when the risk of death is higher are more cruel and unusual.

I'm a member of the Services Not Sweeps Coalition, and we are happy to work with this committee on legislation banning sweeps during extreme weather.

Thank you, and I cede my time.

Thank you, Julia.

Our next public commenter...

I'm sorry, I think that was Rose.

Julia Buck is our next public commenter, followed by Erythra Freeman.

Good afternoon.

My name is Julia.

I am a District 6 homeowner, and I am concerned about lawlessness in our city.

For years, Seattle has disregarded the Ninth Circuit's Martin v. Boies decision, a federal decision that says no sweeps from public land without housing.

Two weeks ago, King County Superior Court held our city's sweep methodology violated the state constitution.

Our city attorney, mayor, and police of parks have said that they will continue to break the law.

I would like our city to stop breaking the law.

I would like our city to stop sweeping people all together.

I would like our city to hold these criminals who threaten public safety to account.

They're upstairs.

Thank you.

I saved my time.

Our next public commenter is Anitra Freeman, followed by Maurice Warner.

Thank you.

I'm here from Wheel Women in Black.

The women of Wheel oppose sweeps, period.

It's simple.

If you have enough affordable, appropriate housing, or at least appropriate shelter for everyone, you don't need sweeps.

You just go where people are, and you take them somewhere that's better.

That's all you need to do.

If you don't have someplace better for people to go, sweeps are unconscionable.

They are a cruel joke, a cruel joke on homeless people and on neighbors and taxpayers.

They're a con on the neighbors.

Look, I made the homeless people disappear.

Nuh-uh.

Instead of paying taxes for real solutions to homelessness, we're paying taxes to hurt people.

We're sick of it.

Stop the sweeps, and at least during winter and extreme weather.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Maurice Warner, then Linda Soriano.

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today and urge you to support the Seattle Aquarium's amended OMA so that the ocean pavilion can be completed.

I'm here because wise, respectful use of the natural environment has been a central concern of my life for more than 60 years.

I'm a former environmental scientist who conducted research for the federal government on the Hanford site.

I have a PhD in environmental policy.

Aquariums have an increasingly important role to play in efforts to protect critical marine environments.

The Seattle Aquarium is not only participating in, but also providing some of the vital leadership for an international group of more than 70 organizations from 15 nations that is working to restore and protect coral reefs around the world by returning fished out shark species to their native habitats.

Such projects are important and happening here only because we have the facilities and staff to lead.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Linda Soriano, followed by Mackenzie Guy.

My name is Linda Soriano.

I'm a 70-year-old elder enrolled with Lummi Nation.

I'm here to speak briefly about the sweeps.

Stop the sweeps.

For God's sake, stop it.

How many more years do we have to ask council after council, president after president of the city of Seattle?

We've been asking for many years.

How many more homeless have to die out there?

I've been living in an RV since 2016, and at least I have a tin roof.

The other people living outdoors, they don't even have that much.

When you do the sweeps, what are they supposed to do?

Move to another place where that will eventually also be swept?

The sweeps are illegal.

Have mercy on the people that live outdoors.

In my language, it means thank you.

Thank you for the time.

Our next public commenter is Mackenzie Guy, followed by Dan Guy.

Hello, my name is Mackenzie, and I'm here today to support the much-needed amendments for the Seattle Aquarium Operating and Management Agreement.

I am a former Youth Ocean Advocate leader there, and I have seen firsthand the gifts the aquarium offers to our community.

It is not just a place where families come to enjoy a fun day out, but serves as an educational hub for all.

Through awe-inspiring exhibits and interactive learning experiences, it instills in all visitors a sense of responsibility to protect and conserve our precious marine ecosystems.

The Seattle Aquarium stands as our local forefront in the battle against climate change and the challenges all marine life faces.

Through groundbreaking research, conservation initiatives, and advocacy, the aquarium is committed to protecting marine species and their fragile habitats.

but to continue to make a significant impact, the proper funding is crucial.

Investing in the Seattle Aquarium is an investment in our environment and our future.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Dan Guy, followed by Charles Wright Jr.

Thank you.

I'm here today to support the amendment for the Seattle Aquarium Operating and Management Agreement.

Inspiring conservation of our marine environment, the mission that was developed many years ago still thrives today.

With activities such as Dream Night and the Youth Ocean Advocates Program.

As a long serving board member, I've seen the collaboration between diverse stakeholders and the city to evolve our Seattle Aquarium.

Dream Night is a long standing event offered for differently abled and disabled adults and children, as well as their families.

to access the Seattle Aquarium for a full night of programming so they can explore the wonders of waters at our Seattle Aquarium.

The Youth Ocean Advocates Program is a high school program that introduces youth to the canvas of the engaging marine environment, letting them interpret and inspire the visitors that pass through the doors of the aquarium.

As a proud parent of this program, it's launched our daughter's path of study and inspired her career in conservation.

Thank you so much.

Our next public commenter is Charles Wright, Jr., followed by Jessara Schrader.

Good afternoon.

I'm here to strongly encourage you to support the Seattle Aquarium's amended operating and management agreement so the aquarium can expand its work with the Ocean Pavilion.

As an Aquarium board member, co-chair of the Conservation Committee, and former Seattle Schools Deputy Superintendent, I believe deeply in the positive effects of environmental education programs on the community.

I've seen firsthand the profound impact that science and environmental education has on children and youth.

The expanded Aquarium will serve as a new education platform to advance ocean conservation that aspires to engage the entire community, including the 400 plus community organizations we already partner with, and the millions of additional waterfront visitors it will attract each year.

Please support the aquarium's amended OMA so they can receive the commercial financing they need to finish the Ocean Pavilion and do the important work of inspiring children for generations to come to protect the Earth's ocean, one ocean.

Thank you so much for your time.

Our next public commenter is Jasara Schrader, followed by Latanya Sevier.

Hello, my name is Jasara Schroeder and I am currently homeless.

I'm here today as a representative of SHARE.

SHARE opposes all sweeps.

So I know for whatever crazy reason that doesn't seem to be possible right now, so please support stopping sweeps for winter and severe weather.

So there were 943 sweeps last year and they did not solve homelessness.

So if sweeps stopped homelessness, we would no longer have any homeless people.

Punishing the people suffering from an affordable housing catastrophe is insane and inhumane.

Please stop wasting city money.

Please stop hurting people.

Please stop sweeps.

And if nothing else, let's at least start by banning them during extreme weather and during the winter.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Latanya Sevier, followed by Kay.

My name is Latanya Sevier.

I'm a black non-binary D2 renter.

I know you all know that sweeps don't work, that they are cruel, that sweeps kill, and that they are actually making the homelessness problem in our city worse.

So you're either just cruel people, You are willfully ignorant about the effectiveness of sweeps, or you just don't give a shit about our most vulnerable neighbors.

Perhaps it's all the above.

We demand City Council stop the sweeps and call each one of you to join the fight to put a ban on sweeps during the winter and extreme weather as a short-term goal as we work our way to a full ban on sweeps altogether.

Seattle is not only engaging in illegal, inhumane behavior, it's also exacerbating the homelessness crisis and making everyone less safe as a result.

943 sweeps last year, and what do we have to show for it?

We have record number of deaths of unhoused folks last year.

Stop the sweeps and defund the police.

Our next public commenter is Kaye, followed by Lak Tran.

I apologize if I'm misreading this.

The first name begins with a K, and I'm having trouble reading the rest.

Is there someone with the first name Kaye who signed up after Latonya?

I'm going to move to our next public commenter.

And if your name wasn't called, I do encourage you to come up again at the end.

Lak Tran, are you here?

Hello, council members.

My name is Lak Tran and I'm a high school volunteer at the Seattle Aquarium and I'm speaking here today to strongly encourage the Seattle Aquarium's amended operating and management agreement so that the Seattle Aquarium can expand its important work on the newly constructed ocean pavilion.

In my short time as a volunteer at the Seattle Aquarium, I have witnessed the significance that an aquarium has in modern society.

On my first day as a volunteer, I have been challenged with a question that would last my entire career.

3, 3, 1, 33, 1, 2, 6, 31, 31.

Age of extinction.

climate change, and so many other detrimental effects for our planet, we so very need an aquarium, not only for tourism, but to bridge the gap between research institutions and civilians, to protect endangered species that are facing near extinction, to help offset carbon levels with man-made aquaculture, and to inspire conservation of our marine environment to future generations of marine biologists, educators, policy makers, and leaders in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Locke, and I apologize for those technical difficulties during your comments.

Our next public commenter is Jeffrey Nguyen.

Hello, I'm Jeffrey Nguyen.

I'm from White Center.

And I feel like we don't get the recognition that we deserve.

And we are also a very diverse community, and tiny community.

However, at the same time, we deal with issues like poverty, mental health, drug use, and homelessness.

And all homeless people deserve a roof over their heads, and safe housing, and a bed to lay on.

And I believe that everyone all over Seattle deserves a roof over their heads.

I hope the council can truly see us as people of Seattle and represent us, our voice, and community.

As someone from White Center, this is a great achievement to be here.

But at the same time, let's see.

That's it.

I'll say that.

Thank you, Jeffrey.

Our next in-person public commenter is Marley Summers.

Hi.

I'm Marley Summers.

I'm a teacher.

I just want to start and say thank you to the last two speakers who are high school students from my district.

It was a pleasure to meet you today.

I'm very impressed with your civic advocacy.

I'm here today to support banning extreme weather and winter sweeps in Seattle.

I think we all know that sweeps are inhumane and have been ruled unconstitutional.

And I think a good first step, or not even a good first step, the next step that we can take is banning the sweeps in this extreme weather.

Sweeps in general create an environment of fear and instability for marginalized members of our community.

and it's a terrible, inhumane process.

So I hope that council decides to work with Services Not Sweeps coalition.

We live in a place of abundance, and I think that should extend to all of our neighbors, regardless of their house status, and housing is a human right.

And sweeps, I yield my time.

Our next public commenter is Chanel Horner, followed by Joy R.

Hello, my name is Chanel, and I'm an advocate and an activist for the homeless.

And I would like to say that sweeps have been devastating to everybody in tents and RVs.

It's been really difficult.

There's nowhere to park.

There's nothing but blocks everywhere.

We're having a real hard time.

with the three-day no parking, or the three-day ordinance, and the sweeping is just too much, and it's overwhelming, and it's hard to fucking, sorry, it's hard to find somewhere to be and be okay, and we know for a fact that that we've already paid for a parking lot, and then that's not gonna happen for until October now, which it should have opened in August, and it's not gonna really help the problem because there's only gonna have 30 RVs there, and there's not gonna be any, and people have to sign away their RVs, and there's a lot more than 30 RVs out there, and so we just need a place to be.

And if we could be in the sweeps, that would be nice because it's really hard to find somewhere to be.

We just want somewhere to be.

We just want to exist.

Thank you, bye.

Thank you, Chanel.

Our next public commenter is Joy R., followed by Dakota.

Hello, my name is Joy.

I'm part of the Services Not Sweeps Coalition, and I try to do what I can to help support people who are being displaced, raided, and swept by the city.

I've watched too many people experience what Judge David Keenan recently ruled for the current ACLU case of the city imposing cruel punishment.

and a violation of their privacy rights with the city's current sweep policies.

I'm at a loss as to why the city simply does not care about what Judge Keenan states and continues these violent sweeps.

I'm asking the council to fully realize that the most vulnerable in our community are dying, waiting for resources, waiting for services, waiting to be treated as human beings with compassion, not sweeps.

with a climate catastrophe.

Winter and extreme weather is our scary reality.

I ask you to seriously support the winter and extreme sweep bans.

What will it take to convince you?

I invite you to join me at the many horrible sweeps that are happening each week to see for yourself that sweeps are simply not the solution.

Stop funding these deadly sweeps and put those millions into safe, secure, dignified housing and outreach.

Thank you.

Our final person signed up for in-person public comment is Dakota Dakota.

Are you ready?

Hello council, hello council My name is Dakota Joseph Donnelly.

I am the founder of an organization here in the state of Washington known as Second Chance Outreach Solutions.

Now, I have shared my idea with this council once before.

This council had my site shut down.

And let me tell you why.

Because my site gives a date, it gives a time, and an opportunity.

My website, not only did I tell this council that within five years I could have a basic income implemented within the state of Washington, But in seven, I could end homelessness.

I could say with certainty with 90% efficiency rate that I can do this.

And your council shut me down.

Why?

Why?

And today we have a bunch of people here talking about sweeps that have killed people, and it continues to do so.

Last I checked, the moment you came after my business, my place of opportunity to help people, you went against the very Constitution that you swore an oath to.

Those people out there on the streets deserve a second chance.

Don't the people here think so?

Thank you, Dakota.

I'll be back next week.

And I might be.

But this council has committed treason by acting in the manner that it has, against its own citizens.

Thank you, Dakota.

There is no one else signed up for in-person public comment.

Is there anyone who signed up who did not get a chance to provide comment in person?

Sorry?

Why don't you come now?

I think that would be easiest.

and give a comment in person.

Parts of this are very complex and parts of it are not.

We know that sweeps kill people.

Despite what may come to mind for some, this is not solely about drug overdoses.

This is also about a whole lot of other health issues.

However, dying of a drug overdose caused by the city is still the city killing them.

There's an enormous amount of prejudice against addicts in this country, and I can't get into that with the time we have here.

Extreme weather is a time when people are even more likely to experience mental health issues.

We all in this whole world know that.

Especially if you're already dealing with those things, you're more likely to relapse or to be separated in sweeps from your friends who would normally be after overdoses.

I'm all mixed up here, but you already know most of what I've said before.

We need to have self-managed camps and to stop tying resources to sweeps.

Because when the housing and the shelters and the resources are prioritized based on whose way you're in, that fucks up the priority for the people who need it most, who may sleep in a different doorway every night, and they're never getting the shelter because the city doesn't care about them because they're not blocking anybody.

Until we have enough housing and shelter for everybody, it needs to be prioritized for the people who are most vulnerable, not for who happens to be in someone's way.

1063 works.

You need a lot more things like that.

Thank you for your comment.

I'm now going to switch to folks who have signed up to give public comment virtually.

Our first such public commenter is Roxanne Smith.

Roxanne, you'll need to press star six to unmute yourself, and then you'll have one minute when you're ready to begin speaking.

We're ready for your public comment.

If you could press star six to unmute yourself.

Okay, we'll come back to Roxanne Smith.

Our next virtual public commenter is Steven Pike.

Steven, it's your turn for public comment.

If you could press star six, you'll have one minute.

Hi, my name is Steven Pike.

I urge you to vote no on amending the operations and maintenance agreement with the Seattle Aquarium.

Despite the substantial influx of funds, there are worrying indications of mismanagement in the Ocean Pavilion project.

Additionally, there are allegations that the Seattle Aquarium provided false information to both the City Council and the public regarding the timing, cause, and reason for the increased budget from $113 million.

financial transparency.

While the Seattle Aquarium claims to be progressive, they face allegations from employees of sexual harassment, racism, transphobia, xenophobia, and sexism.

Additionally, if the Seattle Aquarium is unable to meet their aggressive timeline for attainment of the loan, cost-cutting measures similar to what occurred during the pandemic will be enacted.

Our next public commenter is Celine Russo.

Celine, please press star six and then you'll have one minute for public comment.

I'm a resident of District 1 and I'm absolutely set up $37 million just this year on illegal and violent sweeps.

I'm here to voice my full support for the winter and extreme weather sweep ban.

This violent displacement takes people's homes and shelter and throws them in the trash.

It breaks up communities and makes it hard for outreach workers and community groups to give continuous support.

I've seen firsthand how we've increased stress and anxiety as people are afraid to leave their homes in case they are thrown out, have to call in for work, or spend hard-earned money to move their home week after week.

Studies show that sweeps increase household people 15% to 25%.

If we at least ban sweeps during the most dangerous times to be without shelter, it will be a start and life-saving for so many of our neighbors.

The recent court decision that no-notice obstruction sweeps are illegal is great.

something I hope the mayor's office will actually follow, but the regular program of three to five scheduled tweets a week is still ongoing.

The mayor's line that shelter is offered to every person swept is a bold faced lie.

We can do better, we must do better for our neighbors and for all of us.

Thank you, Selene.

Our next public commenter is Aline Fortgang.

Aline, if you could press star six, you'll have one minute.

Eileen Fortgang, it's your turn.

Hi, I'm Eileen.

Hi, I'm Eileen Fortgang speaking on behalf of Northwest Animal Rights Network, which has thousands of members in the local area.

Again, the Seattle Aquarium is looking to the city council to bail out its financially mismanaged ocean pavilion.

This tourist attraction features live sharks and rays who may be wild caught, as well as source from questionable breeders.

Taking a shark who migrates thousands of miles and incarcerating her in a tiny tank is inhumane and the city should not be giving its stamp of approval on this.

We're asking this committee not to amend the operations agreement with the aquarium to secure the $67 million loan.

If the aquarium fails to meet a number of loan conditions, taxpayers will be on the hook for payment.

And we can almost count on this since we have clearly seen the aquarium inability to financially manage this project We hope the committee will cut the city's losses and stop supporting this ill-conceived, inhumane, high energy consuming, and way over budget project.

Simply put, this is an animal prison.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Lars Erickson.

Lars, we're ready for your public comment.

You'll have one minute when you're ready.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lars Erickson, and I'm the Senior Vice President of Public Affairs and Communications at the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

On behalf of our 2,500 members, I urge you to vote yes on CB 120626 to allow the Seattle Aquarium to secure the final financing for the Ocean Pavilion and complete this transformative project.

The Ocean Pavilion will provide a bridge between Pike Place Market and the waterfront for visitors, workers, community members, uniting the waterfront in downtown into a cohesive district and playing a vital role in the resurgence of our downtown economy.

The Seattle Aquarium Society has surpassed its fundraising requirement and the loans that this ordinance will enable will bring the project to its highly anticipated finish line.

On behalf of the regional business community please vote yes on CB 12026.

Our next public commenter is Andrew Chin.

Andrew, please press star six, and you'll have one minute for public comment.

Hello.

My name is Andrew Chin, and I'm calling in support of Seattle Aquarium's new ocean pavilion and continuing conservation efforts with the aquarium in the city.

As a kid, my mom would take me to the aquarium pretty regularly in between her errands and hustling to pick up my older siblings after school.

My parents had a saying that before I came along, the only fish they'd known about were the ones swimming in the tanks at the local market.

But at the Aquarium, my whole world opened up to the dazzling, wonderful world beneath the waves, and I've never looked back since.

As a teen, I worked as a youth ocean advocate, hoping to inspire those same little kids that I once was.

Now I'm proud to say that I'm a marine biologist at NOAA, supporting sustainable fishers in the U.S.

So I'm speaking to you as someone whose whole life has been moved by the Aquarium, to fully support the amended OMA and completion of the new ocean pavilion.

It's worked to inspire conservation of our marine environment and address the needs globally and locally.

With your support, we can continue to inspire future conservationists to protect our oceans.

Thank you for your time.

Our next public commenter is Marissa Lammers.

Marissa, please press star six and you'll have one minute.

Hi to everyone here at the Seattle City Council.

I'm Marissa Lammers and I've lived in Washington State my whole life.

I've been a fan of the Seattle Aquarium since I was two.

Now I volunteer there every weekend and I see that same passion and wonder for marine life sparked in locals and visitors of all ages.

Visiting sea life up close and in person, whether in the form of microscopic plankton, a puffin, or a sea otter, has a unique way of bringing tangibility to the message that the aquarium strives for, inspiring conservation of our marine environment.

By backing our updated operations and management agreement, you'll also support our new ocean pavilion, inspired by the coral triangle on the other side of the Pacific.

And by the way, unlike what another commenter was saying, it is not an animal prison, and it's actually net energy positive.

It generates more energy than it uses.

And the Ocean Pavilion will inspire the public to donate and participate in conservation initiatives, as well as sustain our own.

Your choice will have ripple effects across Seattle and the Pacific.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Dina S. Dina, it's your turn for public comment.

Please press star six.

Hello, I urge the council to ban all cruel sweeps, especially winter and extreme weather sweeps.

Sweeps are a violation of the rights of the unhoused.

Sweeps are cruel, sweeps kill.

It's a bare minimum necessity to ban winter and extreme weather sweeps.

Sweeps decrease access to services and resources and disrupt the relationships of our unhoused neighbors, have with service providers.

Sweeps disband communities who support one another and rely on each other for survival during inclement weather.

Our unhoused neighbors deserve extended opportunities to shelter in place during winter and weather emergencies to ensure best chances of their survival.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Katie Gendry.

Katie, please press star six and you'll have one minute.

Hi, my name is Katie Gendry and I'm an outreach worker.

The objective of SWEAPS is to move people out of sight.

They prioritize the comfort of housed people in businesses and people in power over the real survival needs of our unhoused neighbors without meaningfully addressing the root problem of people having nowhere to go.

SWEAPS decrease access to services and resources and disrupt the relationships our unhoused neighbors have with service providers like myself.

Allowing people to shelter in place during the winter months makes it easier for them to stay connected with us.

Sweeps disband communities who support one another and rely on each other for survival during inclement weather.

Our unhealthy neighbors deserve extended opportunities to shelter in place during winter and weather emergencies to ensure their best chances of survival.

Exposure to extreme heat, cold, and heavy smoke leads to increased risk of negative health outcomes such as heat stroke, hypothermia, frostbite, overdose, and death.

Sweeps are ineffective and expensive.

Those funds could be better used to provide services such as bathrooms, showers, access to clean water, consistent trash collection, harm reduction measures, and lower barrier medication management in neighborhoods throughout the city.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Roxanne Smith.

Roxanne, if you're here, please press star six and you'll have one minute to speak.

Can you hear me?

Yes, hi Rox.

Okay, great.

Hi, sorry for the audio trouble earlier.

My name is Roxanne Smith.

I'm a high school senior and a youth ocean advocate at the Seattle Aquarium.

I urge you to support the legislation you are considering that would support the ocean pavilion and the expansion of our ocean conservation efforts.

Working with the aquarium has taught me how to advocate for and deeply care about the ocean.

This work has never been more urgent.

On our current path, our youngest generations could see an ocean with more plastic than fish.

Now is the time to act to ensure that doesn't happen.

Working with the Aquarium has ignited a passion for ocean science within me that will carry me into my college studies and beyond.

I credit the Aquarium for giving me the platform to learn about the ocean and give back to the public.

I witnessed how the Aquarium champions people of all ages to learn about and empathize with the ocean and develop a strong motivation to protect it, and that has never been more important.

With your support, the Aquarium can inspire a new generation of conservationists, just as I was inspired, and together we will turn the tide on ocean and human health.

I'm asking you to support the aquarium's expansion into greater conservation work.

Thank you all so much for your time.

Mr. Chair, there are no more people signed up for virtual or in-person public comment.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.

We will close the public comment period and move on to the agenda.

I do believe to accommodate central staff, we are going to reorganize a couple of items on the agenda, so I am going to run that by council colleagues now.

and would ask my colleague's consent to move agenda item four before agenda item three.

Are there any objections?

This is to accommodate central staff's schedule.

Hearing no objections, agenda item four will be moved before agenda item three.

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

Or my apologies, will the clerk please read, agenda item four was on my mind, agenda item one into the record.

Agenda Item 1, Council Bill 120626, an ordinance relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, the Director of Finance, and the Director of the Office of the Waterfront and Civic Projects to execute an amendment to the Operations and Management Agreement with the Seattle Aquarium Society and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We are joined today by a panel from Council Central staff and the Office of the Mayor.

So, who should I turn it over to first?

All right.

Take it away.

Good afternoon.

I'm Eric McConaghy.

I'm the Council Central staff.

I think I'll let the other folks at the table introduce themselves before we move on.

Ally Panucci, Deputy Director, Council Central staff.

Chris Tobias, Deputy Director, Policy Banker's Office.

Go ahead.

Great.

So we're here to present some more information on Council Bill 120626. Two weeks ago in this committee, there was a presentation, briefing, and some discussion about the Ocean Pavilion and the problem that is before you all today with the solution in the form of the legislation having to do with the funding shortfall for that project.

Today, I'll focus on the key aspects of that problem statement, the proposed solution, and the legislative decision that's before you.

With that, let's please move on to slide number one.

So the Seattle Aquarium has a projected funding gap and cash flow timing issues to complete the Ocean Pavilion project that was discussed in detail two weeks ago.

Those materials are aligned and by the way, attached to this agenda are a few revised slides that CEES provided to the council, just sort of saying that for the record.

Delays to this project would increase total project costs for the Ocean Pavilion and for the city's related project, the city's Overlook Walk project.

These two projects are architecturally integrated and the projects have been managed for quite some time in tandem.

SEAS is offering up a solution in the form of an arrangement of a private loan from PNC Bank.

That loan is facilitated by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission.

In order for this to work, the proposed second amendment to the operating management agreement with SEAS, and by the way, I think I skipped over mentioning that when I say SEAS, I mean the Seattle Aquarium Society, or you can thank the aquarium.

At any rate, this amendment, the second amendment, which is actually a collection of different changes to the OMA, are necessary to meet the lending requirements stipulated by PNC Bank.

Next slide, please.

So this slide is to help outline the funding sources and timing of cash flows for SEES.

The committee has seen these numbers before, sort of maybe formatted differently, arranged differently.

I just want to call attention to a few items here.

You can see in the totals line.

that the campaign planning for raising funds for SEAS shows a 50%-50% split of $80 million each for a total of $160 million for the project.

And this split is between public and private sources.

And as you read down the columns, you can see the amount of cash in hand, pledges that are outstanding, expected before the end of this year.

And that then is sort of summarized the amounts available within the project time frame.

The project time frame is between, would wrap up in summer of 2024 according to the aquarium's current estimates.

Beyond 2023, you can see the numbers there, and future fundraising.

And so there is an amount of money here that is outside the construction time frame and that helps to tell the story about cash flow that CEES is experiencing right now and how that is relevant to the discussion you're having today.

SEAS also experienced a shortfall in federal grants that were from four or five different sources, federal sources that did not come through, and those total about $19.2 million.

That rounds out the $160 million.

Next slide, please.

So between C's and PNC Bank, there's this loan.

And here's some details about that package to help to understand the difference.

I think the basic thing, if you take one idea away from this slide and this table, is the difference between the total financing available and the expected draw.

You can see at the bottom that the total financing available in this package from PNC Bank to C's would be $66.7.

Sometimes we've been saying $60 million in summary.

Sometimes the memorandum or discussion, that may be a familiar number.

C's expects to draw about $53 million.

That's composed of the total project need that is outstanding of $45.7 million plus a debt service reserve.

The debt service reserve is a requirement as part of the loan package so that there is enough money to pay off the the loan as SEAS goes forward into the future.

And it should be noted, and it's discussed in more detail in the memorandum, that if SEAS does need to draw more than their expected $53 million, that reserve would increase accordingly.

We don't know that that will happen or what that would be, but there's a few sentences or more in the memo to add some detail to that idea.

Next slide, please.

So what would the legislation actually do?

It would do these three things.

It would allow the city to execute this amendment to the MOA.

It would authorize also the city to execute related agreements that would carry out tactical aspects of the MOA.

And it would ratify and confirm any act consistent with this ordinance taken after its passage and prior to its effective date.

Typically bills, the effective date is 30 days after the passage.

So because of the constrained timeframe, we know from the aquarium, this is proposed by the executive in the bill to allow for a more sort of speedy response should this be passed by the council approved by the mayor.

Next slide, please.

So there's a number of things here.

I will spare you reading each bullet, but I want to point out that, first of all, that there are a lot of key items that were negotiated between the bank and C's and the city in this OMA.

We call it the Second Amendment to the OMA.

That's how it's described, but it's actually composed of many changes.

Principally it extends the duration of the agreement from the from June at 2030 to December 2040 It would prohibit the city from terminating the Agreement with C's while the bank loan is outstanding except by paying a termination fee to C's this is so that there is some assurance that C's will have the ability to operate the aquarium and and to therefore have revenue to pay the loan.

Those two things together, both the extended duration and the termination fee, help to ensure that, as stipulated by the bank.

We'd authorize the finance director to consent.

to the bonds that are facilitated with the state commission that are part of the loan only after the enhanced facility fees that are owing now are paid to the city.

This refers to legislation that the council passed last year to increase the city's funding commitment to seize the tune of about $20 million.

About 19.2 of that has been drawn upon.

and the agreement that was signed, excuse me, the amendments that were signed last year, set up a schedule for enhanced facility fees that would have CEAS pay those in recognition of having a greater and more enhanced facility that otherwise would be available.

So one of the first steps here would be to pay those fees before moving on.

There's a number of other things here that I'm happy to answer questions about, but I think from here we'll move on to the next slide.

which is questions.

So there you have it.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

And I understand that folks from CSER here, if something should come up, but with that, I stand ready.

Thank you.

And really appreciate this follow-up from the questions that committee members had two weeks ago.

I want to leave a little bit of space here to see if any council members have follow-up questions from the central staff presentation.

Okay, I don't see any at this time, so thank you for that rundown.

And given that update and follow-up from our last hearing, I'm going to go move the legislation to get it in front of us.

So I move the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120626. Is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Are there any comments or questions related to Council Bill 120626?

Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold, you are muted.

You think I have it down by now?

I think your voice would carry all the way through the second floor regardless.

Hey, watch it.

Go ahead.

I just want to first thank SEAS for their partnership and their transparency throughout the process.

They've been very responsive to my questions and concerns and provided significant additional information.

I do, because of some of the public comment that I heard and some emails that we've received recently, I really want to lift up some of the assurances that we've received about the limitations to the city's liability and the assurances of safeguards that are built in to make sure that they're understood by the viewing public.

First, the city will not be a guarantor on the commercial loan made to cease.

Ownership of the new Ocean Pavilion will transfer to the City after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued in 2024, but the Ocean Pavilion itself will not be collateral for the loan.

The building that the City will own will not be collateral for the loan.

With the proposed bank financing, the City is expected to receive its $20 million enhanced facility fee far, far ahead of schedule.

I'm not thrilled that the agreement will allow fees to request additional funding in the future under certain conditions, but I am assured that a future City Council will be able to use its discretion in responding to that request because again, The city will not be a guarantor.

There will be decision-making authority with the city and with this next council.

The city is going to be receiving quarterly reporting from SEAS.

This is a requirement that's built into the loan agreement.

This will allow the city to monitor SEAS performance on their admissions and their revenue projections, which are integral to their paying off the commercial loan and it will allow the city to require early corrective action if they aren't meeting these projections.

I feel that together these protections and safeguards make me comfortable in approving this legislation.

Again, I thank CES for its collaboration as well as the executive for its good work in vetting this agreement.

Thank you.

Thank you Council Member Herbold.

Are there any other Council Members wishing to speak on the ordinance?

Okay, seeing no additional comments from colleagues, I just want to take a moment to also to thank everyone who was involved with getting this Council Bill to where it is.

It was a very, very, very long and thorough undertaking, and I want to particularly thank the executive team, Krista Vallis and Deputy Mayor Addie Memory, for their due diligence in working with the leadership at the Aquarium to get this together and gear up this council process.

I want to thank Council Central staff for very diligently making good use of these two hearings that we've had on this.

To really make sure that we were vetting the questions on this this complicated but But very beneficial arrangement with the aquarium to Make sure that council members could vote on this with confidence having their questions suitably answered and go forward to the final council with some assurances of a pretty good outcome for the aquarium that has a lot riding on the success of this agreement.

So I think all around it was a very a very good process and I'm very grateful to the professionalism and diligence of all the parties involved.

I really want to thank the aquarium community in this room for their creativity in being a good partner with the City of Seattle in paying back the loan as promised.

in securing additional support to get this mutually beneficial project completed and really looking forward to continuing this partnership for one of our most cherished public assets and a centerpiece of our waterfront that is about to be an even larger and more prominent centerpiece of that cultural space.

So thank you so much.

With that, I don't have anything else to add.

And I will ask the clerk to call the roll on the passage of the council bill.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

With four in favor and none opposed, the council bill is recommended to full council for final passage.

And given that it is a unanimous report, this bill, I anticipate, will be heard at next Tuesday's meeting.

So, really looking forward to that and appreciate everyone's leadership in here and getting it over the finish line.

So, thank you so much.

Mr. Clerk, will you please read item two into the record?

Item 2, response to slide HSD301A001Q1, HSD quarterly report on activities responding to unsheltered homelessness.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We have Chris Clayson here from the Human Services Department to present on the sly, and Chris is joining us remotely.

Welcome back to the committee, Chris.

Do you have anybody else joining you as part of this, or are you here on your own?

Chris on my own, and I will start sharing the presentation now.

Excellent, thank you.

Okay, good afternoon all.

Thank you, Chair Lewis and committee members for the opportunity to come here today and provide an update on the Unified Care Team or UCT.

For the record, again, my name is Chris Clayson and I serve as a strategic advisor at the Human Services Department.

On today's agenda, I'm going to start off giving a brief overview of the Unified Care Team's Neighborhood Teams approach.

And then I'm going to transition into presenting some data from HSD's most recent statement of legislative intent response to council that provided data on Q2 2023 UCT outcomes.

And at the conclusion of the presentation, I'll be happy to pick any answers the committee may have.

On this slide, I'm gonna talk about the UCT's overall neighborhood teams approach.

And I wanted to take the opportunity first to reintroduce the map of the neighborhood team regions.

I'm gonna be referring to these throughout the presentation.

The vision of the unified care team is to ensure Seattle's public spaces, sidewalks and streets remain open, safe and accessible to all.

And as a part of that earlier this year, the UCT began rolling out this neighborhood approach that focuses on A, building relationships with community, neighbors, outreach teams, and businesses within each area of the city, and B, coordinating deployment of city resources to meet each community's unique needs.

Really critical piece to mention too is that the UCT is going to be using lessons learned from the rollout of the first neighborhood team, our Northwest team, to inform future neighborhood team rollouts and operations elsewhere.

Updates on the launch of other neighborhood teams will be shared soon.

With added capacity, the UCT can thoughtfully allocate resources to keep public spaces, sidewalks, and streets clean and accessible to all.

The team can provide thorough coverage of the city and create efficiencies in areas where city departments were already collaborating.

And to that end, UCT leadership is supporting cross department work towards one vision, leveraging resources across the entire city.

UCT technical support staff also are critical in this effort in collecting and presenting high quality data across multiple sources to track performance.

And this allows the city to embed data informed, continuous quality improvement within the unified care team, again, to guide those operations and shift approaches needed.

In addition to the information presented today in this slide deck and in the slide response as well, more data on the efforts can be found online at the one Seattle homelessness action plan dashboard and Q2 data is anticipated to be available in the coming weeks.

Turning to what key metrics are captured and what the UCT uses to measure results.

Today we're going to be looking at responding to community needs, coordinating outreach services, making spaces clean and accessible, and finally resolving priority encampments.

In terms of responding to community needs, the UCT continues to receive high numbers of service requests related to encampments.

In quarter two, there were over 9,300 such requests.

Again, these are processed through the Customer Service Bureau service request system, which also provides constituents with automated status updates for their service requests.

And for instance, this can happen when a site has been inspected, is added to a trash route, or has been resolved.

And more people are learning how to use the centralized reporting methods.

We're hearing from more constituents about what is happening in the neighborhood, which is great.

And today, we really believe the system is working as well.

Overall, 98% of requests are triaged within three days.

And this means that all requests relating to unauthorized encampments are reviewed and next steps determined.

And that can include a site being added for an inspection, confirmation that a site is already being monitored, or whether the request is best served by another department.

Additionally, we're seeing that teams in the field are consistently having eyes on public spaces.

Only 9% of reports triaged for inspection actually resulted in a new site being added to the UCT database.

One final note on this slide, UCT impacts active encampment sites regularly to understand the changing conditions on the ground, and again, to shift approaches for specific sites.

Re-inspection of sites helps ensure, again, data quality.

is there improve situational awareness on the ground and inform site prioritization and mitigation processes.

UCT is expanding its tools and training for field staff to better meet our goal of re-inspecting all active sites every four weeks.

Turning to coordinating outreach services, in quarter two, the UCT coordinated over 1,300 offers of shelter.

These offers supported a total of 554 accepted referrals, which was an increase of 21% compared to Q2 2022. From these referrals, 206 enrollments into shelter were confirmed, which is also an increase, this of 14% from a year ago.

It does bear mentioning, as we've mentioned before, that enrollments can be challenging to track due to, among other factors, anonymized data within HMIS that makes it difficult to match with the data collected by the city.

And as a result, HSD believes the confirmed enrollments is an undercount of actual enrollments into shelter.

One final point for this slide, for shelter referrals where data on race was collected, In Q2, 47% were made to people experiencing homelessness who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and this was slightly less than seen in Q1 when that was at 50%.

Chris, can we stop here and ask a few questions about this slide?

Sure.

You implied that offers accepted inherently likely include some duplication.

Are we to then extrapolate that the offers of shelter also includes, that those are more offers than the unique individuals who were involved, that there's duplication on that side of the spectrum as well?

Yes, yeah, there will be duplication on that side.

So, in looking at these charts, my understanding is another piece of data that the Unified Care Team is tracking is the impact of refusals of folks who are declining, the reasons for declining.

Is that going to be on a future slide?

is actually on the next slide.

Okay yeah good I didn't want to so I'll flag that but I just wanted to clarify that Office of Shelter also included the possible duplication.

Any other questions on the slide?

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I actually I wasn't sure if you wanted us to hold questions.

I actually have questions about some earlier slides.

So first on the neighborhood teens approach.

This is more sharing an experience and a request as opposed to an actual question as it relates to the outreach workers, not the, but generally reach outreach workers and.

And urban league outreach workers who are regularly working in district 1, we share with them information that we learn from constituents.

and locations specifically that would benefit from outreach.

This has been a really helpful relationship.

My staff have regular meetings with these outreach workers, and it's also allowed us to provide more satisfying information to constituents because we learn from the outreach workers more useful information about their efforts.

So I just want to flag that when you say the teams will build relationships with their regions, that you also encourage the outreach workers to build relationships with council members who represent the region.

It really benefits everyone involved.

And then I have 2 questions about about this particular slide.

The 1st, I think is pretty easy on the, neighborhood teams understand that we've only launched the Northwest neighborhood team, found that out in the first quarterly report.

At the time, I inquired about when the Southwest regional team would be launched, learned from Deputy Mayor Washington that the goal is to have all three teams launched by the end of the year.

New report that we just received today also says the same that the additional team launches are anticipated by Q4 of 2023. I just wondering if you could help us understand and help the viewing public understand and give me the information so I can share that with my constituents.

Why was only the Northwest team launched in March and why is it that the other teams are being launched not for nine months later?

Sure, I think overall I would have to defer to Deputy Mayor Washington to talk about the schedule going forward.

But to the point about why later on, I think it is really just being intentional about learning, taking lessons learned and looking at the data from the launch of the Northwest team that was at the end of Q1.

I think we were trying to be thoughtful about that and really have that experience affect the rollout for the rest of the year.

But I can definitely bring that question back for Deputy Mayor Washington.

Thank you so much.

And then a strategy that I think we've talked about often in this in this setting, as well as other settings, is to have outreach workers not just coordinate Unified Care Team services, but also identify for encampment residents the elements of their presence that would benefit everyone from a voluntary improvement, such as moving a tent to help keep a sidewalk accessible or moving it away from a playground.

This is, again, something that we've talked about a lot in this committee.

It seemed like there was an interest in facilitating those kinds of conversations between UCT members and contracted outreach workers to gain that kind of voluntary mitigation work that, if successful, would reduce the need or the risk assessment associated with a removal or a decision to mitigate the location.

So just wondering whether or not that's happening, particularly in light of the recent court decision that many people talked about here today.

Sure.

I think in terms of specifics of UTP operations, again, I have to defer to Deputy Mayor, but I will say that our HSD team is having regular interactions or regional coordinators with contracted outreach providers from KCRHA.

And definitely those conversations are happening.

I know that individuals that you speak of that maybe are on sidewalks, You know, those conversations are happening with caseworkers and folks are being connected with services such as Purple Bag program to reduce trash.

And I think a couple of slides from now we'll talk about other UCT activities related to mitigating situations on the ground that aren't the removal.

But for certain regional coordinators on the UCT work very closely with contracted outreach providers to understand the situation on the ground.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just two other quick questions if I may.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

One of the slides referred to the fact that 98% of requests are triaged within three days.

Just a little bit of understanding of what that means.

Does that mean within three days of the report being received and does a triage within three days mean that the constituent has actually received a response within the three days?

And does the information that the constituent receives include information about the encampment that they reported, how it's been assessed, or is it just an acknowledgment of receipt of the complaint?

Yeah, so my understanding is it's within 3 days of the email being sent and received by the customer service Bureau.

I know that constituents submitting that will get an automated response that has a service ID and notifications until the situation is resolved.

And I know, again, that the responses really then fuel UCT operations on the ground to, again, ensure that we're bringing in the most recent data, that city services can be dispatched, or developing future plans for sites.

And with that service ID, individuals can follow up, and we'll also receive follow-ups on exactly what is happening on the ground.

And then lastly, last time we had a report in this committee, we talked about the fact that some people, some constituents, members of the public were getting, it was a technology glitch.

But they were getting notifications that encampments had been resolved that hadn't been.

It was suggested that we explain that glitch to constituents and encourage them to constituents to follow up.

Just wondering whether or not this known issue with the technology resulting in this erroneous message has been resolved.

Fortunately, I'm not aware of this in particular, so I would have to pass that back to our UCT team, but I think we can work on getting a response quickly on that.

Thank you.

Council Member Miscannon.

Thank you very much.

Is this the appropriate time to interject questions, Mr. Chair?

I think we were on slide number eight, is that right?

Yes.

Okay, great.

I do have a question about slide number eight.

Just give me one second here.

Thank you again for this update.

Appreciate that we were able to work in partnership with Councilmember Lewis as the chair and Councilmember Herbold on this updated unified care team approach.

Throughout last year's budget process and earlier this year, we have been also seeking to just get additional clarification that the intent of that statement of legislative intent was going to be able to be met.

Both between conversations with the mayor's office and so that we could accomplish that vision of solutions beyond removals.

I love that phrase.

I appreciate the vision that it articulates that it emphasizes that a site and stabilization of that site and cleanup paired.

with that site should be first focused on the human-centered outreach with trusted partners to meet people's needs, their healthcare, their services, and appropriate shelter when it becomes available.

And that we also know that it is about really not moving people.

We should not be moving people until that appropriate bed and shelter becomes available.

And in the meantime, we wanted there to be ongoing support for residents of the community, housed and unhoused, with regular garbage pickup and sanitation services.

We know that offering appropriate shelter is critical to getting folks inside.

And we know that, for example, places where families and couples can stay together, people can keep their jobs close to places where they can be safely housed, where they're able to take their pets and their materials.

All of those factors determine whether or not someone is able to take shelter.

Just rushing to refuse it as I think some people articulate, but really it's about whether or not somebody is able to stay with their loved ones, keep their job, keep their pets and their possessions.

And so all of those factors determine whether or not an individual is able to take shelter if it becomes available.

And without appropriate offers of shelter, we know as many folks testify today, and we've heard numerous times over the last few years, it just, it worsens the problem, makes it harder for our community to get the services they need when services become available.

So I'd like to have a better breakdown of Some of the information, including whether or not there is any follow up count on the number of people who actually access the shelters.

We often talk about the number of people who were offered shelters versus tracking whether or not they followed through to get into the shelter.

Is there any additional detail that you can provide us behind.

this accepted number, right?

They accepted versus did they show up?

Did they stay in there?

Were they able to get stabilized?

Yeah, absolutely.

I think in a slide response, you'll see what we have found to be the number of confirmed enrollments into shelter from accepted referrals.

So again, 554 accepted referrals.

HSD and the UCT were able to confirm 206 enrollments from those accepted referrals.

We do believe it's an undercount again because of the data match that has to take place with HMIS and the anonymized data in HMIS as well.

This is, I think it's continued to be an area that we are looking at improving and really tracking, getting the true number of what enrollments are.

We do believe that 206 in Q2 is an undercount, but there's definitely work to be done to improve on how that data is captured.

Did you say 202?

206 confirmed.

Okay.

Is there a way that we could see that number reported out in a quarterly way like you're doing here?

Almost another column?

Sure.

Yeah, we can.

I can bring that back.

Okay, and can you just remind me what the timeframe is where you're sort of determining not only did they accept, but they went and then they stayed what is it 3 days?

Is it 3 weeks?

Do you have a sense of that?

Actually, we, we begin that process at the month following the quarter as we're putting this slide material together and what's transmitted to.

To really try to get a sense of the full full slate and I can get the exact hour count of when we're looking for enrollments, but I have to follow back up on that specific data.

I appreciate that.

And thank you for tracking it.

That's not something that had been historically tracked at least.

4 or 5 years ago, if my memory is correct, I see council member herbal nodding and so having that information is a good starting place.

And then I think it tells a bigger picture of.

not just offer, not just acceptance, but then how do we stabilize and ensure follow through?

So more policy and resource conversations should be teed up from that.

So thank you for the transparency on those numbers.

Thank you, Council Member Muscata.

Council Member Herbold, do you have another question?

You're muted, Council Member Herbold.

This table doesn't have an indication of the time period.

Is it Q2 only or is it year to date?

Yeah, the entire deck is going to be Q2 focused.

Only Q2, okay.

And then it looks like there's a lot of variation from regions on both offers of shelter and rate of offers accepted.

So, for instance, in the There are 646 offers of shelter made to unsheltered residents in the Northwest, whereas only 41 were made in the Southwest.

I'm just wondering if you could talk a little bit about why there's such a significant variation in the offers of shelter.

And there's also a big variation on acceptance as well.

53% in the central region, 24% in Southwest.

So just wondering, and thank you to my aid, Christina Kasubos, for digging into these numbers and helping me sort of uplift this as an important question for residents of District 1. Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, I think I, again, I have to defer to, uh, the deputy mayor and the unified care team to talk about specific, perhaps operational impacts, uh, on, on that and how that influences, um, response and what that's looked like.

But, uh, I think in terms of the data, this is, uh, I believe the second quarter that we've broken down data by region and this, this approach, um, and I think we'll want to take more time to analyze it and understand exactly, um, how that's coming about and speaks again to that continuous improvement we're looking to do and really focus in on the data and what it says.

So I can take that back to the unified care team.

But again, I do think we're collecting more data, understanding exactly how UCT is operating in all these regions.

So there's no, you don't have any information about Let's put aside the offers accepted, because I understand why that might need some data crunching, but.

It just, it seems like it is something that you might have some information on as far as why the office of shelter in the Southwest are there only 41, which is, you know, it's minuscule compared to the other regions.

Yeah.

I would have to, again, unfortunately bring that back to the unified care team to understand exactly why, um, why the Southwest had the 41 offers and how that's exactly shaped out this quarter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Um, Chris, why don't we go ahead and let you finish up your presentation at this point, and then we'll do another round of questions.

Absolutely.

So just to continue on coordinated outreach services, in Q4 2022, the UCT began tracking those reasons for declined offers of shelter.

This most recent quarter, Q2, UCT captured 676 instances in which an unsheltered individual shared a reason for declining shelter.

And the top reasons included, number one, 16% of those reasons were wanted a tiny home, Number two, 14% does not want shelter.

And for this one, I do want to call out that this does not want the specific shelter offered.

It is the UCT's experience that individuals providing this reason don't call out a specific reason, but there are often multiple factors for that decline, such as a shelter location.

provider program model.

So I want to call that out.

The third reason an individual wants placement with partner, family or friends at 10%.

And finally, 9% of the reasons were reports already having housing or shelter.

Chris, can I actually break my rule and ask a couple questions on this slide just real quickly?

But I appreciate that this data is being tracked by the Unified Care Team.

I think by tracking this data, it's the only way we can foster an environment of consistent improvement in working to get people inside.

The placement with partner, family, and friends, is there overlap between that category and once tiny house in the sense that, you know, tiny houses, as I understand it, are our primary enhanced shelter offering that can facilitate those kinds of broader, more acceptable placements.

It seems like there would be a little overlap in a couple of these categories.

Is there a way that that's factored?

Is one's tiny house double counted with one's placement with partner family friends and how the data is aggregated?

Or do people have to kind of pick one predominant reason why they're declining?

Yeah, it is one predominant reason and this is captured by our regional coordinator team.

I do think it's a great question and I think to that end as well about the interplay of the offers and the reasons.

Just do want to call out that we've been collecting the data for a bit less than a year now.

So while we don't have enough right now to really dig into those themes and identify trends, that is something we're hoping to do and do so in future slide reports as well.

Yeah, I mean, just an editorial observation based on this slide, it does appear like a quarter of the reasons for stated decline are things that could be solved with more tiny homes as a policy intervention.

So I did just want to state that for the record.

If you combine the once placement partner family friends with the once tiny house, It just, that continues to be, for me, one of the biggest policy interventions that could make a significant statistical difference in our efforts.

And I know that's generally a shared ambition with the executive, so I'm just citing that for the record, not to put the department on the spot or anything like that.

Okay, why don't we proceed, Chris, to the next slide.

So turning to making spaces clean and accessible, we know that we do not have enough places for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness to go.

And while the UCT works collaboratively with contracted outreach providers to support people moving inside, the team is also coordinating trash and debris removal across active locations.

And this is done to reduce the impact on those living unhoused at the site and also the surrounding community.

So on Q2, the UCT completed 2,628 visits to sites and removed over 1.6 million pounds of debris.

Also of note, 41 incoming community service requests related to trash were added to a regular trash route, and this resulted in proactive regular cleaning and removing the need for one-off reports.

In support of ongoing operational improvements, the UCT is actively developing a coordinated process and data infrastructure for trash mitigation efforts.

And we believe this will provide a comprehensive way to coordinate efforts, track data, minimize duplication, and address gaps.

One final note, there are 10 locations across the city that provide either a shower trailer, hygiene station, or both, with all of these sites providing sharps collection that support efforts to improve public health.

In terms of resolving priority encampments, in Q2, UCT completed 62 priority site resolutions and 32 RV remediations, with 100% of individuals residing at those sites receiving offers of shelter.

As a reminder, the UCT used an objective prioritization matrix to help identify which encampments will be prioritized for resolution.

And that prioritization includes data on a number of factors, including impact on public spaces and the natural environment, pedestrian access, public safety incidents using verified SPD and SFD data, and more.

The data is just the start of the conversation.

Prioritization is a multi-step process that considers a numeric score, but also brings in information from our teams and partners on the ground, and also considers what shelter resources are available.

Again, conditions on the ground are dynamic and frequently changing, and this process is designed to be nimble and responsive to those changes.

And with that, I will take questions.

Thank you, Chris.

I have just a couple brief questions, and then I'll turn it back over to colleagues.

Can we go to the slide indicating the 21 percent increase in offer acceptances?

And I don't remember which slide that was.

Here we go.

So what does the team attribute that to?

Is it an increase in shelter supply?

Is it a change in outreach technique?

What do we attribute the 21% year-over-year increase in accepted offers to?

Yeah, I think this is another one that's going to require further analysis for sure.

In talking with our team, I think it is just the continued evolution of the unified care team approach as we're further along and understanding what's worked and what hasn't.

specifically in terms of the offers of shelter and talking to the regional coordinator team.

I think there's a few issues that we found, definitely influx of new shelter spaces over the past few years, just obviously creating more opportunities.

I think longer lead times as well that I mentioned earlier, just regional coordinators being on the ground, having huddles throughout the city with outreach providers, allowing more time for relationship development, and engagement with folks who are unsheltered to make meaningful referrals.

There's also been addition of new permanent supportive housing and low-income housing that has come about in recent years.

I think another important one, fewer COVID-related disruptions in 2023. Our regional coordinator team noted that about a year ago, there were still frequent pauses and referrals and intakes due to outbreaks within the shelter.

So we're seeing reductions in that.

And then another critical piece of it as well over the last couple of years was the influx of 1,000 homeless households housed through the implementation of the Emergency Housing Voucher Program.

So I think those are some reasons that our team, the real top reasons our team has come up with for why that increased acceptance.

Thank you.

It's always good, obviously, to see that number increasing.

So thank you for that.

Let's go to slide 10. So slide 10, am I missing this somewhere?

The thing I'm kind of struggling with with slide 10 is what percent of removals are advanced notice removals?

Because otherwise, I don't really see how slide 10 is a terribly useful slide in terms of providing me with information.

I mean, I do appreciate that the advanced notice removals do seem to be strongly adhering to the practice that has been laid forward to provide 100% offers of shelter.

But I don't, unless I missed it on a previous slide somewhere and I'm just disorganized at the moment, I don't see where we have a breakdown of advanced notice removals versus more exigent or emergency removals.

Yeah, and I do not, unfortunately, have that breakdown available today.

I think I can pass that request along to the UnifiedCare team as well.

I mean, for future presentations, I think that's a critical piece of reference.

Otherwise, I don't have a baseline to really compare the slide to.

I guess it is useful in the sense that we do have the data here of the universe of the advance notice removals, which is, am I reading correctly, that it was basically 62 encampment sites and 32 RV remediation sites?

That's the universe of the 100%.

of advanced notice removals.

Okay.

Well, I mean, I appreciate, I definitely appreciate the report back on that.

I think it would be useful in the future for us to track emergency and exigent instances where there has to be a remediation of a site.

And it would also be good to know what the cited basis is for those instances of why advance notice was not possible to be used.

But otherwise, appreciate the clarity here in Q2.

62 encampment remediations, 32 RV remediations, in all cases, 100% offers of shelter.

So thank you for that.

Are there additional, Council Member Mosqueda?

Thanks so much.

I guess I'm struggling to reconcile this slide with the data that we were just presented of all of the people who had received a removal request.

Half of them, one second, let me go back and look at this because Central Jail Staff just sent me that data as well.

Half of them were given a offer and they accepted it, quote unquote, but only a quarter of them, less than a quarter of them confirmed shelter enrollments.

And so there must be a reason that, and I get the caveat, there's an asterisk there on confirmed shelter enrollments.

I'm looking at page five of the Statement of Legislative Intent Report.

The footnote notes that there's various reasons that this number is down, but, you know, thank you again for your transparency on this.

But if we identify, you know, over 1300 people.

Receiving an offer of shelter, just saying that 100% of people received.

Offers of shelter when when less than, you know.

15% 20% actually.

Confirm that they went into it.

I just don't know that how that conforms with our requirement to make sure that they're receiving a offer of shelter that that conforms with their individual needs.

Right?

Like, people, pets, possessions that they need to be able to take with them.

And I, again, can confirm, I mean, our regional coordinator team does make offers to shelter at folks again at the priority encampments and during camera removals.

I noted on the needed document and request to document those encampment sites more, and I'll definitely take that back for our team to look into more.

Sure, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And then I don't want to duplicate what council member Lewis, what our chair just might have asked, but I want to just double check.

Are we able to receive statistics for the no notice obstruction removals as well?

And showed the notice advanced notice removals, but is there any information on the no notice obstruction removals?

Again, I appreciate the question and the desire for more information on that.

I will definitely have to take it back to our UCT team.

I don't have that data available today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Muscata.

Council Member Herbold.

I have many of the same questions that we heard.

But rather than ask questions that we're not able to get answers to at this time, I think I'm just going to ask some definitional questions.

It'll help me at least.

Still working off of the same slide.

The title itself refers to as priority encampments.

The content variously refers to as priority site resolutions, RV remediations, and advanced notice removals.

So just the definitions for those terms, I think to include that in the report would be helpful.

But my near-term question is, are the terms priority encampments and advanced notice removals interchangeable?

I have a feeling they're not, but I just want to confirm that they aren't.

I would say they're not interchangeable.

That's my understanding.

Okay.

So priority encampments are encampments that there's been an assessment done and they have been identified as a priority for a remediation.

Is that more or less correct?

Correct.

So they could include advanced notice removals and they could include both advanced notice removals as well as obstruction removals that don't get advanced notice.

Is that more or less correct?

Well, I would say it could include the advanced notice removals, but it could also just include more work going around on those sites, extended work to resolve the situations at those sites as well.

And that's, I think, why I would say it's not a one for one.

It might depend on the situation again.

It's on the ground.

I'm sorry.

My question was, I understand that and you agree that priority encampments include advanced notice removals.

My question is, does priority encampments also include obstruction removals?

I have a feeling it does.

I would say that priority sites do get the advanced notice by and large.

That's my understanding.

Okay.

I just assumed that one of the things that makes a priority encampment a priority is it might be an obstruction.

You're saying that obstruction removals, I think I hear you saying obstruction removals don't get that assessment at all.

The remediation just happens.

There are also times when obstructions can get advanced notice.

I think it depends on the site at hand and what's needed.

But again, I think on operations, I will have to defer back to the UCT specifically on how they handle that, and then the prioritization as well.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

I think it might be most productive to follow up with some of these questions in writing, given so many of them need to be deferred back to the team.

But I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

I did have one other question, not related to that slide and the definitions, if I could.

Go ahead, Council Member.

Thanks.

We heard a lot today in public comment from folks who spoke to the July King County Superior Court ruling holding in part that the rules underlying the encampment removal policy permit unconstitutional invasions of unhoused residents' privacy rights without notice, without presenting alternative shelter, and without giving an opportunity to protect their property and shelters.

The court also held that the city's policy subjects the unhoused to cruel punishment in some circumstances.

I know that we have our own legislative department council looking into this ruling.

I have not yet heard how the executive intends to have this ruling inform its practices.

But I do believe we should soon request an executive session to find out both what the city attorney's advice is for what we are legally required to do differently because of this ruling.

and what practices the UCTs perhaps already developed and engaged in, assuming you're not prepared to talk about those changes today.

I do want to just let my colleagues know that I do feel great urgency for finding out what it is that we need to be doing differently to be in compliance with the recent ruling.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Are there any other questions from Council colleagues?

Seeing none, thank you so much, Chris, for this presentation.

I do just want to state I very much I very much appreciate the professionalism and responsiveness of the people who make up the Unified Care Team.

I will say that it has been a marked increase of access under this administration and communication under this administration with council offices and council colleagues and members of the community.

And I really give a lot of credit to Mayor Harrell and his team for really putting together a team of professional people who really are out there trying to make a difference every day and collect this data and get people into shelter and track things to realize those kinds of increases like a 21% year over year increase in people accepting offers to track ways that we can continue to do this work better and to work to do it in a transparent way.

I appreciate these opportunities to check in on a quarterly basis with the department so the council can provide feedback and provide oversight.

There were a number of questions that were raised in today's session, and we look forward to having the department report back with additional information to council members.

And really appreciate, Chris, you coming here and answering our questions and being that conduit to get some more clarity in places where maybe we need to consult with some additional stakeholders.

So thank you so much and really appreciate your presentation.

Absolutely.

Thank you for having us again.

Have a wonderful day.

Thank you much.

We are now going to move to item four in the rearranged agenda as we discussed at the beginning of the meeting.

So will the clerk please read item four into the record.

Item four, council bill 120619, an ordinance relating to amusement device licenses, repealing the requirement for an amusement device license, repealing chapter 5.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code and amending various sections of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Clerk, we are joined by Jasmine Moraha of our council central staff at committee table.

Just as a little bit of an introduction, this is our second hearing on this topic.

We discussed this with the central staff presentation at our committee meeting two weeks ago.

And from that discussion, I think outstanding questions were resolved as related to some lines of inquiry that Council Member Herbold had brought up.

Um, uh, or, or some, some concerns that Council Member Herbold had brought up were, um, uh, had been reconciled in the period between, um, these hearings.

Uh, uh, not, um, all members were present, uh, for that hearing.

Uh, so central staff is available to, um, to provide, uh, um, uh, a refresher, uh, to, um, uh, council colleagues.

Just by way of a little bit of background for members of the public who are watching this, this is a legislative action that my office has queued up to repeal a fee that is assessed in finance administrative services on amusement devices.

This fee raises a very small, de minimis amount of revenue.

It arguably costs more to enforce this policy than it brings in.

We've had the opportunity to stakeholder with a significant number of impacted businesses, and I don't know if that letter has been circulated to council colleagues.

But businesses, a number of stakeholder businesses are working to circulate a letter in support of this repeal.

But it was a good discussion two weeks ago and I look forward to having this opportunity to have a hearing on this.

So I don't know, Jasmine, if you wanted to provide any additional information or just be available for questions that colleagues might have.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you again for accommodating the rearrangement of the agenda.

I don't really have anything much to add.

Essentially, this legislation would repeal the amusement device licensing requirement and, you know, amusement devices in case folks wonder what those are.

Those are things like video games or arcade games, pinball machines, pool and billiard tables, or any machine provides recreation for which a charge is made for use or play.

And so yeah, this legislation would repeal the requirement that businesses obtain a license and pay a fee for providing these amusement devices.

And as mentioned, I did provide a briefing a couple weeks ago and I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

I would also add that the Department of Finance and Administrative Services does not have an objection to the passage of this legislation.

Uh, so, um, with that, given that we have had a hearing on this, um, uh, I did, uh, want to move this, um, this legislation today.

Um, so I want to put it in front of the committee, um, and then would like to hear from colleagues.

Um, so I move the committee, um, recommend passage of Council Bill 120619. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, moved and seconded.

The bill is in front of the committee.

Are there council colleagues who would like to comment on the bill?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you so much.

I just had a few questions, Mr. Chair.

Yes, of course.

Okay, thanks.

And apologies that I didn't get these in before you moved it, but maybe it's still perfectly timed.

I just want to ask central staff if we could have a better assessment of the potential budget impacts.

I understand that there is a theory that this is going to be revenue neutral, but I just want to double check, given our conversation that was very long this morning, and included conversation around more transparency around the fiscal note.

So can we confirm any potential budget impacts of repealing the license requirement?

And then can you remind me how the license fee revenues are currently spent?

Thank you so much.

Thanks, thank you for those questions.

So this bill is not revenue neutral.

It does reduce revenue, anticipated revenue by about $64,000 each year in 2023 and 2024. And there's not a proposed replacement for this amount of revenue.

Almost revenue neutral, 64,000.

Okay, thank you.

I know nothing is budgeted thus as we're looking at a projected shortfall, but.

Thank you for putting into focus the scale that we're talking about here.

And can you remind me how these licensing fee revenues are currently spent, 64K a year, what does that usually go to?

I don't have that specific information.

I believe it, I mean, it goes into the general fund.

But yeah, I don't know specifically what it's allocated towards within the general fund.

My understanding, and we discussed this a little at the last committee meeting, is that there is a general strategic understanding between the council and FAS that fees ideally should be capturing an adequate amount of revenue to support their enforcement, which is not a policy that's ever been effectively reconciled, is my understanding.

But from conversations with FAS, I believe that the money that they bring in to the fees that are under this SMC section are generally to support the activities of the department and in collecting the fee.

But that's, I mean, it's a fairly de minimis amount of money.

So I don't think it's really hooked up in the scheme of a $1.6 billion general fund.

So I don't think it's specifically hooked up to a single discretionary purpose.

Council Member Herbold.

Thanks.

I think this seems like a good time to sort of recap my thinking on this.

When I first came to this, I did have some skepticism.

The license fee, as we've said, brings in $64,000 annually.

It was hard to imagine that that would be much of a hardship.

We know that one business, a large one, is responsible for half of the revenue, which leaves the remaining businesses to pay an average of like $800 annually.

And normally, with some of these regulatory fees in the past, we have talked about truing up the cost of the regulation with the fee so that the fee is sufficient to perform the regulation.

Normally, if that's not happening, I think it's a good practice to talk about increasing the fee to fully capture the cost of the regulation.

But I became convinced in committee last week, and we actually got a letter from the Washington Hospitality Association today that really underscores this issue.

The regulation itself, is not fulfilling any policy purpose.

So usually regulations, there is a purpose.

There is something that you are inspecting.

There is no purpose in inspecting these devices.

So I became convinced that it made more sense to get rid of the fee rather than make sure that the fee truly represents the cost to do the inspection.

The Hospitality Association letter said there are few businesses that pay this fee, which we feel uniquely targets our establishment with no discernible policy benefit.

Regulatory license should have a policy purpose and fees have no purpose beyond just collecting the fee itself.

So I have been, I've come around on this one, that it makes good sense to remove a regulation that fulfills no policy purpose.

And that means also removing the fee as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I mean, just to underscore a couple of the points that you raised, I do think it's critical when we are looking at the legislative work that we're doing here at the Seattle City Council, that we really be focused on the health, safety, or welfare reasons of the regulations we're imposing.

Looking at the history of amusement devices in the city of Seattle, it is evident that at one point, Historically, given their association with gambling and vice, there was a reason for the city to regulate these devices.

That's not a hazard that we really have anymore in the city.

One of the complaints that has come up surrounding these fees is that it is, in essence, a double taxing of revenues from these devices in the sense that the total revenue that goes into the business is taxed in business and occupations tax.

Furthermore, a fee should not be a tax, as we're well aware.

And so if this is a fee that is designed to support a particular health, safety, or welfare reason to regulate a given practice, Given that no discernible health, safety, or welfare reason has been presented for this, it is just a relic in our municipal code that is candidly, for me, as an elected representative of a lot of these businesses, just indefensible for me to support this regulation, hence bringing the repeal.

So I do appreciate you, making that argument, and I was glad that that letter that was received was compelling.

You have another comment?

I did.

I just wanted to say I also, since our last committee meeting, watched Pinball, the Man Who Saved the Game, which is a really fun movie about the history of how There were like this belief that pinball as an amusement device somehow contributed to vice and corrupting our young people.

And there was a series of court cases in New York City and it was really brought to life the issues around this particular issue that you're raising Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

I think I mentioned too in our last committee meeting that there was an article in The Economist in May of this year that indicated that in the state of South Carolina, it is illegal to play pinball unless you're over 18 years old.

So there are still relics in this country of those attitudes.

So given that, colleagues, if there's no other remarks, I would like to call the question on this bill and then we can consider our final agenda item for the afternoon.

So will the clerk please call the roll on recommending the passage of Council Bill 120619.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The recommendation is approved and this will go to the next full council meeting.

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

Resolution 32100, a resolution supporting the development of lids across Interstate 5.

Uh, thank you.

Uh, very excited to be queuing up this agenda item.

And we have, um, uh, Lyle from the office of planning and community development with us, as well as Lish Whitson from our council central staff.

Um, who wants to go first to queue, um, this up?

So I have a very short presentation and I think Lyle is going to participate, um, in the discussion.

Lish, take it away.

Thank you.

And just a second.

All right.

So we're here to talk about a resolution related to the LID I5.

As a little bit of history, we have had lids over I-5 since the 1970s.

This is a picture of the opening of the Jim Ellis Freeway Park in 1976. But more recently, community members have been working to lid additional sections of I-5 through Seattle since at least 2011. The UCL Convention Center, as part of the public benefit package for the alley vacations related to the Convention Center Summit project development, provided funding to the City to study Litting I-5.

And in December of 2020, the Office of Planning and Community Development released the results of a preliminary feasibility study Uh, looking at across high 5, uh.

Work, um, has been happening at the state and federal level on, uh.

In proving, um, connections across, uh, freeways, uh, which have.

Uh, historically divided communities and the 2023 2025. A state by annual transportation budget includes funding for the Washington State Department of transportation to begin and I5 master plan for the section of I5 that runs through Seattle.

This is a picture that sort of demonstrates the types of areas where LIDS might be possible.

This is just north of, this is actually looking off of Madison Street to the north, where we have Interstate 5 running below the natural street grade.

Of note is the on-ramp, which would potentially create some issues with letting this area.

But also of note is the fact that this is in one of the densest parts of the city and there is the potential for either more community amenities or additional development if we can reclaim the space above the freeway.

I'm going to ask Lyle to talk a little bit about the study that he led for OPCD.

Good afternoon, Lila Bicknell, Office of Planning and Community Development, Urban Design.

Yeah, we've wrapped up a fairly extensive study in 2020. It should be noted it was quite preliminary, quite high level, and it focused really specifically on structural and financial feasibility.

We did not get into design details really just the question, can we do it?

And the answer is yes, but it will be costly.

But as Lish pointed out, we have done these kinds of lids before, and it's very likely that we can complete them, if not all at once, then at a piece.

Other things that we found out from the study, as Lish mentioned, the on and off ramps make this kind of litting very complicated and complicated to use.

And we are happy that WSDOT received a grant recently to look at reconfiguring, maybe even removing on ramps and off ramps, at least in some portions of the study area.

But of course, the big win is to the city, reconnecting neighborhoods, huge pedestrian, huge environmental benefits.

And of course, it would take enormous partnership, public partnerships, private partnerships.

But as we pointed out, this has been done in the past.

And it seems like the timing is right to continue this process.

The feasibility study that we completed did point to a number of next steps and many of those next steps are defined in the council resolution.

So in a way, this is an important next step in moving the whole process forward.

Just speaking quickly here, this is the area covered.

The darker green was in the original feasibility study that's between Denny and Madison.

We've expanded that analysis to go all the way south to Dearborn, recognizing there are some enormous gaps in connectivity.

when you get south of Madison and likewise up in the U District, a similar history and similar challenge with lack of community connectivity there.

So the resolution that's in front of you, resolution 32100, supports litting efforts across I-5.

The council has previously indicated that support through amendments to the city's comprehensive plan.

And it supports further work to integrate litting into the city's plan and planning efforts, explore a public development authority to lead this work.

um, seek federal grant funding to support, uh, litting efforts and, uh, work with the state and stakeholders to identify whether on and off ramps can be removed to facilitate litting and reduce the, uh, conflicts, both, uh, pedestrian vehicle conflicts and, uh, vehicle-vehicle conflicts that we see at those on and off ramps where they hit downtown.

I think that's it.

Lish, thank you so much.

You know, it almost seems a little anticlimactic having this discussion here at the, you know, at the end of the day, at the end of a PAC committee agenda.

But, you know, we're really discussing right now the first formal council action that I am aware of to really kick off in earnest this discussion of the lid zone broadly defined and the potential in that area.

in anticipation of our comprehensive planning that is going to be occurring next year.

You know, we are wrapping up the legacy building work that we have done on the Seattle waterfront.

Some of that was alluded to earlier today in our conversations with the Seattle Aquarium that touched on the Overlook Walk and the Ocean Pavilion.

The next big thing for our public asset planning in the core of the city really could be the potential of this lid zone.

What is currently the air above these concrete canyons that are just used for vehicles to pass through the heart of our city could be space that is used to reunite the community.

They could be space for community amenities.

It could be a place for the new social housing PDA to have a portion of the real estate.

There are all sorts of...

potential partnerships that could be entered into in this area that we don't really start until we kick it off with a resolution.

Which as we know from reviewing the history in the lead up to the aquarium agreement, a lot of our activity on the waterfront was kicked off in earnest with initial council resolutions to facilitate the planning groundwork.

well over a decade ago.

So it's very exciting to get this moving, because you can never complete what you never start, even though we know these are going to be massive engineering undertakings and planning that is going to take a very long time to achieve.

start this work, we're never going to get it going.

So I do appreciate the work with the Lit I-5 coalition.

Lyle mentioned the preliminary work that's been done in terms of feasibility studies and everything else to build a foundation for this work.

And in anticipation of the comprehensive plan, I'm really glad we are gonna bring this resolution forward to take that first step of looking at the potential and looking at how we organize the work to bring about litting in all of these parts of our city where we can reclaim that space and reclaim it for the community.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you so much for having us on the agenda.

I know we're just a little bit over and I apologize for keeping us over this morning, Mr. Chair.

So it's been a long day for everyone, but I am excited about this item.

I can't remember if I was a sponsor or a co-sponsor of the assessment that was requested in the budget originally, but have been actively hearing about this for seven years and really hoping that we can see momentum.

I wanted to flag that I saw, Pete Buttigieg, our transportation lead in D.C., talking about the federal dollars that they have prioritized for LID efforts.

Can you speak to that and any opportunity to accelerate the building of an I-5 LID using federal funds with this administration in the very near future?

I'd be happy to speak to that.

You're absolutely right.

Stitching together communities that have been divided historically, especially by these kinds of facilities, is a high priority to the Biden administration.

And indeed, there is significant resources out there at the federal level for just this kind of thing, just this kind of study.

We are anticipating pursuing a number of federal grants to build on the state money that has been allocated for continued study.

with a deadline as soon as the end of September.

So this may or may not be successful, but we're gonna continue to pursue these kinds of grants because we see them, again, as an important part of complementing the resources that we have already.

Very exciting.

Thank you.

Thanks for flagging outside dollars from our federal government.

And he spoke about connecting communities very well.

So I'm excited that's a priority of the Biden administration as well.

Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.

Are there other questions or comments from committee members?

Seeing none, I had not listed this as an item to take action on, but it sounds like there's broad agreement from committee members that this resolution it would be ready to bring forward.

Lish, is there a reason that that's not correct?

Go ahead.

Yeah, sorry.

We are still talking with the Washington State Department of Transportation and seeking their feedback before the committee takes action.

So there may be amendments that come back before final action.

Yeah, I apologize.

I knew there was another reason that we wanted to wait for one more hearing on this.

Thank you for reminding me of that.

So this was information only then for today, and we will be bringing this back for consideration.

Do we have, Mr. Clerk, do we have another committee in August?

Okay, so we will bring this back for our final committee meeting before the council recess.

With that, we don't have any other agenda items.

Thank you for getting through that, committee members.

I know that was a longer than typical meeting.

Anything for the good of the order?

Seeing nothing, it is 4.14 p.m.

and this meeting is adjourned.

Recording stopped.

Nice.

Yeah.

Very nice.