Seattle City Council Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies & Investments 5/27/20

Just let me know when you're all set there.

You're live.

OK, great.

All right.

Well, thank you.

And committee staff, are you guys ready to go, too?

Ready to go.

Okay, great.

All right, well, thank you everybody for tuning in today to the special meeting of the Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies and Investments.

It is May 27th at 2.01 p.m.

We are meeting remotely here on Zoom.

Folks can call in to 206-684-8566 to access the listen line or access this live on the Seattle channel.

I will now call this meeting to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Juarez?

Council Member Juarez?

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Here.

Council Member Peterson?

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Yep.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council President Gonzalez.

Here.

Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold.

Chair Lewis.

Present.

There are seven council members present.

All right, thank you so much.

Being a committee of the whole five members as a quorum, we have a quorum and I will announce the presence of Council Member Herbold and Juarez if they come in later in the meeting.

We will now proceed with the approval of the agenda.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

So now proceeding here to a to lining up what we're going to be talking about today.

You know I want to thank all my colleagues and all the members of the public and the exceptionally large number of people who've signed up for public comment about 111 of our members of residents of the city.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the city's efforts to provide a public hearing on a bill that's been brought forward by three of the Seattle City Council members.

Council members Morales, who's the prime sponsor, Council member Mosqueda, and Council members Sawant relating to the navigation team, and that bill is Council Bill 119796. We do have public comment for this meeting.

I want to remind everybody that the public comment that is subject to special rules by the council.

It's not something that we've completely worked out yet as people who have been watching these meetings over the last couple of weeks know.

So I do ask for everyone's indulgence in making sure that we're all working together here as we learn to operate this new system in real time.

It remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

The city council does reserve the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

So with that, Um, you know, we do have, as I just said, a, um, a considerable number of folks who are signed up, um, for, uh, public comment and the public comment period, uh, because of the large number of folks, I'm going to limit it to one minute per speaker.

We do have some folks on the line who are going to be taking advantage of translation services.

I am going to allow up to three minutes for that exchange, which will require some conferring and then the relaying of the translation.

So I do want to make sure we're making adequate accommodation so that all the residents of our city that are calling in can make their views plain on our agenda today.

The public comment period for this meeting is up to 20 minutes.

I would like to ask the indulgence ahead of time of my colleagues to go ahead and extend that at the front, given that we have 111 speakers.

I do want to give everybody the opportunity to speak for at least a minute.

With the full understanding that some folks might not want to go through with it, or some people might have signed up but they aren't present, I'd like to ask that we set initially 60 minutes and then reassess if we get to the conclusion of that.

And I would like to just see if anyone has an objection, if they could make that known now, or if we could just proceed under that assumption.

Okay, I don't hear any objection to that.

So just for the committee staff, we are gonna do 60 minutes, each speaker given one minute, except in the case of a translation, in which case, I'll be providing three minutes to make sure we can accommodate that.

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

If you have not yet registered to speak, but you would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website, www.seattle.gov slash council.

The public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate mic, and then an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

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

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comments.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's mic will be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line and that if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

And sorry, I need to...

I can see the list and preside over this on my computer here.

Our first public speaker, public commenter will be Angie Gerald.

And it looks like Angie Gerald actually is not present.

So once Ms. Gerald is present, we'll go back to her.

I'll move ahead to our second speaker, Tiffany McCoy.

Tiffany McCoy, you have one minute.

This is Tiffany McCoy, the lead organizer with Real Change.

We support Council Bill 119796 fully.

I first want to say that it is shameful of Tim Burgess and others to mislead the public on what this ordinance actually does.

The idea that this ordinance would allow encampments to pop up anywhere, as well as arguing that there is inherent criminality in all encampments, is irresponsible.

and perpetuates falsehoods about our unhoused neighbors.

We need this ordinance to codify public health guidelines around encampment removal during COVID.

Public health must be the guiding principle.

We also need to quickly ramp up tiny house villages and sanctioned encampments to the 40 that you all agreed to in the fall.

Please get this done.

Thank you, Tiffany, for your comment.

Our next speaker is Matthew Lang.

Matthew Lang.

Hi there.

My name is Matthew Lang.

I'm the lead organizer of the Transit Riders Union, a member of the Planning Committee for the Ballard Community Task Force on Homelessness and Hunger.

And I'm speaking today in favor of Council Bill 119796. As Tiffany said earlier, we really have to follow the CDC guidelines about spreading folks around the city.

When people have chosen to shelter in place in a certain area, we need to be providing outreach and services to them, not providing a militarized police presence in order to scatter them to the wind.

So I'm never here advocating for people to be living outside, but until we have options for people to go into that are suitable, then we cannot continue camp evictions, especially under the pandemic status.

We must open up more hotel spaces so that folks can have access to proper hygiene services and...

Thank you, Matthew.

Here, before proceeding to the next speaker, I believe that we've been joined by Council Member Juarez.

Is that the case, Council Member Juarez?

Are you in the meeting?

Um, so, Mr Clerk, I think that the number ending in 9083 is Council Member Juarez, and she was trying.

Sorry.

Yeah, I'm in.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you.

And I believe we've also been joined by Council Member Herbold.

Correct.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we will now proceed with public comment.

Our next public commenter is Don Blakeney.

Can you hear me?

Great.

Hi, my name is Don Blakey and I'm with the downtown Seattle Association.

Thanks for allowing me to speak today.

I'm here to ask the council not take further action to restrict the navigation team at this time.

The proposed legislation would greatly limit the ability of the city to work with or engage and remove encampments, even ones that pose a serious public health or public safety issues that we're seeing today along Second Avenue extension and Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle.

That's the wrong approach.

In recent weeks, we've seen several encampments that have crossed a reasonable threshold in safety and public health for our communities, posing a threat to everyone, especially the people who are experiencing homelessness.

Currently, encampments can only be removed in the most extreme public safety and public health circumstances with individuals offered shelter.

That's the right policy.

Instead of taking options off the table, we're asking that the council come forward with some solutions that both assist those in need, but also help keep our neighborhood safe, clean, and healthy through the stay-at-home order and subsequent phase economic recovery.

Thank you.

Our next presenter is John Stovall.

Thank you.

My name is John Stovall, and I'm here with the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance supporting Bill 119796. Last Thursday, I witnessed the sweep on Weller Street.

I just want to share a few takeaways.

So I spoke with three people who had just had their tents crushed in a dump truck.

All three had just had set up camp right outside the navigation center, hoping to get a bed there.

But because nobody is leaving the NAF center right now, there have been essentially no openings in weeks.

In fact, Washington state statewide has seen a decrease in our shelter capacity by roughly 30% since COVID-19 started.

So we have quite tangibly lost ground in our homelessness response over the last two months.

All three of the individuals I spoke with had absolutely nowhere to go.

None were offered housing or a shelter bed.

The CDC guidelines clearly state that clearing encampments creates the potential for infectious disease spread.

Do we, as a city, want to join with the federal administration and disregard our foremost experts on pandemic response, or do we actually want to save lives?

We must end violent, ineffective sweeps and instead put our resources towards...

Thank you for your comments.

The next speaker is Calvin Jones.

Hi, my name is Calvin Jones.

Hi, my name is Calvin Jones, and I'm a renter in District 3 and an organizer with Tech for Housing.

I'm here to support Councilwoman Morales' bill to end encampment sweeps.

I think encampment sweeps are unethical under any circumstances, but especially bad during a pandemic.

And using public health as an excuse to clear an encampment is disingenuous and wrong.

I'd like to see this council end encampment sweeps in Seattle and raise progressive taxes to fund enough housing for everyone who needs it, because housing is a human right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Maya Garfunkel.

Garfinkel, sorry.

Hi, my name is Maya Garfinkel, and I'm an organizer with Be Seattle, speaking in support of CB 119796. One in 10 apartments in Seattle sit empty.

Average rent is almost $2,000, and over 11,000 people in the greater Seattle region are without secure housing.

Our houseless neighbors are facing the brunt of this broken housing system.

Although Mayor Jenny Durkan stated that unsanctioned encampment sweeps would stop except for extreme circumstances during the pandemic, sweeps have raged across the city in May.

As other people have mentioned, the CDC has recommended that cities do not disrupt encampments or unsheltered people as it threatens to increase the spread of COVID-19 and limits connections with direct service providers.

The sweeps place further hardship on our neighbors who are already facing housing, health, and financial insecurity.

COVID-19 cases amongst people experiencing homelessness have continued to rise in King County and will only worsen by continuing encampment sweeps.

Please pass CB 119796.

Thank you for your comments.

Next up, we now have Angie Gerald present, I believe.

Angie Gerald.

So much.

Yes, thank you so much.

I'm calling from Ballard to speak in support of the navigation team who have been active here for four years.

When someone living unsheltered in Ballard is both suffering and causing harm, I can contact the sergeant on the navigation team and they know that person.

I can tell them so-and-so who is refusing to stay in her fully subsidized apartment has a bad tooth abscess and has been harassing small businesses again.

Or so-and-so who rants about why she left the Whittier Heights tiny house village was just crying on the birthday woman with two black eyes, and her campmates have turned her situation into a severe environmental hazard, even though caseworkers are regularly coming and going.

The navigation team balances the public health and safety of the community with the individual situations of people, being on the most painful fringes of society.

Do not further limit the navigation team's work.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next, Erin Goodman.

Hello, thank you.

Hello, thank you.

I'm Erin Goodman.

I'm the executive director of the Soto Business Improvement Area.

Today we face extraordinary circumstances and the need for government to fulfill its core responsibilities is even more critical.

Unsafe and unhealthy encampments cannot be allowed to spiral out of control in the middle of our neighborhood business district.

The city must use its resources to address these issues in a humane way that gets individuals into shelter and to the help they need.

The navigation team has acted with compassion during this emergency, providing supplies and resources to those living outside.

And it's only removed encampments in the most extreme public safety and public health circumstances with individuals being offered shelter.

That is the right policy.

Our neighborhood businesses are struggling right now under the weight of closures.

and for them to have any hope of surviving, they need to know that customers will come back.

We urge you as council members to come to this table with solutions, not barriers, and to work with us to plan for and assist our communities as we enter economic recovery.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Daniel Ojalvo.

Ojalvo?

Yes, Daniel Logelvo.

I'm a software engineer.

I also volunteer with the Homeless Organizing Community Seattle.

So I help out bringing supplies to people, encampments, help keep them quarantined.

I just wanted to say that, speaking in favor of the resolution, Mayor Durkan here is being irresponsible with public health and public safety.

Without a place with four walls and a roof to send somebody, If we're sending people to crowded shelters and to jails or just out walking around, we're going to be putting everybody at risk.

This is a time that is going to be inconvenient.

It's a time that is going to be difficult.

But we need to come together and make sure that we take care of our most vulnerable.

And you have to look at parallels now between what's going on here and what's going on in Minneapolis.

When people are treated, dehumanized, and they're It's creating a tender box that we need to address and we need to address with compassion and taking care of people struggling.

Thank you for your comments.

Next up, we have Olivia Smith.

This is Olivia Smith.

I'm in support of 119796. I just wanted to say I'm absolutely disgusted by the police that have been going on during coronavirus when there's no safe places for people to go.

And I'm disgusted by the politics, flip-flopping, and inaction by elected officials for years.

It's 2020, we're in a global pandemic.

Thousands have died, thousands have lost their jobs, and the world's richest people are in this area making unprecedented profits from our struggle and suffering.

If you're in a position of power, why wouldn't we do everything possible to redistribute resources and make it even just a little easier for poor people to live?

It's that simple.

Stop the sweeps, tax the rich.

Peace.

Thank you, Olivia.

The next speaker is Joe Kunstler.

Wow, thank you for having me on today.

I want to very briefly ask that amendment two to today's resolution passed to protect bike lanes.

I believe Council Member Musgrave is doing a great job trying to balance out the crazies here.

But really, we need to stop talking about sweeps and we need to start talking about housing the homeless.

We need to stop kicking the can down the road and start looking at and maybe some settlers plans And you said as a starting place.

It's not the end.

It's a starting place and we need to in this economic crisis prioritize housing homeless now and use use, you know, Public Works jobs to house the homeless and we we need to make this a real priority and also finally I really think we need to put a big, fat billboard up on the billboard of Heidi Wells saying, miss me yet, because Heidi Wells would have already solved this homeless problem.

Thanks.

Thank you, Joe.

The next speaker is Kate Rubin.

Hi, I'm Kate Rubin, and I'm the executive director of B-Seattle.

I'm calling in support of council member Morales' bill number 119796. One of B-Seattle's primary commitments is to provide outreach to people experiencing homelessness.

I was at the sleeps in the international district last week.

Both of the encampments were in relatively isolated portions of the area where there's not typically much foot traffic.

So none of the people that I spoke to who were being forced out were offered individual housing as recommended by the CDC.

Yesterday, I visited a large encampment in First Hill and found that many of the folks there who were displaced from the ID had ended up there.

Our house's community members were already struggling with outbreaks of Hepatitis A before the pandemic hit, and COVID-19 cases amongst people experiencing homelessness have continued to rise in King County.

These sweeps are unethical, expensive, and a risk to public safety.

Surely putting the money spent on the sweeps towards sanitation services and handwashing stations would be a more compassionate and safer alternative.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hannah Lake.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Hannah Lake and I'm addressing encampment sleep.

Sleeping with the homeless from their encampments is not the answer, especially during the COVID crisis.

The truth is there are not enough shelter beds or housing for all the homeless people in Seattle.

Even if there was, many would have to make the choice of staying in a shelter where it's much easier to catch and spread the virus or fending for themselves in tents or otherwise.

in order to remain isolated.

I live in North Lake Nicholsville Tiny House Village where most people residing in the village were tested for COVID and no one was infected.

I do not believe this is a coincidence.

We have access to cleaning supplies, showers, and most importantly, our own spaces to live.

However, we are being forced to move soon and we believe it is unsafe to do so.

With over 1,000 deaths statewide, I worry for all of us, especially the elderly that would be displaced and unsafe if we can't find somewhere else to move.

I feel for the people already enduring the misery of not knowing where they will lay their head at night, yet also having to worry about their health and safety in this pandemic.

Please consider stopping encampment sleeps entirely.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Colleen Rosas is the next speaker.

Thank you.

Council members, thank you for allowing me to speak in regard to Ordinance 119796. I work in Pioneer Square.

I'm Colleen Rosas.

I work in Pioneer Square.

And the history and beauty of Seattle is evident in Pioneer Square.

There's cobblestone streets.

Buildings have character.

Streets are lined with beautiful hanging flower baskets.

Yet there's another side of the city that's not so beautiful.

Walking down the sidewalk, needles and human waste are commonplace.

Many coworkers have been chased down the street in broad daylight, yelled at and threatened by homeless and drug-addicted individuals.

It's not hard to find someone openly doing drugs, going to the bathroom, or standing naked on the corner shouting obscenities.

Allowing tents on the streets will only worsen this problem.

I support solutions for homelessness, but this is not a solution.

I urge you to vote no on 119796 and to restore the safety and beauty for our city.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next speaker is Ahmed Bagheri Gharakhani.

Hi, my name is Omid Bagheri-Arkhani.

I'm a Seattle resident over 12 years, and I'm here today as a public health worker.

I'm here to express support for Council Bill 119796. As part of a letter shared with Mayor Durkan and the entire City Council yesterday, dated March 26, myself and now over 125 public health workers in Seattle, including human service providers, feel a different approach is needed in terms of the practice of encampment and rules during a pandemic.

The public health evidence simply does not support the practice of removals of encampments at all, let alone during a pandemic.

CDC guidelines specifically outline what local officials must do to curb spread of COVID-19 for people living outside in the broader community.

Set of removals allowing residents of homeless encampments to remain in place with support to implement disease prevention measures is needed.

unless, of course, providing in-cabin residence with individual housing units is possible, which is the ultimate goal.

We urge you to set the example nationally of bringing evidence-based public health into practice with this policy by supporting Council Bill 1.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Sue May Ang.

Good afternoon.

My name is Su Mei Ying, and I'm a member of the Chinatown community, and I'm in opposition to CB 119796. We've heard Council Member Morales say that Chinatown International District does not support encampment removal.

I'm here to let you know in just over a week, 6,700 plus people signed an online change or position opposing CB 119796. Additionally, over 1,200 more people against the legislation signed a hand petition, many with English and no internet access who wanted to share their opinion.

These include residents from 14 senior housing buildings and over 30 businesses.

Council members received the petition results yesterday in the mail from the John Wah Benevolent Association, the Umbrella Association for 21 other organizations.

Message here is loud and clear.

CID is not in favor of this.

Council members, please vote no on CB 119796.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Todd Rosen.

Council members.

First, I want to thank the council members who are engaged with the Third Door Coalition.

It's the right idea at the right time.

My comments are about CB 119796. Extreme circumstances is not consistently defined among all stakeholders.

For a renter in the apartments and for folks who just want to enjoy their park, the increase in petty crime, fighting at all hours, open and constant drug use, and a hepatitis outbreak presented what could reasonably be termed an extreme circumstance.

The good intentions and science behind this bill notwithstanding, I ask that you consider amending it, specifically including camp and city parks and any parking strips that surround them.

That last deal was important.

We needed our open spaces to be safe and welcoming now more than ever.

Seeing folks reduce the camping outdoors at all is a tragedy.

If the city cannot find the wherewithal to house them, or some folks want to live that way for whatever reason, let's carve out camping and parks and the parking strips around them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Amy Tower.

Amy Tower.

Hi, my name is Amy Tower.

I'm an education counselor and a tenant organizer with the Tenants Union of Washington here in Seattle.

I'm here to speak in favor of Council Member Morales' Bill 119796. As a tenant counselor, I'm often speaking with folks on the phone across the state, a lot of folks in Seattle who are facing displacement.

And since the coronavirus pandemic hit, we've gotten an incredible amount of calls of folks who are not able to pay their rent and are facing potential eviction and displacement.

And I'm really, really concerned that our housing crisis, which was already an emergency, has been for years, is going to be exacerbated.

And I think that it's possible to focus on stopping the sweeps while also investing in tenant protections.

affordable housing.

Thank you.

Next up, Laura Lowe.

Hello, my name is Laura.

I'm calling in favor of CB 119796. I'm part of a volunteer organizing collective called Share the Cities.

I want to say I support everything said earlier by Real Change, Low Income Housing Alliance, BCL, Washington Tenants Union, And I encourage anybody listening to this, especially our elected leaders, to really dig into the names, the two and a half pages of names of health officials who signed that letter to Mayor Durkin in support of this legislation.

Public health, a public health solution is letting people stay in their temporary homes, letting them stay in their temporary homes and providing sanitation, providing laundry, providing bathrooms to them.

And we can follow the guidelines from the CDC, follow Boise versus Idaho follow what's legal and correct and what will give people dignity and work together to provide safety for everybody in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I apologize I forgot Emily Ryder.

So Emily if you're on it's to you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Emily Ryder, and I thank the council for allowing me to speak today in regards to ordinance 119796. I'm speaking as someone who works in Pioneer Square.

A primary concern when we located our company downtown was whether or not the more urban setting we were going to was safe.

And today, I do not feel safe in Pioneer Square.

Human waste, aggressive behavior, and dangerous drug paraphernalia is prevalent on our streets.

We need real solutions for the problem, and I do not feel that ordinance that is under consideration today is the answer.

This move would create a problem much larger in our area than the one you're trying to address, and I urge you to vote no today.

Thank you.

Next up, Megan Cruz.

Hello my name is Megan Cruz.

I live downtown near 3rd and Pike.

I see homeless people suffering every day.

However I don't believe encampments are a safe or compassionate solution for people in crisis especially in a pandemic.

Authorized camps lack necessary hygiene and present a health risk to their residents service workers first responders and the public.

Please focus council time and city resources on solutions like fast-tracking 24-7 shelters, hygiene stations, and tiny houses.

Meanwhile, the first response should be an outreach that follows the co-lead model and contract housing for people in motels and hotels that are currently shuttered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Christina Hermione, but it looks like she's not present yet.

So if you're out there, Christina Hermione, if you get on here, I'll go back to you and call you when we have a second.

So I'll move on to the next presenter, Laura Zahaba.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Lara Zahaba.

I am both a resident of Ballard and one of the owners of Stoop Brewing in Ballard's industrial district.

I am calling to ask council to vote no on CB 119796. It is my understanding that sufficient limitations to protect encampments are already in place.

And to remove health pandemics like COVID-19 and hepatitis A from the list of reasons authorizing the city to intervene perpetuates an already troubling situation.

and endangers public safety.

As an individual and as a small business owner, I support the need for social safety nets, but believe that distinctions need to be made when it comes to meeting the needs of those in distress, responding to criminal activity, and protecting public health.

Rather than employing a hands-off approach to encampments and allowing the problem to exacerbate, I would ask council to allow the work of the navigation teams to continue and to focus on real solutions that would help move people off the streets and into safe housing.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Karen Gillan.

My name is Karen Gillan, and I'm speaking against the ordinance to remove the unsanctioned encampments.

I'm a downtown resident who can no longer feel safe on the streets of my neighborhood.

At least a dozen tents within a block of my home are in existence.

Many of the people in these encampments are severely mentally ill, drug addicted, or both.

These people belong in supportive housing, not enabled to stay on our streets and sidewalks.

Please do your job and find solutions rather than enabling the continued degradation of the safety and health of our homeless residents, as well as those of us who are housed.

When I downsized to move downtown, I did not intend to live in a homeless encampment, but I find that that is where I live now.

Our next speaker is Tia Petrovich, but she, it looks like, is not present yet.

So Tia Petrovich, if you log on, I'll move back when we get a moment to take your comment.

I'll preserve your place in line.

Our next presenter is Ellie Bondi.

Thank you for allowing me the time to speak.

A brief background on me.

I left an abusive relationship two and a half years ago.

Regardless of what people think, there are not many resources available to those clean abuse, especially when they have a pet.

Most shelters do not allow any pets, even if considered a service pet.

Since then, I have been couch surfing or homeless.

I was able to fix some health issues and get a job.

I was then able to rent a room from a friend that worked until the pandemic.

Now I reside at Nicholsville North Lake Tiny House Village.

It is the first sense of security I've had in years.

That is now being threatened with the sweetened addictions that can happen any day now.

We are also being threatened with the removal of our ability to shower, do laundry, and use the natural toilet.

The city wants to remove our trailer.

Not only do I have to worry about a safe place my pets and I can go, but also contracting COVID-19.

We were recently tested here with all negative results.

That may change for me.

I am a part of the vulnerable community due to age and being female.

With our area still being in phase one, I cannot get any affordable house housing to call me back or reply by email.

This is a safe...

Thank you.

The next commenter is Manisha Singh.

Hello, I am Manisha Singh, Executive Director of the Chinatown ID Business Improvement Area, and I'm asking Council to vote no on Bill 119796. I just submitted a letter signed by over 415 concerned businesses, property owners, and residents of Chinatown ID Soto, Ballard, Pioneer Square, and downtown to the top of your inbox.

In CID, we've experienced multiple shootings, property damage, drug trafficking, and dozens of break-ins since the start of the COVID-19 crisis.

As a low-income minority neighborhood with a vulnerable resident population, concerns of public safety have an added burden to us in an already time of crisis.

I ask council to vote no on this bill because it does not address the public safety concerns of our neighborhoods.

I urge council to allow all available tools, including the navigation team, to ensure the safety of neighborhood residents and businesses, as well as those experiencing homelessness.

As we think about the post-COVID-19 recovery, we know that public safety and the perception of safety is critical in the economic recovery of our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Kristen Sawin.

Thank you, my name is Kristen Sauen and I'm the Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Weyerhaeuser.

Commenting today in opposition to Council Bill 119796. Weyerhaeuser is one of the larger employers in the Pioneer Square neighborhood and we have begun to plan what a return to the office might look like for our over 600 plus employees.

One of the critical limiting factors for us though is the safety of the neighborhood.

You've heard from others in Pioneer Square and the International District about the ongoing criminal element that is becoming more of a problem for all of these neighborhoods.

We believe that the navigation teams are a critical tool in addressing some of these issues.

We believe that Council Bill 119796 is a step too far and it eliminates a tool that the downtown and the rest of the neighborhoods really rely on to provide the safety element for our employees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Carrie Bates.

Thank you.

My name's Carrie Bates.

Thank you.

My name's Carrie Bates.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on Ordinance 119796. I have been a resident of Pioneer Square for almost six years.

When I moved here, the beauty culture and history immediately spoke to me.

Over the years, I've seen the highs and lows of living in the neighborhood.

Right now, with businesses closed, the situation is dire.

I no longer feel safe walking the two blocks to my office.

I have been charged at, things thrown at me, and yelled at.

There are needles and human waste along the sidewalks, along with broken glass everywhere.

Honestly, if things continue down this path, I can no longer live in this neighborhood I have grown to love.

Not coming up with a compassionate solution to the homelessness for all creates a larger problem.

If this is allowed to continue, many businesses will decide to not return to the neighborhood and look elsewhere, along with many residents who will choose to live somewhere else.

We need to focus on finding a real solution.

Please vote no to 119796. Thank you.

The next speaker is Lisa Nitze.

Hi, I'm Lisa Nitze with Nitze Stegen and I'm asking the council members to vote no on CB 119796. We're currently building 80 units of workforce housing on South Washington between 2nd and 3rd in Pioneer Square.

And as a firm of a long history in Pioneer Square and are committed to contributing to its safety, its stability, health and vitality.

We're in favor of safe shelters for the homeless and seeking long-term permanent supportive housing.

But we have found that tent encampments on sidewalks, particularly that currently existing on the 2nd Avenue extension near our building site, lead to organized crime, guns, drugs, human trafficking, and violence.

Our development will bring nearly 160 new middle-income residents to Pioneer Square, and we care a great deal about protecting their safety and the safety of all others living, working, and visiting in the area.

Please vote no on 119796.

The next speaker is Andrew Constantino.

Hi, my name is Andrew Constantino, site coordinator for Georgetown Tiny House Village.

Georgetown Village provides shelter, safety, and community for over 50 unhoused men, women, and children every day.

During this public health crisis, I believe that the Tiny House Village model has again proven its adaptability and resilience.

allow for more vulnerable villagers to take precautions such as social distancing and sheltering in place in a humane, dignified way.

The villages themselves, as a community, offer access to hygiene facilities, meals, case management, and friendship at an uncertain time.

We receive calls daily from unhoused neighbors wondering how they can get in.

Some recently swept.

We need to build more tiny house villages so we can bring everyone inside.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mike Pearson.

My name is Mike Pearson, and I'm calling to address the Council Bill 119796. Last year, I spent hundreds of hours volunteering with a nonprofit dedicated to providing supported housing to people who have struggled with mental illness and homelessness.

And I'll do that again this year.

My experience teaches me that we need to focus on solutions and on effective and meaningful support for people experiencing homelessness and the challenges that lead to it.

Treatment, housing, 24-7 shelter, services.

But I strongly believe that this bill will endanger vulnerable Seattleites, not help them.

It will reduce public safety, in particular for those most at risk, and passing this bill would undermine public confidence and trust that the council is truly focused on solution, which is where it needs to be.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

The next speaker is Laura Corvey.

Hello, this is Laura Corvey.

I'm calling the council to ask for a vote no to Bill 1197.

You're sounding a little quiet there, Laura.

You can't quite hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Can you hear me now?

There you go.

Perfect.

OK, we can read that.

Oh, good.

Hi.

OK, go ahead.

Thank you.

I'm calling to ask council to vote no to council bill 11796. I do support a regional with local approach expanding drug and mental health services and the use of the navigation team.

I urge the council to vote no.

This bill does not adequately support public safety.

Thank you for your time.

The next speaker is James Wong.

Hi.

Hi, my name is James Wong.

I came to America at age 8 and grew up in Seattle near Chinatown since 1982. After working hard to achieve the American dream, I'm a property owner and business owner in Chinatown International District.

I urge you not to pass CB 119796. That will restrict the navigation team from removing unsanctioned encampments.

My 70-year-old mother-in-law, who lives in Chinatown, has been mugged and her apartment broken into multiple times.

She doesn't feel safe walking around as well as with all her neighbors.

They don't feel safe with many homeless living illegally close by.

My coworkers and I don't feel safe working in the ID as well.

So the city's already committed to only carrying out cleanups in encampments that present extreme public health and public safety challenges.

It's our time to city council actively listen to the concerns of the CID community.

More than 8,000 have signed petitions against the bill.

So no to 119796. Thank you.

The next speaker is Jasper Olive.

Hi, this is Jasper Olive.

I just wanted to say that I am currently homeless and I have been living in encampments since August, and it's made a huge difference in my quality of life, my safety.

And coming from Iowa, I came here, I've been able to reduce the level of services that I require, and I've been able to get back to work.

However, with COVID-19, my work, I'm currently on furlough, and so I've had to come back to an encampment, which was tent city three.

And I'm currently residing at Nicholsville Northlake.

And I feel there's a sense of safety with the coronavirus going on right now with the ability to be in my own space and removed from being in elements where I'm exposed to where there's

Thank you.

Next speaker is Thatcher Bailey.

Hi, I'm Thatcher Bailey.

I'm speaking today in opposition to Council Bill 119796 on behalf of the Board of Seattle Parks Foundation.

This legislation in essence authorizes outdoor camping in all our city parks and natural areas for the remainder of the year.

That means camping would be sanctioned on ball field, golf courses, off-leash dog areas, beaches, skate parks, hiking trails, and on and on.

We were here a couple of years ago when council debated somewhat similar legislation that was finally tabled because it offered no real solutions to the myriad problems and challenges of unhoused residents in our city, and because public outcry was so overwhelming.

In this moment, when people's need for our park system has never been more in evidence in every neighborhood across the city, This repurposing of parkland feels like a very poorly thought out strategy.

Parks were not then and never will be a solution to our homeless crisis or our health care crisis.

And legislation like this shows division.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Susan Marinello.

Thank you.

I'm Susan Marinello.

I own the design business in Pioneer Square, located at Main Street above Occidental Park.

I've always felt a very strong kinship to Pioneer Square, and I'm calling in against 119796. I've made Pioneer Square my business home for the last 17 years.

We've been committed to the ups and downs of the neighborhood.

However, I'm fearful for my safety employee safety and the safety of the clients that we really value.

Our clients no longer feel safe coming to Pioneer Square.

And just in January, 2020, a man was stabbed right in front of our building in the middle of the day.

So I am calling, urging council to vote no on 119796. Thank you, thank you.

The next speaker is Teresa Barker, who is not yet present.

Teresa Barker, I'll hold your place for when you do log on.

There's plenty more speakers, so there's no hurry.

I'll hold your place.

The next speaker who's present is Ryan Packer.

Hi there.

I'm Ryan Packer.

I live in Capitol Hill.

The coronavirus has been a bit of an x-ray in terms of how sales policies really treat people, locked restrooms in parks, two months of a shower rental, not serving people living on the street, serving no one and being paid for wasting money, and ultimately not providing any place in our public trust for people who don't have houses.

That's a failure.

It's just watching the video from the sweep last week.

It's mind boggling that anyone could be opposed to stopping that.

And it's just mind boggling to me.

And so that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Next is I'm sorry, I lost my place for a second.

Anitra Freeman.

I'm Anitra Freeman with Real Women in Black, supporting 119796. I witnessed the sweep at 12th and Weller last week, along with 20 others who came with food, coffee, garbage bags.

We were not allowed in to deliver even garbage bags and the police wouldn't deliver them for us.

Some of the supporters were social workers who had shelter referrals.

They weren't allowed in.

I saw no social workers inside.

Most of the campers had not received referrals from the NAB team.

Some campers had more belongings than they could carry in one load.

After they took one load out, they weren't allowed back in to get the rest.

The city's protocol says they store belongings.

Owners can pick them up later.

It was only a dump.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Carl Haglund.

Carl Haglund here, the Carl Haglund Foundation.

I want to address the recent homeless encampment sweep in Little Saigon last Friday.

I was appalled by what I saw.

I want to encourage you to take a different approach next time.

We need to fight the causes of homelessness, which is, in most cases, deep addictions.

Last year, I walked to Camp Little Saigon and what I saw...

You cut out there, Carl.

We'll move on to the next person.

And Carl, if you want to call back in, I'll hold your spot, and we can go back to revisit your comments.

Stacey Johnson.

Stacey Johnson?

Yes.

Oh, OK.

Proceed.

Hi.

I'm Stacey, resident and bookkeeper of Georgetown County House and Union Village.

I was jealous at first upon hearing how people swept some unsanctioned homeless encampments or comp hotel rooms complete with booze and cigarette allowance like they were denizens of Vegas and not some homeless wretches looking for a meal and a safe place to post up.

I have no reason to be jealous, though.

When the plague hysteria is over with, I will still have my tiny house.

However, it will be checkout time for the high rollers when the fourth horseman departs and the world opens up for business again.

It's unconscionable that these resources weren't used more thoughtfully.

Instead of putting persons dislocated by the sweeps up in hotels for a few months, they could have been put up indefinitely if the money was spent on more tiny house villages in the first place and prior to this.

Now they've just hemorrhaged a whole ton of money and got nothing to show for it other than the same people back on the street.

No better off than they were before the scourge of the Black Death 2.0.

Only now they'll be hung over and bumming smokes.

You gotta know, you don't gotta be Archimedes to see how screwed that is.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Bronson Carrasco.

My name is Bronson Carrasco, a resident of 1033. I am for passing the bill 119796. It is inhumane to forcefully move people attempting to shelter themselves in tents in Seattle, Washington.

The suites are not the solution to rid homelessness.

The alternative solution is to give people homes as soon as they need them.

unconditionally.

Our lives have value.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'm now going to go back to Carl Haglund.

Carl Haglund, you have one minute.

Council Member, I'm not seeing Carl Haglund in the list right now.

Oh, all right.

Well, uh, Looks like he's not present then.

Okay, moving on to Aiden Nardone.

My name is Aiden.

Hello, my name is Aiden Nardone and I'm speaking in opposition to 119796. I noticed you wrote and you're encouraging campers to maintain a 12 by 12 footprint for COVID social distancing.

How would the formula change As the number of people in the clan would increase, should a couple have a 24 by 24 footprint?

What about a family of four?

How big would their space be?

It's actually a moot point when I'm asking this question because social distancing requirements are not enforceable.

They didn't maintain six feet in any tent encampment now.

Why would things change?

The NAV team needs to be allowed to be continued.

to clean up dangerous unsanitary encampments to provide health and safety for all of us citizens.

Vote no.

Next up is Jane Zhang, who is not present.

Jane Zhang, if you're out there, I'll preserve your place.

Next up after Jane is Ben Chen.

Again, Ben Chen is currently not present.

So again, we'll hold that place, Ben, if you do come back.

Next up is Rinaldo Shorter.

Looks like Rinaldo Shorter was also just updated as not present.

Next up is Josh Castle.

Hi, I'm Josh Castle with Lehigh.

We support Council Bill 119796 and urge you to vote yes.

We work with the navigation team who provide referrals to our villages.

but especially without high-quality shelter and housing to refer people to, and actual assistance to help them transition, these sweeps worsen homelessness, trauma, and desperation, and frankly, exposure to COVID-19.

King County recently moved 400 people from non-congregate shelters to hotels.

But what is the long-term plan?

It would, of course, be inhumane and dangerous to send people back out on the streets or back to crowded shelters.

As we have done with three recent sites set up in four weeks, Lehigh can stand up tiny house villages quickly and cost-effectively.

And these include good quality hygiene facilities and allow for effective social distancing.

Please support 6 million for five villages from the COVID emergency funding to address this crisis and its severe impact on both our unhoused and housed neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Mike Stewart.

Director of the Ballard Alliance.

The Ballard Alliance represents hundreds of businesses and thousands of residents within the Ballard core.

I'm here to express opposition to any new restrictions on the city's ability to engage or remove encampments, particularly those that pose a serious public safety and public health risk.

Navigation team's efforts were critical to addressing the needs of Ballard Commons Park earlier this month.

Located in the dense residential core of the Ballard Hubbard Village, the Commons Park and the adjacent Ballard Public Library Plaza overflowed with encampments.

This presented significant public safety issues and it was also the source of Hepatitis A outbreak.

Over many weeks, the NAP team made nearly 30 site visits and successfully achieved enhanced shelter for more than 20 individuals.

Not only did this provide a better option and access to needed resources for those individuals, it provided needed relief for the hundreds of residents who live adjacent to the park.

It's arguable that under current conditions, the navigation team's effort took too long.

Please don't add any new restrictions that will limit, lengthen, or prevent the existing process from moving forward.

Thank you.

Next up, Tracy Williams.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, I'm Tracy Williams on behalf of True Hope Village.

I've been living at True Hope Village for four months, and I'm asking for funding for more tiny houses and funding to help a person like myself get into permanent housing.

With this COVID going on, there's no way that I can get into permanent housing because everything's on lockdown, and we need affordable housing for other people in the villages or homeless people to be able to find permanent housing and not be out in the streets.

and have a permanent roof over their head.

True Hope Village has been a very helpful place for me to get back on my feet.

I'm a recovering addict, and they have helped me a lot with finding a job and helping me find housing, but I'm still on the waiting list because of the COVID virus, and I can't get any help for anything.

So I'm asking for you guys to give more funding for finding homes and fundings for affordable housing for low-income people like myself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then next up, and again, I'm sorry, I should have said at the top of this that I'll mispronounce a lot of people's names, and I'm very sorry about that.

But the next person is Kyu Feng Pang, but it looks like they're not present.

So if they're out there, I'll hold their spot, but we'll go on to the next speaker for now, and that is Hattie Rhodes.

I am Hattie Rhodes.

Hello, I am Heidi Rhodes, formerly of the Georgetown Tiny House Village.

I have seen that not only do tiny house villages provide a safe and dignified place for those experiencing homelessness, but it has been an invaluable program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Villagers still have access to restrooms and showers and laundry.

Case management is still available.

Seattle Public Library provides villages Wi-Fi access so villagers can stay connected to friends and family as well as be informed about this public health crisis.

Operation Sack Lunch now provides a meal every day.

Surrounding neighbors have reached out, donated, and made us feel part of the community.

In the villages, people are able to self-isolate without feeling isolated.

When we look back on this time, what will we have to show for all of our efforts?

Tiny House Villages are adaptable, community-driven models, and it will help us weather many more storms together.

Let's do more.

Thank you.

Okay, next up, Robert Davis.

This bill will...

Hi, this is Robert Davis.

This bill will allow camping across Seattle and block Seattle from, or block police from removing encampments for nearly any reason.

This proposal is wrong in that allowing camping everywhere does not solve homelessness.

It does not move one person into a safe home or provide services that person might need.

Some living in the hundreds of encampments are engaged in criminal behaviors, some.

Many campers also struggle with substance abuse, the single largest driver of their damaging behavior, making these encampments a major concern in our neighborhoods.

The city council should be focusing on solutions.

Council members should expand drug and mental health treatment services, which are meaningful solutions to help people find their way out of homelessness.

I asked the council to vote no on this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Teresa Holman, who is not currently present.

Teresa, hold your place.

If you are present, we'll come back to you.

Next up is Gordon Connor.

Gordon Connor.

Okay, well I guess we'll come back to Gordon Connor.

Next up is Jimmy Leung, who is not present.

Jimmy, if you do come back, I'll hold your place.

Next up is Mijoo Lin.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, yes, go ahead.

Hi, my name is May Ray Lam.

I'm the president of Zonghua Benevolence Association representing the Chinatown International District, 22 organizations.

We are opposing the bill 119796. This ordinance is poor written, no strategy, no permanent solution at all.

After putting homeless in hotel, then what?

They are back to the street.

It looked like you are taking care of the homeless, but it is not because no total resolution.

I wrote a letter to the mayor's office and all council members to address our issues.

Also, my personal experience last week, I was in King street and I was chasing out by three people out of the tent.

Health and safety issues is our community concern.

If our 8,000 petition plus our letter was ignored by our council members, then our district representative shouldn't be representing us.

I want to emphasize that, have a total solution, make sure that...

Okay, thank you for your testimony.

Next, we have Alice Lockhart.

Hi, I'm Alice Lockhart.

I organize with 350 Seattle, and as such, I'm sure that council knows that we favor science-based policy for matters including climate, but also public health.

We, of course, favor the city abiding by CDC guidelines with respect to allowing homeless to stay in a relatively safe position inside a tent as opposed to, as I've seen, the navigation teams invariably, brutally destroy and remove the property of people, rendering them ever more vulnerable.

And in the case of COVID, vulnerable to this disease and to spreading it to the surrounding community.

So I applaud this legislation and I absolutely reject the idea that because, whoops, It's not a permanent solution, but it's a bad solution.

It is a good piece of the solution, and I look forward to doing more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nora Chan, and this is an interpreter presenter, so three minutes.

And is everything set up to take Nora's public comment?

Yes, we've got the translator.

Yes, hello.

The translator is here.

Great.

I don't need a translator.

I don't know who ordered a translator for me.

It wasn't me.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, Nora.

On my list, a translator was designated.

So I apologize for that.

You may proceed.

OK.

OK.

My name is Nora Chan and I'm opposing the bill CB 119796. And with my late husband, Dr. Austin Chan, we are 35 years of business property and business owner.

And we also residence in Chinatown.

Chinatown is, I think, is a vibrant district in Seattle.

We have over 1,000 vulnerable seniors live here.

Another 1,000 are new immigrants with small children.

They are old or young.

but have language barrier and are low in income family.

They are victims of theft, assault, and now hate crimes.

We are several schools in this area.

They need good guidance instead facing graffiti, human waste, and needles everywhere and every day.

So please, you know, see what you can do.

We need help in Chinatown.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Sorry, am I seeing on the list correctly that Carl Haglund is back?

Committee staff?

Yes, he is.

Okay, so Carl Haglund.

I was on last week.

Hi, Carl Haglund of the Carl Haglund Foundation.

I want to address the recent homeless encampment sweep in Little Saigon last Friday.

I was appalled by what I saw, and I want to encourage you to take a different approach next time.

We need to fight the causes of homelessness, which in most cases is deep addictions.

Last year, I walked the camp of Little Saigon, and what I saw broke my heart.

There was a young man desperately searching for a vein in his arm to shoot up, while his friend was passed out with a needle hanging from his arm.

What I saw was poverty, broken hearts, and caused by deep addictions.

When the city comes in with their Orwellian navigation teams and boots out an entire community, they're trying to hide the problem from the white middle class neighborhoods and force the hopeless drug addicts to live in industrial minority neighborhoods.

Simply hiding these addictions doesn't make it go away and rehabilitation does work.

We need to address the addictions first and need to give these people hope through addiction treatment and a battery of social services or sweeping camps as an exercise in frutility.

I urge the city council to begin to speak the word addiction, addiction, addiction, then we'll know what to do and stop the conversation.

We just need to get them a home.

Thank you.

So it looks like a couple more folks who were absent are now here.

I do just want to say, because we're at the end of our 60 minutes, council members, I want to I'm going to reduce the time to 45 seconds per presenter because I want to get to everybody, but we have business we need to attend to and we have presenters who are going to be present.

So I'm going to reduce it to 45 seconds per presenter.

I'm going to keep it at three minutes for folks that need translation assistance.

We don't have that many of those folks presenting today.

But I am lowering it to 45 seconds for our remaining speakers and would ask the committee's indulgence for 30 more minutes of public comment.

Hearing no objection, we'll have 30 more minutes of public comment under those terms.

So we now have Ben Chen present, and this is, I believe, an interpreter matter, or it's marked as an interpreter matter.

Is that the case, Ben?

Yes, I am.

That is true, but I'm not seeing the translator on the call right now.

Let me give me a second.

OK, thank you.

Should we go to another presenter while we wait for sure?

OK, so Gordon Connor is now with us.

Gordon take it away.

You have 45 seconds.

All right, my name is Gordon Carter.

I'm currently homeless, residing at TC3.

I'm calling for over 119-796.

We need to stop these sweeps, not only during this pandemic, but until safe and effective housing is available for all that need it.

The city needs to stop disrupting people's lives by uprooting them and throwing away their few possessions remaining to them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So is Ben Chen now ready to give his public comment?

Yes, and the translator is on now.

Yes, the translator is here.

OK, thank you.

You may proceed.

Mr. Chan?

I'm so sorry.

For some reason, I cannot hear Mr. Chan.

He is currently muted.

Mr. Chan, can you unmute, please?

Yeah.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Mr. Chan, please speak now.

Okay.

Yes.

First of all, I am against this bill.

I am against this bill.

I think this government is incompetent and irresponsible.

Okay?

Because they can't handle all these things.

They put all the blame on all the people in West Asia.

Okay?

If this bill is passed, all Singaporeans will not be able to go back to work immediately.

Because if you can't do business, the residents will not be able to go back to work.

If this bill is passed, Singaporeans will not be able to go back to work immediately.

So I hope that this bill will not be passed.

I believe that the government is very irresponsible.

It's not taking up the responsibility at all and dumping the responsibility of the homeless population to all the bill is passed, I have no doubt, no doubt, all business in the Seattle area will die.

Absolutely no doubt about it.

So I oppose to this bill.

Please do not pass this bill.

All right.

Thank you so much for your for your comment.

We do now have Ke Feng Tang present, which I believe is also a translator matter.

Is that the case?

I'm Susan Pang.

I want to speak to Ms. Pang.

Mr. Pang, are you here?

My name is Ms. Pang Chau Fung.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the anti-immigrant law.

I'm against the My name is Chiu.

My name is Chi-Fung Pang.

My name is Chi-Fung Pang.

I represent all the seniors in China, CID, in the China International District area.

To speak for them, I strongly oppose to this bill 119796. because I want to protect, because we need to protect the safety and the residents in Chinatown, International District, protect the safety, protect the property, and protect them.

If homeless people are allowed to go inside CID, the business in CID will decline dramatically.

We need to provide the viable business in Chinatown So I strongly oppose to this bill and I represent all the senior in CID area.

Thank you.

Just as a reminder too, it wasn't an issue in that comment, but okay.

Yes, staff anticipated my request, which was going to be to set timer for three minutes, not three minutes and 45 seconds for interpreter matters.

Next is Jimmy Leung, who is also a translator, commentator.

Are you ready?

Yes, I'm ready.

Hi.

Hi.

Jimmy Leung.

A lot of people from Taoyuan Street told me, because I'm in Taoyuan Street every day, I see a lot of people taking to the streets, selling drugs, taking drugs, robbing things.

So if this case is passed, our business in Taoyuan Street, all business residents, safety, business will be affected.

I strongly oppose to Bill 119796

I've been living in Chinatown for 28 years.

My mother is 88 years old.

She has lived in Chinatown for 20 some years.

She is very concerned about my safety in Chinatown.

And when she heard about the bill, her concern has increased about my safety.

I strongly oppose this bill to pass because I am in Chinatown doing my business daily.

I have seen the homeless people doing the bathroom business in Chinatown.

They rob people.

They're doing drug business in Chinatown.

If we allow this bill to pass, it will severely affect the safety of the residents in Chinatown and also the business.

will be negatively, strongly negatively affected in Chinatown.

So I hope all council member, you will deal with this matter fairly and with justice.

And again, I will strongly oppose passing bill number 119796. Thank you.

Next up is Phil Lewis.

for your cellular...

I'm unmuted?

Hmm.

Okay, anyways, I appreciate the assistance for 119796. It's given me a place to go.

On the other hand, when it comes to the coronavirus, I feel it can be eradicated by the Microsoft Corporation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Jeff Miller.

Hey, this is Jeff Miller.

I'm the Vice President for the Seattle Firefighters Union, Local 27. I'm speaking against 119796. So as firefighters, we respond to and see firsthand tragic, unsanitary, unhealthy, often horrific conditions in many of our homeless individuals in our city that exist in our unauthorized encampments.

We oppose this legislation because it includes restrictions on the city's ability to address encampments.

despite the impacts encampments have on residents, businesses, workers, customers, and the general welfare of the people.

It would stop the navigation team from providing services, despite the presence of serious public health and public safety concerns.

And it jeopardizes the safety of our firefighters, because even though it effectively has exceptions for fire safety hazards to infrastructure, it doesn't consider other types of fire safety hazards.

Thank you.

Next up is Liang Chen.

Yes.

Yes, OK.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Liang Chen.

I'm addressing my position to oppose the Bill 119796. I'm a Chinese school teacher in greater Seattle area.

Always take my school kids to the CID to absorb the diversified and rich culture experience in this area, in the CID.

I'm also a frequent patron of CID.

I've seen the safety and environmental situation in CID deteriorating rapidly and alarmingly because the encampment in the CID.

So this cause big disadvantage to CID shop owner.

Thank you so much.

Next up we have Ming Zhao.

My name is Ming Zhao.

I've worked in Chinatown International District for over 20 years.

I just spoke to my friend this morning.

I asked her, would you come to Chinatown for dinner after COVID-19?

and she responded to me, it's so dangerous to come to Chinatown.

So there's an impression for many people who live in Seattle, we are tired of the crime, the garbage in the streets in Chinatown International District.

We need to ensure the safety for our business, seniors and visitors.

And we have 8,000 people signed the petition to oppose the CB 119796. oppose the bill.

Thank you so much.

I do just want to flag, I've skipped over a few not present, and I do just want to flag that your place in line is secure if you come back and you do still want to comment.

And those folks are Kyle Malone, Grace Lin, Gray Newland, Kip Tu, Yoshiko Higo, Tylan Chee, and Ty Reed.

The next speaker is Dai Kim.

Hello, a lot of people who are opposed to the bill are stating that they want a real solution.

I want to emphasize as someone who has worked in youth and adult shelters for the tenants union and a housing advocate for many years, that the homeless encampment sweeps is not a solution.

Do not forget that the ACLU has an active lawsuit against the city around the homeless sweeps, calling them cruel, unnecessary and effective, along with a strong recommendation from the CDC to stop all encampment sweeps until we are fully out of the pandemic.

Spending millions of dollars every budget cycle to destroy tents and belongings is not a solution.

I am for a community-centered solution, but the suites aren't it.

I believe stopping the suites is a necessary first step in working towards a real solution, like building affordable housing for all.

Passing this bill during a global pandemic is a no-brainer.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Angela Leija.

Hi, my name is Angela Leija.

I believe in healthy solutions for all citizens.

I do not believe that CB 119796 does this.

We need to support solutions that work, such as drug and mental health treatment, tiny houses, and the navigation team.

If the homelessness funds are managed better, we can decrease the waste of resources and support healthy solutions.

Thank you for knowing.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Shanti Man Singh, who it does not look like is present.

So, Shanti, I'll hold your spot.

If you log in, we'll go back to you.

Next up is Teresa Mettler.

Is Teresa Mettler there?

Hello.

My name is Teresa Mettler, and I currently reside at the Georgetown Tiny House Village.

I've been here for about a year, and I'm about 60 years old.

And I don't know.

I just want to emphasize privacy.

If anybody could imagine how bad the crisis has been for the COVID-19 thing, Imagine being there homeless, out there homeless and trying to deal with that and not have anywhere to go.

Just, just out there where everybody can see you do everything.

Um, anyway, the universe treasures privacy and not everybody gets to have it.

And, um, if you could just for a brief moment, try to hypothetically imagine having your life to include the times when it's absolutely needed in your life as going to the.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Jerry Helmer, who's not present.

I'll hold your place.

If you log in, we'll go back to you.

And then after Jerry is Megan Tush.

And Megan, we'll go back to you.

When you get here, it looks like you're currently not present.

So the next person who's present is Taya Shannon.

Taya Shannon?

Okay, I don't hear.

We'll move on to Maria Ah.

Maria Ah?

Yes, hello.

Hello, my name is Maria and I currently reside at the Tiny House, Nicosil Village.

And I'm calling because we are supposed to be leaving by June 1st.

And I'm just strongly urging that You guys can open your hearts and let us stay at least to the end of the year.

This place has been very valuable to me.

We have a good community rapport with the community.

Our donations come here.

I've tried to go to churches to find somewhere else to go, but everything is on lockdown.

People have nowhere to go.

And this would be the best solution for us.

If you guys could just please open your hearts and understand the time with the pandemic to let us stay past June 1st, at least to the end of the year.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

And just to say, Taya Shannon, if you come back, I'll hold your place and we can get your comments.

So just know that.

Hope to hear from you soon.

The next speaker is Anne Duffy, who is currently not present.

Same thing.

I'll hold your spot.

And Guy Oron, who is not present.

Mr. Chair.

who isn't present.

Christina Shimizu is our next speaker.

Christina?

My name is Christina Shimizu.

Hi, my name is Christina Shimizu.

I am Japanese American and currently work in the Chinatown International District.

And I strongly oppose this sweep under all circumstances, but especially now in the midst of the pandemic and against CDC guidelines.

I witnessed the sweeps in Chinatown last week as I watched the city cruelly destroy the only shelters and possessions of vulnerable unhoused neighbors.

The sweeps are inhumane and I urge the passage of Council Bill 119796. The Chinatown International District was born of racism, redlining, chronic disinvestment, and neglect by the city.

Like redlining, the sweeps are a racist and oppressive city policy that we will all look back on with shame.

Our neighborhood has combated stigma, racism, and years of disinvestment by the city, and we distrust that there can be justice for the unhoused as well as safety and economic recovery for our community.

This is not a choice.

I stand in solidarity with our unhoused neighbors and demand that we stop the sweeps and invest in long-term solutions for housing and services.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Frank Fito, who it looks like isn't present, and then Carl Nelson, who is.

So Carl, take it away.

Hi there.

My name is Carl Nelson, and I'm a small business owner in District 4. I wanted to speak today in support of 119796, in support of it to restrict suites during the pandemic.

We know the suites were cruel, expensive, and ineffective way before the pandemic started, and now they have an added dimension of danger due to the coronavirus.

Seattle should comply with the CDC recommendations at a time when the city has inadequate shelter space and when more and more people are losing their jobs, income, and are faced with economic insecurity.

The money and resources we use on the suites should be better spent to deploy more sanitation stations, to expand Tiny Home Village, and provide harms reduction during this pandemic, please vote in favor of the bill.

Thank you so much.

Bye.

Thank you.

Next up is Don Marr.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

My name is Don Marr.

I wanted to thank everybody who participated today.

Obviously, a lot of people care about what's going on.

I'm a property owner in the International District, Chinatown International District.

I oppose 119796. I support the removing of homeless encampments that are unsafe and unfeditary.

We have property directly right next to the Navigation Center at 12th and Weller.

At some point, I counted over 60 tents there.

Due to the illegal activity, due to the illegal drug activity at the Nav Center, We are particularly, it's a really violent situation there.

We've had murders, we've had rapes, we've had burglaries, we've had fires.

It's just a mess.

And there's no doubt in my mind if that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Anne Duffy.

Anne Duffy.

Hi, my name's Anne Duffy.

I live on Capitol Hill.

And I'm speaking about CB 119796. I'm against this proposal.

It's not a solution.

It only kicks the can down the road.

Half of the chronically homeless are mentally ill and or drug addicted.

And these issues need to be addressed first and foremost.

If you're really worried about health, as I am, allowing people to defecate in public and shoot up on the sidewalks will not improve anything for anyone.

Imagine that this pandemic goes on for a few years.

This is not a solution.

Please don't pass this.

Thank you.

And then next up we have Iwa, Patrick, and Cami Colnides, neither of whom are present.

So we'll move forward to Tam Nguyen.

Tam Nguyen?

Hello, this is Tom Nguyen.

My name is Tom Nguyen.

Our siblings are operating a small business in Little Saigon District.

Before the city council vote, please address the public safety to the people who live, who work, and all shopper in the area.

The Little Saigon District is a vulnerable community with a language and economic barrier.

We are trying to live and make a living in the area.

The community who face with drugs, counterfeit dealing, drug injection, verbal threat, break in businesses every day.

I wonder the city council who's supporting this bill meant to cause a vulnerable community against another vulnerable community, or even this bill humane when this bill allow homeless sleep and live

And then the next folks are Jeffrey Gold and Gary Gray, neither of whom are currently present.

Leslie George is the next speaker.

Hi, I'm Leslie George and I live downtown.

I and many of my downtown neighbors don't feel it safe or healthy to walk in our own neighborhood.

We need to find a real permanent and humane solution to our homeless problem.

Perhaps as one person has already mentioned, permanently leasing underutilized hotels and motels.

We cannot just continue to put band-aids on this very serious situation.

For those of us who live and work downtown, as well as those who are homeless, I oppose CB 119796. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Maria Ramon.

Maria?

All right, well, we can come back to Maria if she's present.

Jessica Primavera is next, who also is not present.

And Chris Caculaton, who is also not present.

So Scott Pattison is the next speaker.

Hello, I'm in favor of Council Bill 119796. The sweeps are inhumane in any circumstance during a deadly pandemic.

It is depraved.

For those against this bill, I ask, where are our own house neighbors supposed to go?

There are no other options.

These are human beings that deserve dignity.

The city should feel ashamed for the callousness of their response to a public health emergency.

The sweeps are odd to CDC guidelines.

How are these a human right?

Stop the sweeps.

How is the homeless?

Thank you.

Please vote yes.

And then next is Anthony D'Amico, who is also not present, and Sophia Ho, not present.

So Pollyanna Wang is the next speaker, and I believe this is a translator sign-up.

Hi there, Ho.

Oh, you know what?

I don't need translator.

Oh, OK.

Proceed.

Okay, good afternoon.

My name is Pollyanna Wong.

I'm a teacher teaching at Seattle Public Schools and a visitor of Chinatown International District Community.

Chinatown International District Community is a vibrant pillar of our city and the community deserves basic safety services from our city leadership.

But I feel insecure to allow them proceed to allow, If city allows uncontrolled homelessness to take over and destroy places, me and my family love to visit.

So I'm here to urge you to vote no for CB 119796 and request the enforcement of illegal encampment of CID neighborhood to protect residents, business owners, visitors, and our elderly population.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Naomi Seed, who it looks like is not present.

And Sooyoung Yoon, also not present.

Amy Augustine, not present.

Ruth Danner, not present.

Blake Peterson, not present.

Gunnar Colleen, not present.

So Vic Vong is our next speaker.

Can y'all hear me?

Vic Vong?

Oh, great.

Oh, hi.

My name is Vic Fong.

Um, I grew up in this neighborhood.

My family came here as refugees in the eighties.

I now live in Chinatown international district, and I work in a central area at agency called API Chaya serving API communities, um, survivors, survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking.

Um, and I'm calling to support CB one one nine seven nine six.

Um, as we know, the largest population of homeless persons in Washington state is victims of domestic violence.

According to HUD in 2012, domestic violence and homelessness are likely to occur together.

And that mothers with children experiencing homelessness also experienced domestic violence.

The more that they are displaced.

Um, I know that it seems like a solution to sweep, but it really isn't a long-term solution.

And we actually need sanitation and housing and hand washing stations.

We need stability, not criminalization.

And that is the answer, not sweeps.

We know that.

Thank you.

And then next is Allie Arnold, who's not present, and Zachary Ellen Bogan, who's not present.

So Jasmine Smith is our next speaker.

Hi, my name is Jasmine Smith and I'm addressing Council Bill 119796 and I'm expressing my support as a District 7 community member, housing advocate and local educator.

We're in a housing crisis, pandemic crisis, an economic crisis, and I'm very proud of the renter protections that have come from the city.

I've been aghast at the heartless and cruel way city resources have gone towards camp eviction.

They would be much better allocated towards tiny homes, hotel rooms, permanent supportive housing and hygiene stations, basically anything else.

Watching as cops without masks destroyed the homes of our neighbors was disturbing and disgusting.

Please follow CDC recommendations and just the core values that we have as a city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm getting notified that Um, DeMarco is present.

Anthony DeMarco, D'Amico.

Hi, I'm here.

Yeah.

Okay.

Proceed.

Uh, Hi, my name is Anthony D'Amico.

I'm a grad student and teacher here in Seattle.

I'm calling to support Council Bill 119796. Because of our regressive tax code, Seattle and Washington State are going to feel the effects of this coming economic crisis badly from both a humanitarian and a financial perspective.

Some of us are unable to empathize, apparently, and cannot see how these sweeps are abhorrent.

I would like to know where our compassion and humanity is, and ask why during this time our city perpetuates displacement inequality and exacerbates the current public health concerns regarding COVID-19.

From a financial standpoint, this also does not make sense either, as it costs a ton of money.

Why does austerity always seem to miss militarized policing, especially when it creates a bigger humanitarian crisis?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ruth Danner.

of District 7. Hi my name is Ruth Danner.

I'm a resident of District 7. As imposing as today's problems are with encampments and encampment sweeps the impending economic crisis that faces us will usher in a new era of homelessness that makes our current problem look like a pre-corona walk in the park.

We must prepare in earnest now to put a scalable plan in place while numbers are still relatively low.

CB 119796 attempts to legitimize four foot wide sidewalks as magically sufficient to accommodate safe six foot distancing when nothing less than 10 feet will do for passageways through and around encampments.

We must take action now to provide the other accommodations called for.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Lloyd.

Hi, I'm David Lloyd.

I live.

Hi, I'm David Lloyd.

I live just North of Pioneer square.

I'm calling to oppose a CB 1 1 9 7 9 6. Uh, there's an, a camp man outside my building that is growing by the day.

And I can only imagine how large it will become if left alone until 2021. My wife doesn't feel safe leaving the building alone.

And the landlord has closed one of our exits.

due to the inability or their unwillingness to clean up the human excrement.

I predict the ferry walkway to Coleman Dock will soon become virtually impassable.

How are people supposed to maintain six foot distancing when only four feet of sidewalk is the standard given in the bill?

There's nothing safe about these encampments, neither for the campers nor for the passersby.

Please allow the navigation team to continue to do their job.

Okay, thank you, and that is our last commenter.

There are no more present people who have signed up to comment, so I will now end public comment, and we will move on to the next agenda item.

So with that, I'm gonna begin the first portion of this meeting, which is the discussion of Council Bill 119796. And I just want to read a couple of remarks at the beginning of this, and then I want to hand it over first to Council Member Morales, who is the sponsor, to speak to her bill.

But I do just want to give a brief overview of today's conversation.

So we have a number of stakeholders who are here.

We're going to be discussing Council Bill 119796 relating to the circumstances under which the navigation team can engage in the removal of unsanctioned encampments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

And we're going to hear from folks on two panels.

The first panel is going to be composed of Jessica Kwan from Evergreen Treatment Services and REACH, Executive Director Allison Isinger from the Seattle-Kington County Coalition on Homelessness, Tara Moss from the Public Defender Association, Elizabeth Aggie from International Community Health Services, and Esther Lucero from the Seattle Indian Health Board, and Executive Director Lisa Howard from the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

Our second panel is going to be composed of Deputy Mayors Michael Fong and Casey Sixkiller, Chief of Police Carmen Best, and Seattle Fire Chief Harold Scoggins, as well as Director of Seattle King County Public Health Patty Hayes.

I want to preface today's conversation by acknowledging here at the beginning of our deliberations as a council that the members of these panels and members of this council are certainly going to have some divergent views on the issues that we're discussing about this legislation and issues surrounding this legislation and the navigation team more broadly.

Our discussion today will touch on topics that are sensitive and have very real implications for very real people.

I want all of our presenters today to honestly convey their position on this proposed legislation.

I want them to bring their expertise, their life experience and their background and how they form these positions.

And I ask that every member of this council and all of our guests here today engage in this conversation respectfully.

And I ask that all of our panels today, on every end of this discussion, acknowledge that we have a deep and demonstrated commitment to public service, and that before engaging in this difficult conversation, we stipulate at the top that those shared common commitments can help us move forward to make some progress on the issues that we all see every day in unsanctioned encampments and the impacts that COVID has had on the least vulnerable people, or the most vulnerable people in our community who are experiencing homelessness.

and who the city of Seattle is one of the most generous providers for in the region, and that, you know, we can always do more to expand on that work.

But we're beginning from a point where all of us want to make some common progress.

So with that, in just kind of laying those initial ground rules, I do want to give Councilmember Morales an opportunity to speak to her legislation in advance of the first panel.

and then I'm going to introduce the first panel and we will take that discussion away.

So with that, Council Member Morales, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Lewis, I appreciate it.

I wanna start today by reminding everyone here and everyone who called in and everyone who's listening that we're talking about human lives when we talk about the homelessness crisis.

We're not talking about data points or widgets.

These are people, these are people's children, and chances are you know somebody who has experienced or will experience homelessness.

So I just want us to keep that in mind as we move forward.

We're here today to answer a critical question about city policy.

What is the appropriate public health response to homelessness given the risk of community spread of the coronavirus?

CDC guidance on homelessness from a memo dated May 10th states that housing options that have individual rooms such as hotels or motels and separate bathrooms should be considered for overflow or quarantine or protective housing sites.

If individual housing options are not available, allow people who are living unsheltered or in encampments to remain where they are.

clearing encampments can cause people to disperse throughout the community and break connections with service providers.

This increases the potential for infectious disease spread.

That's from a memo dated May 10th.

It's clear that we are not nearly out of the woods when it comes to the coronavirus.

We aren't meeting our targets for decreasing the number of cases or for reducing community spread in King County and that's as of today's update from the Public Health Department.

Our city charter provides that we are here to protect the health and safety of every person in the city.

We all swore, council members here, to uphold that commitment, not for some people or just the people who agree with us, or for the people who have the time and resources to call into city council and make their voices heard.

Our obligation is to protect the health of everyone in Seattle, including, and I would say especially, for those who are living in desperate situations.

I want to acknowledge that community members across the city are frustrated by our homelessness crisis and have been for quite some time.

My office had a half dozen community meetings in the Chinatown International District last week, and I know that there is deep frustration.

There is also, as many have said today, an eagerness to see real solutions for our homeless neighbors.

I understand that there are some encampment sites where there is visible drug use and litter and violence.

And I understand that there will be times when people need to be moved.

But I reject the premise that the presence of some criminal activity means that the entire homeless population is criminal.

And I want to remind the broader Seattle community that encampment removals don't necessarily mean that people are being housed or sheltered.

Very often, it simply means that people are being pushed from one place to another.

We're all frustrated by the response to homelessness, especially during this pandemic.

We are failing if we think that removing people, vulnerable people over and over again is gonna solve this issue.

As a local government, we have a responsibility to solve the housing and the public health problem, not move it from one neighborhood to another.

When a deadly infectious disease is spreading in our town, moving people from Ballard just means that they move to Magnolia or to the Chinatown International District.

And that puts another neighborhood at risk for exposure to coronavirus without actually solving the problem that fellow human beings are living on the street without the support that they need.

It's time for us to stop treating homelessness like a crime problem and start treating it like the public health crisis that it is.

That means we need more sanitation and hygiene services, more case management for those with high behavioral needs.

And in the short term, it means we need individual housing like hotels or motels or dorm rooms or sanctioned encampments that include social services.

In the long run, it does mean that we need more housing.

That's how we solve the homelessness problem.

People don't choose to live on the streets, and all data shows that when given the option of moving into a housing unit, people will choose that.

When I observed the King Street encampment removal last week, I spoke with Jacob, who told me that he'd been moved many times, that the REACH folks were very often there to take his name and take his information, but housing just never materialized.

I asked Jacob and his girlfriend if they would accept a hotel room if that was something that was available.

In a heartbeat, he said.

So this is our question today.

What is the appropriate public health response?

The strategy cannot be merely to move people from one neighborhood to another.

Our homeless population deserves better, and so do the neighbors whose community is impacted by the constant shuffling.

The bill we're discussing today seeks to codify HSD's stated policy not to remove encampments during the coronavirus in order to protect public health.

And that is a directive issued by the mayor on March 17th.

We think it's important enough to put pen to paper since the request to make administrative changes went unanswered.

For the sake of tamping down some misinformation and candidly some fear mongering that's been going on, I think it's important that we start with what this bill not do.

This bill first does not limit a private property owner's ability to press charges for trespass.

This bill does not allow camping in any public place in the city.

That decision was made by the Ninth Circuit Court when it ruled in the Boise case, and I'm quoting for the decision, as long as there's no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent homeless people for sleeping outdoors on public property on the false premise that they had a choice in the matter.

The court said it was cruel and unusual punishment to enforce rules that stop homeless people from camping in public places when they have no place else to go.

So despite some tweets from HSD indicating that camping in public places is illegal in Seattle, the truth is that the Ninth Circuit has ruled that criminalizing homelessness is cruel and unusual punishment.

And finally, this bill does not limit the police department's ability to investigate crime, nor does it limit the fire department's ability to respond to fire.

What this bill does do is make the city true to its word by formalizing the mayor's directive through a budget proviso.

It strengthens policies by putting them through a public health lens, pushing the city to follow CDC guidelines on providing adequate individual shelter.

Over 100 healthcare workers and human service providers, many of whom work with HEPA patients, just sent a letter to council calling for this this morning.

The bill also ensures that city dollars aren't spent on a tool that simply does not work, than pushing people from one neighborhood to another.

And it shifts the focus of the navigation team's work from removals toward actual navigation, providing outreach, connecting people to services, and making referral to adequate shelter, which is something that everybody today has said they want.

I want to thank Chief Best and Chief Scoggins and their departments.

We value the work of first responders and keeping us safe during this crisis.

Frankly, I think it's a little cynical to play on people's fears during this crisis.

And I want to say that we have had many discussions with our very thorough law department, and we're confident that this bill will not interfere with your ability to do your work.

I wanna thank the council central staff, particularly Jeff Sims, who worked really hard on this.

Congratulations on your new baby, Jeff.

And I wanna thank the central staff for providing policy guidance and analysis to this very busy city council.

We have great respect for these city council workers, for the city workers and appreciate all they do to support our offices.

I also wanna thank my own staff who's worked really hard on this and I wanna thank council member Mosqueda for her significant contributions to this work.

She has a few amendments that we'll consider today and I think that they strengthen this bill.

The last thing I want to say is that I do believe that we can work together to solve homelessness, but we can't ignore the issues that are facing us right now.

Housing is a human right.

We can and should prioritize housing, and we should make sure that folks, especially during this emergency, have what they need to be safe.

I look at all the people who've been part of the discussion today, and honestly, it gives me hope that representatives from the executive department and the legislative branch, the advocates, our neighbors, our healthcare providers and service providers can work together to actually solve this crisis.

We need to move past what has not worked, embrace what has, and finally do right by our unhoused neighbors.

And I look forward to our discussion today.

Thank you Councilmember Morales.

So I actually had misspoken earlier.

Our first presentation is our panel with the Deputy Mayors, the Chiefs, and Director Hayes.

So we will move to that panel first.

So I want to welcome Deputy Mayor Michael Fong, Deputy Mayor Casey Sixkiller, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, and Fire Chief Harold Scoggins, as well as Director of Public Health Patty Hayes.

So I'm going to ask each member of the panel to go ahead and give some opening remarks.

You can defer the opening remarks for questions if you would like to.

I'll encourage or I'll invite that if that's something you ought to do.

And then we'll proceed to a question and answer with this panel before moving on to the panel later this afternoon.

I would ask just in light of the fact that uh i'm sure that a lot of us have a lot of questions if we could try to reserve the balance of this conversation for for an exchange around questions um that would probably be um uh the most productive but uh i want to make sure you guys have a chance to provide your opening statement so i'm going to turn it over um first to um uh deputy mayor fong and then i think i'll just call each panelist out individually if we were if we were at the table we would just go down in a line but I think in zoom world it makes more sense for me to call people out individually.

So we'll start with Deputy Mayor Fong, then Deputy Mayor Sixkiller, Chief Best, Chief Scoggins and Director Hayes.

So Deputy Mayor Fong take it away.

Great, good afternoon, Committee Chair Lewis.

Council Members, thank you for giving the Executive an opportunity to join you this afternoon in a discussion about Council Bill 119796. I do want to start by saying that I can appreciate the Council's desire and urgency to devise strategies and approaches to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on people experiencing homelessness.

It's that same desire and urgency that has led the Mayor to deploy more new spending towards homelessness response really than any other program in the city's portfolio and lines of business.

I mean, putting us on a current trajectory of spending $140 million in 2020 alone on homelessness, that is $44 million more than the city spent in 2019 and almost $100 million more than 2017. I say this because as COVID-19 has hit the region, we have deployed an unprecedented level of resources working with King County, the County Executive, Public Health Seattle and King County to help support individuals that are experiencing homelessness.

And even as we are making tough decisions regarding our $300 million budget gap that I know you've heard in some detail from Director Noble, we will still be deploying approximately $40 million additional to individuals experiencing homelessness for a new shelter, safer 24-7 places to be, meals and wraparound services, and hygiene services.

We're also working daily with King County and Public Health on testing resources for our shelters, like PPE and access to isolation and quarantine sites, including the ones that have been stood up by the county.

Soon, we'll be bringing to you our 2020 budget plan in June.

And we will be making some serious and very difficult choices where we will outline our plan to use state and federal resources on the greatest needs in our community, including homelessness.

But I want to emphasize that today's bill really isn't about the best approach to helping unsheltered individuals meet their needs.

In fact, we believe very strongly that the most likely outcome if passed is that it would have a detrimental impact on public health and safety.

of not only the people in the surrounding community of unsanctioned encampments that have extreme challenges, but also for individuals living within those encampments themselves.

And in our presentation, you'll hear from Chief Best, Chief Scoggins and Deputy Mayor Sixkiller on how this legislation compromises the city's ability to really effectively respond to public health and safety issues in our community.

And we hope that in this discussion, we can describe some of what I believe are unintended consequences that may not have been considered in the initial drafting of this bill.

I mean, simply put, it's hard to imagine that the intent could have actually been to prohibit the city from potentially removing an encampment when the presence of a confirmed case of COVID or communicable disease is present to reduce the further risk of exposure.

or that the intent was to effectively stop the city from addressing unauthorized encampments that present persistent dangerous criminal activity, or to inadvertently sanction encampments on private property and public spaces, such as parks and green spaces in conflict with numerous rules and code elements in the Muni Code.

or to put at risk our first responders, firefighters and police officers as you heard today, hiding their risk as they face responding to 911 calls to some of these areas.

Nor can I imagine that the intent was to introduce such a consequential bill on May 18th and then have it voted on nine days later with little opportunity for public engagement or comment.

where we've now seen and heard from thousands of people opposing this bill through signing of petitions, letters, and emails that have been sent to both the mayor and to the city council.

We urge the council to oppose CB 119796. I mean, just as there's no simple answer and solution to homelessness, there is no two-page bill that can capture the nuances and substitute for the professional judgment of the NAV team, police and firefighters, outreach workers, human service providers to respond to complex issues that present themselves in some in sanctioned encampments.

And finally, I agree with Council Member Lewis, Council Member Morales that we are ready and willing to work with the council to meet a shared set of policy objectives around homelessness.

It's just that this bill simply isn't going to move us forward.

I want to thank you for the opportunity for some opening remarks.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to Deputy Mayor Sixkiller, Chief Best, and Chief Scoggins for some brief comments.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Fong.

And I just want to say, because I don't know if I made this clear before the panel, if folks could hold their questions until the conclusion of all the presentations, that'd be great.

And Deputy Mayor Sixkiller, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

Thank you, Chairman Lewis.

I'm going to begin my comments this afternoon by grounding us in a few facts.

First, just three months ago, we found ourselves at the forefront of a global pandemic that is lethal to high-risk individuals.

With the council's support, the mayor issued an executive order to focus the city's attention on COVID-19 prevention and response efforts.

Second, with the threat of an outbreak among the 11,000 individuals experiencing homelessness across our region, we knew we had to act urgently and execute a plan in partnership with King County.

To stand up and de-intensify shelters, to stand up quarantine and isolation recovery facilities, to bring new shelter resources online for individuals, expand access to hygiene facilities, and importantly, be providing flexibility and HSD provider contracts so that city dollars can continue to provide wraparound services and support provider operations, whether that individual is in Seattle or not.

It's also worth noting that during this unprecedented time, we've deployed measures and investments to keep as many people as possible in their homes.

And third, the mayor directed the navigation team to temporarily suspend normal operations and refocus on disease awareness and mitigation efforts.

Since early March, the navigation team has been one of the only outreach teams in the field.

In fact, given that many providers have closed their doors or significantly curtailed services, the navigation team often is the only resource available to individuals experiencing homelessness.

In the fourth quarter of 2019, The navigation team conducted 303 removals across all removal types.

Since March, the navigation team has conducted four.

The navigation team sees firsthand many of the inhumane and dangerous conditions that some encampments pose to both the residents and community.

As we struggle with stopping the spread of COVID-19 in the city, the city also bears responsibility to handle public safety under the leadership of Chief Best and Chief Coggins.

Our goal is to humanely remove the most dangerous conditions, including areas of violent crime, and move individuals to safer shelter to connect them with services and support.

It is also the city's responsibility to ensure accessibility to public rights of way such as sidewalks, streets, driveways, alleyways, and access to businesses and residents.

During this period, the navigation team has distributed over 2,500 hygiene kits, provided over 2,300 COVID-19 hepatitis A public health flyers, added out close to 900 meals, completed close to 400 garbage and waste removal activities at unmanaged encampments, and referred 300 individuals into shelter, including the new shelters that we have set up.

These efforts, aided by support and guidance from Public Health Seattle King County, have been a success in protecting some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

While 20% of all COVID-19 cases in the region are associated with long-term care facilities, roughly 3% of cases involve individuals experiencing homelessness.

We believe the measures we have taken in Seattle have saved lives including in our shelters.

In fact, it is why Seattle and King County are looked to across the country as the model for how to quickly scale up a diverse range of housing and related supports to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among individuals experiencing homelessness.

This is not to suggest that we've done all we can or should do.

Far from it.

Until there is a vaccine, we will be working every day to protect the most vulnerable.

Much of our work is done knowing we are facing a $300 million gap in our budget.

But we will be prioritizing our work to help those individuals experiencing homelessness.

Lastly, I'd like to briefly address the recent removals of encampments that presented extreme circumstances.

First, for context, each removal was preceded by weeks of engagement by the navigation team to connect individuals with services and offer referrals into shelter units.

At Ballard Commons, despite weeks of engagement, there continued to be a risk for individuals living within the encampments and the surrounding community.

There, the navigations team work resulted in referring 29 people into shelter leading up to the removal and referring an additional eight people into shelter on the day of the removal.

At the CID in Little Saigon, despite engagement, there continued to be serious safety concerns individuals living within those encampments and the surrounding community.

There, the navigations team work resulted in referring 88 people leading up to the removals into shelter, an additional 25 individuals into shelter on the day of both removals.

Importantly, public health, mobile medical and street medicine teams were engaged in both encampments leading up to the removal process to screen for COVID-19, conduct testing where necessary, and establish contact tracing capabilities.

There's no question that the encampments and the dangers they pose to the individuals living within them and their surrounding community needed to be addressed.

I just would add the legislation being considered today would have limited our ability to act on some of the most basic responsibilities we have as a city.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll turn it to Chief Best.

Thank you so much, Deputy Mayor.

But to make sure we're sticking to the rules, the chair will hand it over to Chief Best.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, you're right.

Chief Bess, thank you for joining us today, and please, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Good afternoon, Chairman Lewis and all of the other Councilmembers.

Thank you for having me here today for this select committee hearing.

I want to first take a moment, and I know this isn't the topic today, but I cannot, as an African-American woman and the Seattle Police Chief, be in a public meeting like this and not mention the tragic murder of George Floyd that occurred in Minneapolis on Monday.

I am truly saddened and I am angry.

Being a police officer is about service and protecting the sanctity of life.

All of policing needs to continue the commitment to building relationships and trust with our communities, especially, especially our communities of color who have experienced so much trauma in the justice system.

And that includes holding ourselves accountable.

So my thoughts and my prayers are with the family of Mr. Floyd.

So thank you for giving me a moment to say those few words and back to the subject at hand about the navigation team.

As has been discussed, the Seattle Police Department is one part of human services navigation team.

Right now we have eight officers assigned to assist.

The Seattle Police Department knows very well that police actions do not resolve issues around homelessness and housing.

Rather, the officers are a part of the navigation team because of their ability to make strong connections through three key areas.

First and foremost, relentless outreach.

Second, providing security for those service providers who are out there on the front lines every single day.

And third, addressing the responsibilities given to us by SDOT and parks, obstructions and hazards on public sidewalks and areas.

As the chief of police, it is my primary responsibility to ensure and maintain the peace and order of the city.

the responding to calls for service and investigations, officers and detectives have become aware of public safety issues at almost every major encampment that has been addressed by the navigation team.

I want to quickly touch on some of the most illustrative incidents for why SPD must be a part of the team.

Most importantly, being homeless, being mentally ill, battling addiction, fighting poverty, none of this is a crime.

And we will not criminalize the homeless.

And we will not criminalize people living in encampments.

They are not criminals.

They are vulnerable in many different ways.

And they need help.

There are people who prey on them and exploit their situations for their own gain and to the detriment of every single person in this community.

A few of the incidents that I want to highlight for your consideration.

In 2017, the navigation team cleaned the encampment that was at Airport Way South in South Royal, Burlington.

This was done after two residents that were arrested for operating a child sex trafficking ring with some of the residents in the area calling police and telling us there are six juvenile girls involved.

The youngest was 13. In 2018, our major crimes task force worked on a drug trafficking investigation involving several encampments in the Chinatown ID area and found in operations supplying heroin, meth, crack, along with large amounts of cash and several weapons.

The suspects had actual residences.

They didn't live, they weren't homeless living there.

They were using the encampment as cover to maintain their illicit and criminal enterprises.

And just one year ago in May, Officers seized over $20,000 in cash, a pound of crack cocaine, heroin, meth, pills, firearms, knives, machetes, a sword, and stolen property in a bust of predatory drug dealing and violent crime and property theft at encampments in Pioneer Square and in the Chinatown ID.

In total, 10 individuals were arrested for trafficking drugs out of the encampment.

And most recently, the removals that took place near the Navigation Center and 8th Avenue South and South King were preceded by increasing calls from the community, and ultimately by acts of violence, including a homicide, shots fired, and serious assaults with weapons.

Again, I have to be very clear, the vast majority of individuals living outside are not engaging in major crime.

They are trying to survive.

Many are battling addiction and mental illness, and they're trying to make a better life for themselves.

You know, I know this firsthand, I have family members who are homeless, but they are being victimized by criminals and by a criminal element, some of which live there and some of which open up operations at these encampments.

We must address the condition that give rise to the problem.

Yes, we the police can go in and arrest the criminals, but more will come in and take their place because these locations have victims and they provide good cover for illegal activity.

There is often no choice if we want to stop further victimization.

We have to act.

And recently I was talking to a very distraught NAV team lieutenant who spoke to me of trying to provide services to a man.

This man was homeless.

He was sitting in his own feces.

eating a sandwich that was covered with maggots.

They couldn't involuntarily commit them because that doesn't meet the criteria of commitment.

But we also should recognize that that person should not be allowed to remain in those conditions.

If that were my family member, I would want a NAV team officer or anyone coming by to help them and to assist them.

So I'll close by saying this.

If you wanna make it acceptable for people to live in these conditions, then this bill will do just that.

It is my charter and my responsibility that we take these situations extremely seriously.

And it's part of the charter of the city to do so, to protect the safety of every single member of our community.

If my officers are not allowed by way of a budget proviso, to address criminal activity that takes advantage of these situations, it is a huge, and I do mean this sincerely, a huge disservice to the community and to the people who are living there.

And it's a disservice to humanity.

If this activity is occurring when the individuals know, they know the police department is going to come in and intercede, it worries me and it worries me greatly what will happen when they know that no one is coming and they are allowed to operate with free reign.

So thank you for allowing me a few minutes to express my concerns.

Thank you, Chief Best.

We will now hear from Chief Scoggins.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Committee Chair Lewis and members of the City Council.

As a fire department, we must do what is necessary to prevent fires and keep our community safe by following our mission of saving lives and protecting property.

Many encampments currently pose a significant public safety hazard and or concern.

As an employer, we must keep the safety of our personnel at the forefront and should not to continue to put them into dangerous situations if possible.

I mean, we know we're firefighters and we know our some situations are going to be dangerous, but we try to prevent the ones we can.

Our members become firefighters because they're committed to serving the public.

We can all help improve community safety and firefighter safety.

I want to talk about safety concerns on two fronts.

I'll start with fire, then transition into medical safety issues.

When people are burning anything outside, whether it's for cooking, warming, or recreationally, there's always a safety risk for the people living at encampments, their neighbors, and our city firefighters who have to go into these environments to put them out.

Summer is historically the busiest month for outdoor fires, and we continue to see dangerous fire hazards at homeless encampments.

Since the beginning of tracking COVID-19 on February 28th, we have responded to 126 fires at encampments citywide.

This is a significant increase by 15% from the same time period in 2019. The fire concern is two-pronged.

For people experiencing homelessness, the concern is the potential of the fire spreading and lack of a fire alarm or any type of alerting system.

Tents are highly flammable, as we see all the time, and when located near brush or combustible materials, they do spread very quickly from one tent to the next or up a hillside.

Encampments do not have any alerting systems in place to alert residents to evacuate, and typically, lack of equipment to extinguish a fire before it gets out of control.

Large piles of trash often found at encampments are a public health concern and sources of fuels for the fires to grow, as we often see.

The second area of concern is for our firefighters.

who are responding to put out these fires.

Our members are frequently put into hazardous situations where butane and propane tanks explode, and this happens quite often.

Needles and feces are found on the ground that they must travel through.

Access to the fire is an issue, forcing crews to respond via high-traffic freeways or navigate up contaminated and steep hillsides filled with brush This often requires the deep cleaning of equipment used for fire suppression.

And this also keeps our crews out of service longer as we have to go back and do these decontamination processes.

There are also many incidents where these fires have threatened our city's infrastructures, including bridges, utility poles, highways, fire hydrants, and more.

A recent example was on May 25th.

Crews extinguished a fire that engulfed several tents, a portable generator, rubbish at a homeless encampment.

Firefighters negotiated up a slippery hillside in order to reach the fire and encountered needles and other debris.

Engineers from Harborview Medical Center notified our crews that heavy smoke entered their buildings, HVAC system, and people were able to smell the smoke from inside of the hospital.

Now as it relates to medical, In 2019, 80% of our responses were from medical emergencies, totaling nearly 73,000 responses for the year.

Last year, 15% of these medical responses were for people believed to be experiencing homelessness, just over 11,000 responses.

And from February 28th, when we started this COVID-19 crisis through today, we have already responded to 2400 medical incidents for people experiencing homelessness.

The health concerns among this population is significant.

We see it daily.

And with the COVID-19 pandemic underway, the rate of transmission at encampments could be extreme.

And this increases the stress level among responders going into these environments.

Remember, our firefighters get off each day and they take whatever is on them home to their families.

So it's a real concern.

Encountering unsanitary conditions with feces, needles, and rodents at encampments, it's become the norm.

The hepatitis A outbreak at the Ballard Commons is a recent example of how quickly a life altering disease can spread without intervention.

Our crews continue to encounter combative patients who are often under the influence of drugs or have underlying mental health issues when responding to medical aid calls in these locations.

We are faced with the same access issues, but sometimes they're a bit more difficult.

As you can all imagine, it's easy to spot a fire But, you know, when we're navigating and negotiating the hillsides of where we think an encampment is at two o'clock in the morning is unsafe on multiple fronts.

We often require a Seattle police escort into these areas just to keep our members safe.

And Council Member Lewis, you asked, you know, state our reasons and how we come to our decisions.

The Seattle Fire Department formed our opinion against this bill from real experiences, responding to thousands of emergencies of people in need.

We see it every day.

Committee Chair Lewis and members of the City Council, thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns.

And thank you, Chief Scoggins.

So the last presenter on our panel is Director Hayes.

And Director Hayes, if you have any comments at this time, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the council.

I know they have questions, so I just wanted to have just a brief overview of the public health approach and some of the work that we've done.

It's really important for me to say that as Public Health Seattle in King County, I work with both the county and the city and provide the view of public health role with people who are experiencing homelessness.

And I so appreciate the comments on the humanity and the tragedy that COVID on top of the trauma people who are experiencing homelessness have on a day-to-day basis and our need to really look to care for them, help them, as well as dealing with the reality of the circumstance that we have in both the range of settings for homeless service delivery.

You know, for public health, our approach is and focus is on harm reduction.

We come to wherever the set fall in a continuum from encampments to congregate shelters, permanent supportive housing.

Each has its challenges.

Each has its piece of importance.

And for the individuals, everybody's story is unique.

In this COVID crisis, we see our low meeting folks where they are and making any setting less risky.

We're committed to going into those sets and reducing the risk of infection and reducing the risk of transmission.

The homelessness response is a collaboration between the King County Department of Community and Human Services, the City of Seattle Human Services Department and Public Health as well as the partners working closely with every wonderful service provider.

It does include shelter, day centers, permanent supported housing, health care providers, jail release coordination, the outreach workers, nurses shelters, and other unique congregate settings that we have looked to set up during this COVID response.

I just want to thank and express my gratitude to the many homeless service providers and behavioral health staff who are essential workers at that time, and they put themselves with the public, with the care that we need, with the public team, and I really appreciate that.

You know, starting early in this outbreak, we worked to give guidance, as I know I've reported to the council before, on a toolkit for homeless services providers and I'm so grateful that I did that early on before the outbreak hit.

We've continued to provide information on infection control and briefings to 200 plus providers each week.

We have deployed our clinical support teams to homeless service sites.

They help coordinate infection control, disinfection, hygiene supplies, public health.

When we learn of a COVID case at a homeless service site, our call strike team goes to that site.

We've done extensive testing.

As I know that you've heard, over 3,200 tests have been completed, conducted by either public health or our healthcare partners.

When our team mobilize they assess the level of contagion coordinate testing.

We taught the individuals with symptoms offering recommendations for swift action to contain transmission and refer people to isolation or quarantine as needed.

For individuals living homeless we've opened facilities for isolation quarantine and assessment and recovery just for the COVID response.

Reducing the density of people in existing shelters, and also in all response areas, allows for greater social distancing, which is an important strategy, and the shelter de-intensification.

So your partnership, the city's partnership on all of this, and partnership with the county are part of the walk I walk every day.

And I've appreciated that partnership, and I know that as The policy makers with our elected officials in total, you have to balance all this, and public health tries to enter into the place and work with you and with these individuals wherever they are.

Mr. Chair, with that, I know there's plenty of questions, so I'm going to stop my remark for that, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much, Director Hayes, and thank you for all your work during these really difficult times for our county and our city.

Really appreciate your leadership and thank you for being here.

Um, I, before we get into questions, I do want to, uh, just cause I think it'll help frame the questions.

Um, having heard from our executive panel to hear a brief overview, and I should have done this at the top when council member, after council member Morales gave her statement, um, to have Allie Panucci from central staff, um, briefly, um, just give an update, uh, on, um, the materials that she distributed prior to the committee meeting.

and just an overview of the bill really quickly before we get into our questions for the executive panel.

So Ali, if you're on there, if you can just give an overview of the bill, what this proposal would and would not do.

And then that can help frame our conversation for I'm sure many folks have questions for the executive panel, but I wanted to make sure that we got your presentation in first before that broader discussion.

Thank you Councilmember Lewis and Councilmembers.

My colleague Eric McConaghy is also on the line and we thought we were later in the presentation so I'm just going to sort of filibuster here.

I see Eric popping in here.

I think he's going to provide just a very high level brief overview of the bill and then I'll describe the amendments and particularly a key amendment that is critical in really clarifying what we understand the intent was by the bill sponsor and co-sponsors.

So Eric, with that, I'll turn it to you to just do a quick overview of the bill and then I'll describe the amendments.

And again, I did just want to say if people could hold their questions until we go to the whole panel.

So proceed, Eric.

Sorry about that.

Hello council members, this is Eric McConaghy.

I'm the council central staff and I'll just say that much to make sure that I'm both visible and audible.

Everyone's getting okay, thanks very much.

At this moment, I'm going to share my screen so that I can walk through some things and I'll also move them along for Allie, some visuals about the bill.

doing that now, that should be visible to you.

So here's a summary of Council Bill 119796 as it was introduced.

And this is what it's set up to do.

The restriction that's described on the slide is a restriction of funding from budget summary levels in the current budget.

So it restricts the funding to be spent on encampment unless, excuse me, encampment removal, unless these certain conditions are met.

It has to constitute an active health threat, excluding the transmission of communicable diseases, including COVID and subsequent mutations to the occupants from the surrounding neighborhood.

It poses an immediate hazard as defined in this clerk file.

This is also known as, this clerk file refers to guidelines that were established in 2017 that direct how city departments coordinate for encampment removal.

Another aspect is that it would have to obstruct the path of travel, as described more here in this bullet, would present a fire or safety hazard or obstruct an entrance or exit to a building, or it would be located in a children's play area.

So I just very quickly went through the conditions that would have to be, at least one of these would have to be present in an authorized cabinet to allow for spending for the navigation team to do their work through the current budget.

This is, I want to just reiterate, for the legislation as introduced.

And then the next thing we're jumping right into here are the amendments that are already prepared to the bill.

We can move along with that, and I think Allie will take this up if that's all right.

great thanks eric um so i will not spend a lot of time getting into the detailed specific language um in each of the amendments but we'll just describe them at a higher level now we could dive in deeper with questions or at the after the panel discussions at the chair and council members preference um but the the first amendment is critical really in that it clarifies the language in section 2a of the bill and eric if you could jump two slides i think ahead here where which is the most critical piece um of the legislation.

Actually, one more slide.

Sorry.

Thank you.

The bill as introduced would not allow funds to be used to relocate or remove an encampment if the active health threat is of the presence of a communicable disease.

This amendment clarifies that what was actually intended is if the reason for the encampment is an active health threat that is a communicable disease such as COVID, that the encampment removal could proceed if certain conditions are met and that includes following the guidance from CDC about how to provide hygiene service and sanitation services and other things to the occupants of an encampment, acknowledging that if individual shelter is not available, leaving the encampment in place may be balancing a number of risks may be the appropriate public health response.

But it is suggesting that these steps need to be taken first prior to posting a notice of removal so that in collaboration with public health experts, the city can determine what the best response is really for the occupants of the encampment as well as the surrounding neighborhood.

That is, I think, an important clarification about what funds could or could not be used for.

The second amendment is related to the provision in the proviso that would allow funds to be used for an encampment relocation or removal.

And if Eric, you could jump to the next slide.

If, excuse me, one more slide.

if the removal could proceed if it obstructs the path of travel, such that clearance from the encampment is not four feet wide or greater.

What this amendment does is it adds in language to say if that obstruction could be addressed by reconfiguring physical aspects of the encampment.

So let's say there are 20 tents for example and five of them are blocking the path of travel and the encampment could be reconfigured to provide a safe path of travel but allow the encampment to remain in place.

Maybe that is a strategy that should be tried first but that and that of course every effort should be made to work with the occupants to connect them with appropriate housing services.

So again it is just sort of clarifying and adding in this concept of trying to balance whether or not an encampment need is removal is the best public health response to to the issues raised.

And then finally, there is a third amendment that was not posted to the agenda that was distributed early today.

I'm assuming that Amendments 1 and 2 are sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda.

And the third amendment, and Eric, if you could jump to the next slide, please, addresses the public safety issues that have been raised.

We had interpreted the definition in the clerk file the Eric reference related to immediate hazard.

So the bill as written would allow an encampment relocation or removal to proceed if it meets the definition of an immediate hazard.

The term hazard typically being understood as sort of presenting a risk or danger.

We interpreted that to mean that if it was a public safety risk that posed a risk of serious injury or death that the encampment removal could proceed.

We understand from the executive staff that that's not how they have interpreted the definition of immediate hazard in previous encampment removals and wouldn't interpret it based on this proviso.

So this amendment says explicitly that the encampment removal or relocation could remove if that encampment is posing a public safety risk that constitutes an imminent threat to the health or safety of occupants or the surrounding neighborhood.

So these amendments are really trying to fine-tune and address what was intended and better align the legislation more specifically with the guidance from the CDC, including adding a finding that copies and pastes some of that guidance directly from the CDC's website.

Thank you so much, Ali.

I really appreciate that overview so that we can all be on the same page moving into the next phase here of the conversation.

Can we X out at this point of the PowerPoint so I can see the whole gallery?

Perfect.

All right.

So now we can open it up to our panelists here for questions from the council members.

Um, if folks, uh, you know, as per our, our kind of routine now here, if you just kind of signal to me, I can call on folks for a question.

Alternatively, um, text me and I'll put you in the queue.

Um, if people could please, um, Since we have a packed agenda and it's already 430, if people could keep their questions brief and then if panelists could also have their answers, be responsive to the point, that would be appreciated on both ends of this here.

So we can get through as many questions as possible and move on to our next panel.

So with that, are there any folks who have questions for members of our executive panel?

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I'd like to first preface my my comments with some information I received about the order of the Sacramento County Health Officer that was taken on May. 22nd and by the order of the Sacramento Health Officer and as a prefacing comment or as context, the City of Sacramento in its 2019 one-night count counted 5,570 individuals who are homeless, 70% of those individuals were living unsheltered.

So a homelessness profile not unlike Seattle's.

The county health officer for Sacramento County signed an order on the 22nd saying that the CDC guidance for those experiencing homelessness outside of shelters is to be strictly enforced to maintain public health and safety.

allow people who are living unsheltered in cars, RVs, and trailers or in encampments to remain where they are unless the people living in those locations are provided with real-time access to individual rooms or housing units or households with appropriate accommodations including for disabilities and a clear plan to safely transport those households.

The order goes on to say do not site, clear, or relocate encampments or cars, RVs, and trailers used as shelter during the community spread of COVID-19.

Do not remove property from people experiencing homelessness, which includes their shelter.

hygiene equipment, food supplies, water, and personal items.

Items that people who are living unsheltered designate as trash and request to be removed can be disposed of.

Clearing encampments causes people to disperse throughout the community and break connections with service providers, increasing the potential for infectious disease spread.

exceptions are encampments that pose an imminent and significant public safety hazard, such as a large excavated area of a levy.

Now, I offer this to suggest two things.

One, this prohibition is much broader than the legislation with Council Member Mosqueda's Amendment One.

um, being contemplated.

U really only applies this that there's been identified infections.

So the other point that I think is really important is I do not believe that the County of Sacramento has given up its law enforcement mission to prevent crimes and public safety threats with the passage of this emergency order by its County Health Officer.

And I would like, this isn't so much a question, but it is a request for our King County public health officer to consider whether or not one way of depoliticizing this issue, which is really something that's about science and health best practices, is to take it out of the policy makers' bailiwick here and to consider a similar type of public health order.

As for my questions for Director of Public Health, I would like to explore a little bit what the willingness of Public Health is, Director Hayes, to work with the city on creating a protocol by which King County Public Health plays a role in confirming for the city before removals happen that a removal is happening in a way that is consistent with public health best practices.

And the reason why I ask this question is I think the success of this policy really depends on the willingness of public health to work in this fashion.

And I have not been clear to date how public health has been interfacing with the city.

During the removal at Ballard Commons, I inquired with the city whether or not public health was consulted on that removal.

And I was told that quote, because we offered housing to every individual camping in the area, both leading up to and during the obstruction removal, public health agreed with our assessment that we were and continue to be in alignment with the CDC's guidance.

a time story about that very same encampment removal reported that public health had not discussed specific encampments with the city, but agreed with the CDC guidelines.

So it would be really helpful for me to understand not just what happened in the past and whether or not public health engaged with the city, engaged with the navigation team in the decision-making leading up to the Ballard Commons removal, but what role public health is willing to play in this area moving forward so that we can make sure that the decisions that the city is making to remove encampments are grounded in science and Beth Health, best public health practices and not being driven by the volume of community complaints.

Thank you.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member for the question.

So public health has a team and an agreement with the city that we are notified and we go out and we have our case managers and our assessment folks meet with folks at the encampment.

One of the points that was made about the CDC guidance is the concern the CDC guidance is based upon the concern that people will disperse And so we put together a purposeful effort to make sure that we are contacting people, we do an assessment of them, they know us, we want to set up a cesspool that if they do move, that we can find them, just like they went into a shelter, we would know what shelter it was.

And so as this COVID crisis continued, we have up that relationship and have been doing that.

So that assessment is available on both the county and the city side to work in partnership on this because we clearly want to be able to do our job, continue our harm reduction approach, get people, find people if they do have COVID to make sure that they're availed of the isolation quarantine option.

That's our job, and we're committed to doing that.

And a follow-up to that, I just want to understand, are you in this partnership, in the agreement, empowered to say to the navigation team, we do not think a removal would be a best practice in this instance?

Well, most of the time when we are showing up at whatever site, it is about assessing what is the best way to manage within that.

So we do not go in with the attitude of approving anything or not.

It's if the encampment is there, we want to be able to help the folks within the encampment.

If we're called in because there's a public safety concern and there is a decision being made on that so that we can do our job and make sure that either folks are sheltered or be able to follow them wherever they're at, that's how we've seen our role.

So we have not.

taken a approval or not approval of those actions.

And just to be clear, my question isn't whether or not you have the power to approve or disapprove, but whether or not you feel empowered as an agency whose job it is to public health to say, we don't think a removal would be a best practice in this instance, with the understanding that the city is going to do what it thinks.

in its own balancing act.

And I do wanna, again, reference my opening remarks related to the Sacramento public health officer.

They are seeing a different role for themselves because they are saying no encampment removals with the exception of eminent hazards.

And so they're working with somebody to make that determination of whether or not something is an eminent hazard that justifies a removal in contravention of the rest of the order.

Patty, can I jump in here?

Sure.

Council member, with all due respect, I think I just have to take issue here.

I just have to get on the record.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on your reading of the CDC guidance.

It is guidance.

It says upfront that all of the different considerations that cities and localities are supposed to take in consideration.

And in fact, we have, as I stated in my opening remarks, we have made adjustments consistent with the direction from the mayor.

We went from 303 removals in the fourth quarter of last year to four.

I think the chief of police and the fire chief both articulated very well the issues and the conditions that we saw on the ground.

across those four encampments while at the same time getting dozens of people inside into shelter from those locations.

So again, I just, I don't understand the line of questioning here.

And as I also said, we are working in very close partnership with public health.

That is why we had the mobile medical team out at both Little Saigon and also at the Chinatown ID obstruction removals last week to establish contact tracing.

Directing my question to Director Hayes is a representation that she represents and is the Director of the Public Health Office of the County.

And she has advice to impart to the executive and to the navigation team.

And I specifically said, with the understanding that she is not in a role of approving or disapproving with the understanding that the navigation team will balance the advice related to the CDC guidance with other considerations.

So again, with all due respect, I don't think you heard my question.

And I would really appreciate redirecting so I could stop monopolizing the time and get my question answered.

I just want to jump in and give Director Hayes an opportunity to answer Council Member Herbold's question.

And I would say I want to I do want to highlight agreement on this panel and I believe Council Member Herbold and Deputy Mayor Sixkiller do agree that it is guidance.

And that is what I heard as well.

So Director Hayes please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will say as in my experience with my team they are not shy about giving real time assessment and real time opinions on what they see going on.

Just like when we were in the past before COVID and we were dealing with folks who were getting to therapy and living under some of the bridges, we would do everything we can to make sure that they were safe with this situation or could be moved to a place shelter that would be more appropriate.

So I don't want you to worry that we're not vocal about what we see.

Whether or not it's a science-based, What you're talking about, I don't know.

I don't know.

But knowing our nurse practitioner and our nurses and our mental health folks, as I know a number of you have met some of them, they're not a shy lot.

So I just want you to have confidence that we are out with this when we go in with our mobile medal or whatever.

really talking to the folks to be looking at, you know, sometimes we send people immediately to the hospice.

We have to call and make sure 911 can get folks to the hospital.

So we start with the individual and what the individual needs.

So I know that's a long answer to your question, but it's important for me for you to know we're present and we're really that individual.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, I do.

I have Council Member Morales next.

I did want to jump in, I think, because I think there are certain foundational questions for the public and for this conversation that are sort of implicit in Councilor Herbold's line of questioning.

I just wanted to give us a chance to flesh that out a little bit.

So I'm going to ask a question or two now and then Council Member Morales is next and anyone else that wants to jump in if you send me a text or an email.

Council Member Sawant, I'll put you down.

I just want to ask a few clarifying questions from Director Hayes before we move forward, because I do think the crux of some of these positions is just understanding the guidance and stipulating to the fact that it is guidance that has come from public health and the CDC regarding the removal of unsanctioned encampments.

I'll kind of ask these questions all at once to Director Hayes.

clarity explicitly on what that guidance is.

And I think there's a lot of familiarity here, but I think it does frame the conversation and good for the public.

And then also maybe an overview of the efforts that public health has been making in the de-intensification efforts that have been underway and how public health guidance has informed those efforts in the shelters in King County and Seattle.

And then also how some of the different options we have I do want to learn that even I guess the crux of the question is first what the guidance is, and then further than that, to just ask them both at the same time, are there ways for congregate or semi-congregate settings to take actions that can bring them closer to the guidelines of public health?

So there was a hold up to that question.

So I'll start with the guidance and then get to what we've done.

So thank you.

CDC has put out a number of guidance documents.

They've actually been updating all the time.

So I want to just start by saying four months ago, you know, for public health, we've actually been in this since January when the first case up in Everett was discovered.

So over the last four months, we've learned a lot about this.

We actually had a CDC team out here for almost a whole month working with us.

And I think it's one of the reasons, if I can just be proud for a minute, that CDC actually touts the Seattle approach as a huge best practice in the area of homelessness.

And that's not to say there's not tons to do and we couldn't do better and we didn't, we had an outbreak and blah, blah, blah.

But I think over time we have learned and adjusted as we've gone.

CDC recognizes that there is a range of this.

They have guidance that was recognized in the amendment as to what you need to do to face people and detensify.

That was that was some actual work here in Seattle where we were working live time with them on what we need to do to a shelter environment to make it safer.

What we could do to beef up with our I already mentioned our toolkit.

The CDC guidance also says, and this has already been quoted, and I'll quote it again, that their concern is that clearing encampments can cause people to disperse.

So Black Health took that very seriously, that we actually have a range of options here, so we wanted to make sure no matter where a person was, Because we learned that whether or not it's a shelter environment or encampments, people do move, and we didn't want to lose them.

But CDC does say, as the considerations are, you know, it's individual housing, often they're not available, allowing people living in shelter and encamps to remain where they're at.

So it's this range of things you have to take into consideration as we look at what to do during this outbreak.

So we have worked, we've done a number of strategies within the county in the de-intensification.

I would say we had a major learning because we actually worked in one of the shelters that was known to have extremely at risk people.

And the CDC guidelines actually mentioned that too, that if you identify people who have chronic conditions or are For our older, that special attention needs to be 10. So we looked to work from that into knowing that that was a very vulnerable population.

So this need to de-intensify, give space, make sure that we were getting hygiene.

And one of the things we learned is the issue of showers being close by.

I mean, there's just multiple learnings we've done.

Then, because we have our mobile medical, we've been able to sort of move that work so that it was already going to encampments, but increased that.

In addition, we have continued to do the hep A vaccination work.

It's often challenging to get folks take, it's really too bad that for hep A, it's two vaccines at two different times to get people.

to take both of those so we can continue that strategy.

So we have also been real lifetime doing technical assistance with the different community based organizations as they have looked to what they could do if they have.

We haven't talked about helping folks who are these service providers who are needing to protect their staff or if a staff person becomes COVID positive.

I myself had one of our striking members come down with COVID and thank goodness she recovered quickly.

We had to quarantine 10 staff for two weeks in the very beginning of the outbreak and my gosh, was that stressful.

So we continue to look at how to work our way through this.

So that's That is the guidance.

That's how we've applied it.

We have continued to work with CC when we have questions on this.

And Mr. Chair I guess I'll stop there.

Thank you.

So Director Hayes, I might have some followers, but I want to let some of my colleagues jump in here.

So Council Member Morales has a question.

I'll let Council Member Morales jump in now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Hayes.

I think this question might actually be for the Deputy Mayors.

And my question is about the strategy for protecting public health during a removal.

So we Director Hayes was talking about having a plan for tracking people so that they can be contacted, for example, if they do have coronavirus and need to be brought in.

If there is somebody who is waiting for test results and they get moved, what is the plan or what is the process for tracking where people go if they're going to a shelter if they're going to a tiny house village but really how are people tracked whether or not they accept shelter and whether or not they actually make it to a shelter that they've been accepted if there is a circumstance where we need to find somebody because they have a test result that has come How are people tracked through this system?

So let me start and tell you what we're doing.

So if a person has been exposed and we have done a test on them, they need to be quarantined.

And so we work to get that person actually in one of our isolation quarantine sites.

We have had Folks refuse that, and there have been some that have extreme challenges that don't work well in that environment.

But on the whole, we've been really successful at doing that.

So we actually, in those cases where we have tested and nobody's exposed, we would not wait for the test to get back.

Let me start there.

Then for somebody that has been not exposed but has been tested in one of our more broad testing in either done this in shelters and in camps, et cetera, if it comes back positive, Our disease instigators then will go through a process.

We have access to HMIS system where we know who service providers are.

We're able to work with those service providers.

We have done alerts up to Harview.

We've been notified at Harview sometime with someone that we've been looking to find.

So we have a really network out there that we work with, but we start that individual and where they last were.

And we have a pretty good track record of that, we'd like to say.

we were 100%, not always 100%, but those are some of the strategies we use within our case and concentration.

And then one follow up to that is for people who ask for beds at specific shelters, but for whom, you know, there isn't there isn't something that meets their needs.

They have a partner, they have a pet, whatever the circumstance might be.

How does the navigation team decide which option to offer a person based on their particular needs, whether or not they're testing or just in general?

So can I just answer that?

Yes, Deputy Mayor Sixkiller and then any other panelists that wants to address it can as well.

Okay, so I just would say, number one, on response to your first question, just to echo what Director Hayes said, you know, this is, you know, we really benefited at the front end of this by having, as the Director referenced, the CDC here.

advising us and, you know, the work we did together with the county, as I referenced in my opening comments, it really hits exactly what the CDC was recommending to us, and that's setting up quarantine sites and setting up, you know, the county has not had to utilize the assessment and recovery centers yet that are in Shoreline and Soto.

Bellevue and a few other places but we have an entire apparatus that has been established in order to provide individuals who are symptomatic and can't otherwise go home the ability to come inside and so we don't lose track of them and that has been the only way we've been able to deliver that is through our very strong partnership with the county with public health and again it's very consistent with the CDC guidance if you go to the very front of it of our efforts and has informed us there.

On the second part, your question about specific shelter, the navigation team, that is their role, working with our outreach staff to make sure we are placing, offering referrals to individuals that meet their needs.

Whether they're a couple, they're an individual, they have pets.

and not just in a removal exercise, but as we are going through and engaging folks throughout the day.

That is one of our primary strategies for making sure that our offer of shelter is one that that individual will accept.

Great, thank you.

Do any other panelists want to jump in on that?

Okay, I think we can proceed then to Council Member Sawant's question.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you councilmember Lewis.

I do have two questions.

I mean there's all related questions obviously but before I ask my questions I wanted to preface the other questions with two comments from me.

One is And of course, I'm proudly co-sponsoring this bill that is currently under discussion.

And the bill prioritizes public health and the interest of homeless neighbors over the sweeps that have been ineffective so far.

And as many of you know, my office has helped lead a broader movement alongside community members from Nicholsville, Share, Wheel, Transit Riders Union, Socialist Alternative, and all the activists who've been part of the People's Budget Movement.

For six years I think we need to acknowledge them because without that without that movement we wouldn't even be discussing this year.

And I also want to note this interesting thing that I've noticed that the Chamber of Commerce spokespeople who are opposing this bill right now are also the same individuals and entities that oppose the actual solutions to address homelessness, such as urgently passing the Amazon tax on big business to raise the progressive revenues, to make sure that we have funding for social housing, for expanded services, and going the opposite direction from austerity.

And we hear constantly from the mayor's representatives that they are readying themselves for 300 million austerity, as opposed to actually finding solutions to address that shortfall and then expand those progressive revenues, which we which we are going to need to do if there's actual agreement that we have to address the homelessness problem.

On the questions that I had, I would like some specific responses to these questions.

One is, Pick any of the recent sweeps that you've done, and can you tell us, do you have the information as to where the residents of that recent sweep, those recent sweeps have gone?

And I think there were references from some of the individuals who spoke on the panel that that information is being tracked.

I'm not interested in generic responses that, oh, we are tracking this or we're using HMIS because we know that none of that works.

What is the actual information you have about where the specific human beings that we're talking about went after the sweeps were done?

And can you send that also on email so that we are able to look at that and then also send that information to the activists and community members who were at the sweeps and who witnessed it so that we have some verifying and we can ask homeless community members themselves.

And by the way, I will say that I have not come across a single homeless person who said that a certain sweep helped them actually improve their situation.

So that is that as well.

But my question is very specific.

Can you give us that information?

And the second question I had and I'll go ahead and ask both my questions and the panelists can answer them, and I would really urge them to answer them.

The second question is on the in the CDC guidelines which If you don't agree with the CDC guidelines or if Mayor Durkin does not agree with the CDC guidelines, I would appreciate if that is frankly admitted because the CDC guidelines are very clear.

It says if individual housing options are not available, allow people who are living unsheltered or in encampments to remain where they are.

It's not ambiguous.

It's very clear.

And this next statement says clearing encampments can cause people dispersed throughout the community and break connections with service providers.

this increases the potential for infectious disease spread.

So I guess it's a sort of a two-part question.

One is, is there agreement that this is accurate from a public health standpoint?

And then my next question following from that is, the rest of the guidelines for the CDC also say that we should work together with community coalition members to improve sanitation and encampments, ensure nearby restroom facilities have functional water taps, are stocked with high and hygiene materials and bath tissue and remain open to people experiencing homelessness 24 hours per day.

If toilets and hand-washing facilities are not available nearby, assist with providing access to portable latrines with hand-washing facilities and so on.

And these facilities should be equipped with hand sanitizer.

containing at least 60% alcohol.

I didn't read every single word, but you get the drift of it.

So my question is how much of these guidelines has been fulfilled by the various departments in terms of providing restrooms with functional water taps, having access to this and bath tissue open throughout the day, 24 hours a day.

And if the toilets are not available, then how has access to portable latrines And again, I would appreciate concrete details on that.

So my three questions are, where have the residents of the recent sweeps gone?

Can you give us concrete information?

Second, does the mayor's office and does Mayor Durkin actually agree with the CDC guidelines?

And third, what has concretely been done in terms of bathroom access, access to hand sanitizers and so on?

Thank you.

Who wants to start grappling those questions?

Deputy Mayor Sixkiller, you or?

I want to defer to Director Hayes first on some of the CDC guidance pieces.

And then I'll go after that.

I don't think I have anything more to say on the guidance.

I think the question was a little different.

I will say that my comment, if I clarify this and be really clear, the tracking I'm talking about is those people who we've tested So I want to be clear, it's not public health that is keeping a list of everybody from an encampment that moves.

So I didn't want to misrepresent that.

But if there was somebody who we were working with because we had tested them or whatever, we would then work to make sure we can follow up.

So I think you're referring most of your questions to the city.

Yeah, okay.

So number one for individuals who were for who accepted who have accepted shelter since March Council member.

Yes, we do know both the offers that have been made and how many of those referrals were accepted and where those individuals are today.

As Director Hayes just said, as we have gone out and engaged with the mobile medical team and others, we've established contact with those who may need medical assistance or testing.

And we have established how we can be in touch with those individuals.

For those who have not engaged with the navigation team or refuse to engage with the navigation team, no, we do not always know where those individuals are.

I think that maybe answers your question.

But I'm happy to provide to council a listing of the referrals, obviously without names, a listing of the referrals that we've made and where those individuals without names, where they are now, if that's something that would be responsive to your question.

The second thing is, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that we are in disagreement or don't believe in the CDC guidance.

We absolutely do.

And as I've said, you know, since day one, we have been working with the CDC, Public Health, State Department of Health, State Department of Health, and others to inform the decisions and the policies that we are pursuing.

I was simply trying to say that it is, though, in fact, guidance, and it acknowledges that there are other factors sometimes that impact our decision making.

But again, we have worked very hard to engage individuals and get as many people inside as possible prior to having to take any type of action along for removals.

So the third question on hygiene.

So as you know, we've been working to stand up hygiene facilities and working with community partners as well.

And, you know, opening up several of our library branches.

But we continue to receive input both from council members directly and other community members about a need to specific areas, geographic areas across the city where we can deploy more hygiene.

And we are being responsive to those requests as well.

Thanks, Chairman.

All right, thank you Deputy Mayor Sixkiller.

Council Member Herbold has another question.

I do.

This question relates specifically to the issues around public health.

I'm sorry, public safety and would be questions that I would invite Chief Scoggins and Chief Best to respond to.

So Deputy Mayor Fong raised concerns about public safety in his letter to the council.

I quote from that letter, according to the Seattle Police Department, some unauthorized encampments have been associated with negative behavior and criminal activity.

In many cases, individuals prey on those in the surrounding areas and residents living within the encampments.

As chair of the Committee with Oversight on Public Safety, I've offered to work with Deputy Mayor Fong and leaders at HSD and the navigation team to try to develop a mandatory language to address their concerns around public health.

I am concerned that without support from the executive for this legislation, I will not have the opportunity to work with the executive on developing language that would meet their concerns.

Nevertheless, as was previewed in the central staff presentation, I have attempted to do so.

So my questions are, you referenced You both referenced types of situations that you've encountered where you believe that removing an entire encampment was the best tool to address public safety, but can you address how you balance that decision-making to remove an entire encampment for the actions of a few individuals with taking law enforcement action to address the person or people who are actually acting unlawfully and removing that person and or their individual structure.

So that's one part of the question.

The second part is given that removal of an encampment results in all of the residents scattering and relocating in a different place in the city, I'm concerned that there are public safety concerns about that effect, in that people who may be engaged in unlawful activity are then not subject to the law enforcement actions of the police department.

And believe that that could create challenges or impediments to law enforcement.

And then lastly, the language that I've offered.

to include in this ordinance to ensure public safety work continues allows for encampments to be removed when those encampments pose a public safety risk constituting an imminent threat to the health or safety of occupants or the surrounding neighborhood.

I'd like to ask how that language would unnecessarily restrict your work to ensure public safety.

Thank you.

Who wants to jump on that question?

I think it was directed to the Chiefs, but.

I think, Council Member, I think first I defer to Chief Best and Chief Scoggins for your first line of inquiry, and then I'll follow up after they provide some perspective.

All right, Chief Best, do you want to go first?

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you, Council Member Herbold, for your question and your attention and due diligence here in asking these questions.

I would say that one of the things I mentioned was the fact that we can arrest and do arrest people who are exploiting folks who are living unsheltered and living in these encampments.

However, we know also that there are always people coming back into these areas.

It is because of the vulnerability of the folks and the people at the encampments, the fact that they can operate undercover, so to speak, the cover of the tents and hide behind those who are more vulnerable.

and actually, in many cases, traumatize those people who are living in those encampments.

So we feel when we have those situations occur, when we can see that there's spikes, and particularly in crimes of violence, for example, a homicide, shootings, and those things, we feel it's really important that we take note of that, but we also are supporting the Human Services Department in making the decision.

I mean, that is not something that comes from me directly, But I absolutely inform and support when those decisions are made.

We stand by, as I noted in my notes to you, in a security capacity.

We also engage in the outreach.

And also if there is an obstruction or hazard separate from an encampment, that we have the authority under those circumstances from SDOT, from the Parks Department, to employ that removal as well.

So I think it's really important.

I just always have to preface these statements by saying, We are highly sensitive to the fact that everyone living in an encampment is not a criminal, that many of these people are highly vulnerable, are living in very tragic conditions.

And we don't want to minimize that fact.

But we also know that there are people who exploit those situations fully.

And so that is why we come in and we make the arrests.

And that is why if HSD provides to us a list of places that need to be cleared, we participate in that clearing.

Again, not the decision of the police chief.

And Chief Best, and Council Member Swan, I did see you were signaling you wanted to talk.

Okay, I got you on the list.

Chief Best, I do have a quick follow-up that's really brief that's just how the fact that we now have an operational agreement with CoLEAD, how that has sort of informed the department's outreach work in having surgical interventions to get certain folks out of encampments that might pose public safety risks.

I just wanted to kind of ask your position as the chief, how that asset's been helpful and how it's working in the field.

Well, I see the co-lead as a potentially very good tool, but it's just getting underway.

And right now, I think they're working out all the final agreements with the executive.

But I do look forward to having any opportunity, any option that we can that will assist vulnerable people who are living unsheltered in our city.

All right, thank you, Chief Best.

And Chief Scoggins, I don't know if you wanted to get in on Council Member Herbold's question before we move to Deputy Mayor Fong.

Yes, I'll cover it from two perspectives, fire and medical.

You know, what we see is in the encampments, when there is a tent fire, whether it's in the brush or on the street, the proximity of the other tents generally burn, so that the rate of spread seems to be really rapid.

And we have many examples of fires that we go on all over the city.

So the safety issue is very real, and many of the locations can be somewhat remote.

It can take us a bit more time to get to an encampment that's somewhat off the beaten path, you know, following the smoke.

So it takes us a little bit longer.

And when there's multiple tents there and it's in the brush, and we've seen it in the past, run up the hillsides, and some of these fires start to encroach on the homes, it becomes a bit challenging.

And if you're in encampment, you're going to be cooking, you're going to want to be warm, so we know there's going to be a heat source.

So it's very real.

We see it all the time.

On the medical side, it's very important for us to get there in a timely manner when someone's having a heart attack, a stroke, a serious medical condition.

And when we respond to these different locations that are off the beaten path, It often takes longer for us to get there to serve the person who's really in need.

And, you know, as I mentioned earlier, you know, just since this COVID response started, you know, we're about 2,400 medical responses.

That's really significant when you're navigating and negotiating difficult terrain to get to the patient, to understand what the problem is, to try to get them to medical care.

So those are our concerns and they're very real.

We see them every day.

It's a lived experience.

Thank you.

And Deputy Mayor Fong, do you have any comments?

Before we move on to Deputy Mayor Fong, I do need a follow up.

I just don't feel like I'm sorry.

I appreciate the recognition that both the fire department and the police department can do individual law enforcement actions to address either individual instances of a campfire and that the police department can do individual law enforcement actions against individuals who are preying on people in encampments.

But my question is, what are the conditions under which you feel it is appropriate to shift from an individual law enforcement action, to believing that an entire encampment needs to be removed for the actions of those individuals.

That's the piece that I'm really struggling to understand.

Thank you.

Chief Scoggins or Chief Best, do you have any comments?

Well, was that directed towards police or fire?

I mean, the proximity of the tents, is what we see when people camp in large groups as they do, and we see it.

And we see when the fires start, they transition in the brush and they transition from tent to tent.

I mean, it's very real and that's what we see.

I mean, we've 126 fires since February 28th in encampments.

I mean, that's what we see.

Well, I'll defer to Chief Best, but at some point, Council Member, I do have a few thoughts on this.

Chief, do you want to go first?

Yes, thank you.

I wasn't quick enough on the unmuting myself.

So one of the things that I would look at is when we have a level of criminal activity and issues occurring where it's not safe to send officers in because there's so much crime and activity, we can't see what's happening.

There's covert operations.

We're getting reports of violence, acts of violence, people being victimized, to the point that we realize that it's not just one individual or a couple of individuals, that we have a criminal enterprise.

As I mentioned to you before, situations where we have pulled out meth, heroin, pills, machetes, swords, stolen property, guns, all out of encampments.

not because there were people there that were vulnerable, because there were, but because there were people there who were taking advantage of the situation and exploiting what was happening there, making it incredibly unsafe for the people who are living there, as well as for the officers, the firefighters, and anyone else who's trying to address or attend the encampments.

So we have to take that into consideration.

And thank you.

Deputy Mayor Fong, do you have comments now to- Sure.

I'll try to keep them brief, but Council Member Herbold, I actually really appreciate your line of inquiry on this point.

And you and I have had some discussion about this as well.

But I just want to point out, I do think this illustrates one of the challenges that comes with legislating this space.

I mean, part of it, as we've just seen in the last couple of minutes, Chief Scoggins and Chief Best are relied upon to make and their teams make professional judgments with a whole host of factors associated with when a removal may be necessary based on a public safety component.

And for that very reason, you know, the charter empowers the chief to have that responsibility.

And I think the dialogue is really healthy for you and council members and for the public to understand some of that nuance as far as what both chiefs and their departments have to consider before and in consultation with the other components of the navigation team before making those decisions.

But fundamentally, this is one of the reasons why we have such a strong opinion about whether this is really something that can be legislated and prescribed as opposed to the fact that there are just simply times when it comes to these scenarios that the executive needs some flexibility in order to manage a whole host of factors.

And I know you appreciate this as we've talked about the conversation around the need to look at and be open to a dialogue about continuous improvement and how we approach this space as far as our internal administrative rules.

But at the same time, it's for that reason that along with a whole host of other elements of the legislation that we've talked about that just makes this an incredibly complicated space to legislate and put in place the rigidity.

I mean, the bill actually clamps down on Chief Best's entire patrol budget to some extent in the proviso in order to be engaged in encampment revivals dependent upon consultation with law or our policy interpretation of that, that can severely limit the chief's ability to address these situations if we aren't able to actually have that conversation of what that flexibility actually means.

This is for the precise reason why we've been very, very reluctant to go down this path of a legislative solution to something that, frankly, I recognize that we should have more dialogue about.

So Deputy Mayor Fong, I'm going to jump in on a second there.

I do also just want to highlight that in my queue of questions, I have Council Member Mosqueda next, followed by Council Member Sawant, then Council Member Gonzalez and Council Member Morales.

I think at this point, I'd like to close the questions because it is 525. We do have another panel after this.

And I appreciate this is a very sensitive issue.

So I think that we should certainly be taking our time with it to discuss this.

But I did have a quick follow-up to the line of response that Deputy Mayor Fong just provided.

I want to ask Deputy Mayor Fong, in reference back to the multi-departmental administrative rules, is the executive in a position where where they would be willing to have a dialogue with this committee around setting up a discussion to address this through the administrative rules?

Because that is how I read your last response to Council Member Herbold.

I can just say, speaking personally, and I think for a number of the members of this committee, I would love to have a conversation about how we can structure that and how we can provide space to try to work some of these issues out through that MDAR process.

I just wanted to give you a chance to clarify, because if so, I'd like to follow up after the meeting about how we might be able to set a conversation like that up, depending on the circumstances.

Yeah, I'll answer very briefly.

And then also defer to Deputy Mayor Sixkiller since he has a little more direct responsibility in this space.

But but I'll just say, Council Member, I mean, we are always open to the conversation of continuous improvement around the space.

But the issue of when and how and how do we proceed?

I mean, that's a conversation that we can have and in fact, you and I have had many conversations about, you know, looking at sort of the various elements of how we do not just this work but as far as our entire engagement around unsheltered homeless population, but that is a broader conversation.

that we can talk about in terms of the executives' responsibilities, as well as the broader scope of some of the elements of homelessness and strategy that many of the council members have talked about today.

I mean, we're of course happy to have that conversation, but then set that in the context, a broader context, of both the issues we're dealing with COVID right now, the issues that we're facing with regard to our resource issues, as Council Member Sawant and others have various perspectives about, but setting that conversation in a broader context is far more useful than having a granular conversation about legislation that frankly we have had really no discussion about how the use of this blunt particular instrument is going to be an effective deployment of what it is you want to achieve.

So we're open to that dialogue.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Sixkiller.

I don't know that I have anything to add beyond what Deputy Mayor Fong just provided.

All right.

Certainly count on hearing from me in short order about formalizing that conversation because I share your eagerness for it.

And I will certainly take you up on your generous offer.

And I appreciate you bringing that up as part of this discussion.

I do want to give the opportunities to my colleagues.

We do have four more questions or four more lines of questioning, I should probably say more accurately.

Council Member Mosqueda, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And again, thanks to Director Patty Hayes for being part of this lineup.

We know your team and you yourself are incredibly busy, so I really appreciate all that you're doing in this time to save lives and prevent infection.

I'm going to put aside the comments that were made about safety and public safety, recognizing, number one, that Council Member Herbold has an amendment that I think clarifies the ability for folks to go in and continue to maintain safety.

And number two, because we have CoLEAD that just launched within the last week.

Obviously, this is a body that's been very supportive of CoLEAD, and I think there's some frustration that it took a while to launch, but I do think that the more that we can get CoLEAD into these areas in a targeted way, as was described earlier on a conversation with folks, in a way that recognizes that we have high friction areas, so we're targeted, directed, and we do referrals in specific sites that have areas of concern, we can see more people getting housed and to the services they need.

So putting aside those public safety comments that were made in large part by the panelists earlier today, I want to ask a question specific to this legislation because this legislation To your question, Senior Deputy Director Fong, what is the point of this legislation?

It is specifically to respond to the CDC guidance that says, and I quote, in the context of COVID spread and transmission, the risk associated with sleeping outdoors or an encampment setting are different than staying indoors in a congregate setting, such as an emergency shelter or other congregate living facility.

Outdoor settings may allow people to increase physical distancing between themselves and others.

So I end the quote there.

That is the intent to say, If we don't have enough housing and we know we don't have enough permanent supportive housing, temporary housing, even tiny house villages, what is our alternative?

Originally, when I was looking and talking with folks in the mayor's office and across our council colleagues, I think there was a shared interest in trying to identify as much funding as possible to open up additional housing options that were non-congregate.

And you have done some of that.

But even with the non-congregate settings that you have opened up, we don't have enough housing.

Originally, we wanted to ask how we could move the 500 people who are currently in congregate settings into individual rooms.

And then the removal of the Ballard encampment happened.

And I think the question then became, instead of posting a sign that will create the unintended consequence of people dispersing into the community, as the CDC talks about, what can we do to first get folks into housing?

I do hope that the amendments that central staff walk through and with the support of the prime sponsor, I hope that you all see that the intent is really to make sure that folks get into housing and into the safe housing that the CDC has deemed necessary during this time of COVID prior to any posting going up because the consequences of that during a declared public health emergency could cause death and tremendous harm to our community.

So I just want to put that into context.

I have spent a lot of time focused on how we allocate additional funding to non-congregate settings.

This council has allocated $1.4 million of the CDBG funds to use for non-congregate shelter settings.

We have an ongoing conversation that I know we'll have in the next few weeks about the $13 million that the state has allocated specifically for non-congregate housing, PPE, health services, and meal delivery.

That was part of our grant and I appreciate that.

Looking forward to deploying those dollars.

And we have FEMA dollars that can be used now.

If we use general fund, we can get 75% reimbursement if we spend it on responding to the pandemic and getting folks out of non-congregate shelters.

So I'm asking sort of a very pointed question.

If we don't have enough housing and we have empty hotel rooms, for example, Can we work together to try to get folks into hotels and motels as the CDC says?

That's question number one.

Question number two is if there's some philosophical objection about using hotel rooms and or a difference of opinion on the policy success despite the Seattle Times coverage on what happened in Renton with the Red Lion, if there is a barrier to getting folks into individual rooms, can you talk a little bit about what housing options you would consider so that we can get the 500 people that are in congregate settings into individual rooms to protect their health and to have a place so that we can respond to the CDC guidance that gets people into individual rooms or non-congregate shelters prior to any posting going up.

That's I believe for the deputy mayors and the executives team.

And then Director Hayes, if I could be so bold to ask if in your conversations with public health officials, Have you talked at all about creative strategies that are perhaps not individual rooms and hotels and motels, but are there other types of settings that you, from the public health perspective, have seen as best practices during this time of COVID that would be alternatives to folks living in tents, even though the CDC recognizes that sometimes that's safer than going inside?

Are there other types of structures that maybe we're not thinking of?

So I hope that's appropriate to ask of you.

So those two questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So let me start.

I'm sure others will fill in, including Director Hayes.

Councilmember, thank you very much for your question.

You know, you and I have spent quite a bit of time talking about this the last several days, as well as other topics.

And number one, you know, the executive agrees that, you know, we need to be making every effort to get people inside.

And that, you know, that effort began, you know, well before COVID, you know, as part of the Mayor's Path to 500, as well as the 95 units that we brought on during this period of COVID-19.

So, you know, I would say, number one, that, you know, we are doing a tremendous amount of work to bring people inside.

As I said in my opening comments, the navigation team since March has helped get 300 people inside that had previously been living unsheltered.

So that's number one.

Number two is, you know, we are open to a conversation about how we continue to do that work, both, you know, in our COVID, as part of our COVID-19 response.

And I know we will have many of those conversations.

That is not the topic of the conversation today, though, with the legislation before us.

We're happy to, I think, come before the committee and talk more about our, how we are, the different housing options that we have made available as a city and in partnership with the county.

But I would also say, you know, the CEC guidance, you know, also speaks to how the steps that we can take to make congregate shelters safe.

And we are doing that.

We have been doing that and working with providers since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We have guidance from Public Health Seattle King County about how to do that.

We have a public health order that allows us to seek reimbursement of funding.

from FEMA to make shelters, congregate shelters, consistent with CDC guidance.

So I want to be really careful that, you know, as we talk about options, bringing additional options, making additional shelter options available, that we don't demonize congregate shelter.

That is not what the CDC has said.

And that is not, has not, and I don't think ever will be.

part of our homelessness response.

We have thousands of individuals today living in congregate shelter, and it's important for us to understand that.

Now, a third of those individuals that are in shelter today have been moved into some kind of hoteling shelter unit with support from the city.

As I said during my opening comments, it's HSD, it's city money that is providing the wraparound services, including at the Red Lion, is operated by DESC.

So we are open to that conversation and open to talking about what are best practices as we continue to learn more about COVID-19 and just acknowledge that it is going to be a mix of things, whether that is congregate shelter, hotels, tiny homes, and everything in between.

So we look forward to working with you on that and the committee and council and looking at what resources we have available to us um, you know, as part of COVID-19 response, but also understanding that at some point, you know, FEMA will declare that this is no longer an emergency.

And we were going to have to make sure, as the Deputy Mayor Fong referenced in his comments, that our $300 million budget hole can sustain any new investments that we're making over the long term.

Again, a much larger conversation than the topic today on this particular legislation.

And I really look forward to engaging with you on that.

I know you have a lot of ideas and suggestions, and we want to work together with you to see what is possible.

I just want to clarify real quick.

I do appreciate wanting to have a longer conversation about investments in the budget, and in a post-COVID world, what does that longer-term investment look like?

Thank you.

But I need to clarify that this is a conversation about how many open rooms we have or how much space we have that allow for folks to get out of encampment settings If the CDC guidance is saying to us that we don't have, if the CDC guidance is saying to us if we don't have appropriate housing, then let's stay there.

And we're saying we want to put folks into temporary housing or hotels, motels.

we need to make sure that we have an alternative for them to get out of the streets.

And I think we all have a shared goal.

People are going to be much safer and healthier if they have that room, if they have the staff capacity and they have the meals that they need.

I get that there's a dollar question there, but do we have any shelter capacity right now?

Are we still trying to get folks out of congregate shelters?

And if we don't have capacity and we're trying to get folks out of congregate shelters, what is the exit strategy?

What is the alternative for folks If you're suggesting that helping them with the sanitation that's been requested by the CDC as an alternative during this time of COVID is not appropriate, what capacity do we have to house folks right now in these temporary housing options?

Well, first, again, I want to say we have congregate shelter.

is not unsafe.

And again, I am very concerned about a public narrative suggesting otherwise.

Our testing, and there has not been an outbreak in a congregate shelter.

We had one instance of that, but that, which Director Hayes referenced, those individuals were put, were, as Council Member Morales asked earlier, were fed into the system that we've developed to get them into quarantine and isolation, to get them the services they need, and make sure that we can control

≫ Can I just jump in for a second there?

I think there might have been a miscommunication that de-intensified congregate settings in some cases can follow the guidelines.

I think that Council Member Mosqueda's question was more getting to, do we have an adequate number of those placements to account for a one-for-one offer in the encampment removals?

I'm looking to Council Member Mosqueda to see if I'm accurately phrasing.

So I think that was more of a question than- As I said,

In the fourth quarter of last year, we conducted 300 removals.

We have done four since March.

In every instance, we had a shelter bed of some kind available to every single person who was there the day of the encampment removal.

And is going forward with the current posture of the city's possibly future planned removals, is that a policy the city intends to continue throughout the COVID emergency?

And it would be the logical extension of that question.

It has been and will continue to be our priority is to get people inside.

And again, all four of these actions you know, uh, follow weeks and weeks of intensive, um, uh, engagement by the navigation team and other, and other outreach workers.

And we have other tools that are now coming on, uh, as, as well.

But again, the reason I keep quoting the 300 removals versus the four is because consistent with the CDC guidance, we are leaving people in place.

I just wanted to make sure that Councilmember Mesquita was getting the answer to her question.

I think that she has, so I just, I thought there was another, was there another question Councilmember Mesquita that you had for Director Hayes?

Thank you so much.

And for Director Hayes, just wondering if there's other best practices that you've seen across the country and other municipalities as you've thought of alternatives to congregate shelters and what type of de-intensification strategies you've seen that may be short of a hotel room if we have a policy roadblock on that.

Do you have other thoughts about I don't know, what maybe are good practices to deploy.

I'm sorry for framing that so strange, but please take it.

I understand.

I understand what you're saying, Councilwoman.

I've been sitting here since you asked the question, trying to think, and I'm going to have to think right now.

Nothing's coming to mind right now.

Actually, on the national call when we're talking about this, really, The model has deployed such a wide range already.

I spend more time talking about how we got to the strategies, actually, of the intensification and what that meant.

And because, as you know, in the past, particularly with the model that was used down, as you all will recall, down in San Diego for the hepatitis A outbreak, They actually, and we had talked about this at the Board of Health, getting a large tent.

And I'm actually really grateful we didn't do that because de-intensifying those with the way they're structured, unless they have them, now we can get a FEMA tent that we actually talked with with CDC about that you can actually get enough airflow if it's tall enough.

I don't know if any of you were able to see one of the ACRC up in Shoreline, but we had CDC actually look at that for the airflow in it.

So there's a lot of interesting thinking by folks at the national level on how do you take something that might have been looking this way before and modify it to the kind of needs we need.

So, but anyway, I'll continue and look forward to and thinking about with y'all.

Thank you so much.

And we have two questions left.

So council members to want the floor is yours.

Thank you Councilmember Lewis.

Just a few things.

I think Deputy Mayor Fong may have been somewhat more honest in the sense that I think he called the question whether or not, you know, there seems to be a fundamental difference between the mayor's office and some council members, myself included, on whether or not the council as the city's highest legislative body has the right to legislate any aspect of sweeps and especially in the unprecedented situation we are in with the pandemic because You know, there's, there are exaggerated descriptions of what this legislation would actually do.

I mean, I'm a co sponsor of this legislation, and I don't agree with the characterizations from the deputy mayors that this is going to completely tie their hands clamp down on the SPD.

ability to do anything.

I mean, none of that is true.

This is a very reasonable proposal and it is based on CDC guidelines.

So I do think that maybe it's better to be honest, and I do appreciate, I don't think that was the intention of Deputy Mayor Fong, but I think that there was an articulation of the fact that there might actually be a difference on that.

And I would prefer that discussions were had on a frank basis, because then we know where we all are.

That's one thing.

And then the other, I'm quite struck by Chief Best, SPD Chief Best, I mean, the word crime showed up so many times, and we're talking about homeless people, we're talking about some of the most vulnerable people, and it's not helping me, I'll be honest, it's not helping me for SPD Chief Best and others to keep saying that, well, it's not the homeless people who are the criminals.

Okay, fine, but then that's even worse because you're admitting that the criminal activity was not being engaged in by the people who were even living there, So in other words, it's a case where the criminals were not even living there supposedly.

And so the people who ended up getting swept were innocent victims.

So by your own admission, it's true that the people who ended up becoming victim to the sweep were people who were not initiating any kind of criminal And so I think that that should lead to all council members feeling quite disturbed by this data that by the by the mayor's office's own admission that that's true.

I would also want to note that I'm not going to ask my questions again but I wanted to note for the record that I did not get any concrete answers from any of the panelists, from the mayor's representatives about what actually were my concrete questions is what is actually going to, what is happening to people who are being swept right now.

And as far as the, this whole thing of, you know, it's a black box, you know, who refuse services, but we don't know who they are.

And this is a very common narrative.

It is not just in the last four months, Deputy Mayor Sixkiller, this is something that successive mayors, successive mayors representing the political establishment have had this line, this implication that homeless people are willfully refusing something that's good for them because they're just strange or whatever, and they prefer to be homeless.

We don't buy into that narrative at all because there is zero evidence to prove that.

As I said, not a single homeless person has come to me and said, or in public has said, actually the sweep helped me most, People don't, for example, people don't accept shelter referrals because of the temporary nature of it.

You know, there's many things that go into why people refuse those things.

You heard from public testimonials how people are forced to separate from their pets, from their loved ones.

That's not acceptable.

If it's not acceptable to us who are housed, then we should not be demanding that from people who are homeless because they are our neighbors.

And they end up losing what community they do have.

And homeless neighbors have a completely different response when they're offered something like a tiny house village with case management, with proper restrooms.

And so I'd be really interested in hearing what the next panel has to say about the questions that I brought up.

And then last I'll note that, I think it's a little bit, it's ringing a little bit hollow to say that we're doing everything to find permanent supportive housing, tiny house villages, meaningful services.

But look, the elephant in the room is the lack of progressive revenues.

And there's an actual proposal my office has brought forward for the Amazon tax.

It's an actual proposal.

If you don't agree with that proposal, bring your proposal for progressive revenues.

But repeatedly stating that the 300 million, stating, restating the 300 million budget shortfall as if it's an act of God, I think that has to be rejected.

It's basically what's happening is a political establishment is signaling austerity already and the recession has only begun.

I don't accept the $300 million budget shortfall as a given.

It's a question of political priorities.

Are we willing to actually raise those progressive revenues?

And then that applies to also making housing and tiny house villages and other options available that people can actually accept and come out of these encampments.

And we all agree, of course, that and campaigns are not a solution.

Homeless neighbors have said that it's not a solution.

Can you ask your question of the panelists?

I'm sorry, just in the interest of time.

I have already said what I want to say, but I don't appreciate Council Member Lewis.

All council members are taking a lot of time to politically preface their arguments and questions.

And I have the same right because I'm also an elected representative.

And I wanted to note that I didn't get any concrete responses.

And I would be interested in hearing the second panel on the same questions.

Of course.

No, thank you so much.

And, and, uh, Fong, do you have a response here?

If you'll just adultery for a moment.

Well, I do appreciate that the majority of council members wants comments.

I will.

I will interpret as rhetorical, but I, but on the one point, council member, I certainly respect the right of the city council to legislate.

There's, you know, if anyone.

can appreciate it as someone who's worked, you know, half his career in the legislative department.

But I would remind the council that the legislation and the form that it's taken here in this case is emergency legislation under Article four of the charter.

And as such, such legislation requires the concurrence of the mayor in order to be effectuated.

So by definition, this particular approach to legislation requires a collaborative approach with the council and the mayor.

Given that we were not consulted prior to the bill's drafting and formal introduction, nor any city departments being consulted prior to introduction, I have to take issue with the reference that I'm not challenging the right of the council to legislate.

The council certainly has the right to legislate, but this particular vehicle that has been offered is one that clearly states in Article 4 that needs the mayor's concurrence in order to be effectuated.

So I just wanted to clarify that for the record, as I did not hear council central staff or the chair speak to the emergency ordinance nature of this bill at the front of this meeting.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

So we have one final question for this panel from Council Member Morales.

And at that point, I may have a final closing question, but Council Member Morales, the floor is yours.

I'm happy to ask my question.

I did think that I heard Council Member Gonzalez have a question so I will defer to her first since I've had a chance.

Council Member Gonzalez has withdrawn her question.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I have at least three pages worth of questions and it's like in the interest of time I'm gonna forgo asking and going through my deposition outline at this time and I'll yield my time to you, Council Member Ross.

Fair enough.

Okay.

So I, I'm also troubled by what I'm hearing from the, about, you know, sort of the criminality and the conversation around acknowledging that the drug trafficking and the other problems that are happening in some of these encampments aren't actually happening.

There are problems that are being brought in and that is still being used as an excuse to remove the entire encampment.

This bill does nothing to interfere with the police department's ability to engage in the daily sort of activity that they need to do to identify the individuals who are perpetrating whatever they might be perpetrating.

But that is different from saying that that is a reason to remove people entirely, especially if you know that the people themselves, who, by the way, that is where they are living, are not engaged in the activity.

So I'm sure we will be following up on that.

But I do have another question which is and I didn't hear the answer although I've heard it asked a couple of times.

I want to know how many COVID cases we have identified or we know about both in encampments and in congregate shelters.

I'm also curious about what the plan is for distributing masks to people who are experiencing homelessness and then the last question that I have is I feel like I asked this before and also didn't get an answer, is how the navigation team is tracking shelter referrals.

So I will leave those there and listen to what you have to say.

I'll take the first on, and I'm sorry, I might miss this question.

I would have answered it.

So off today's report, there We don't have a category for encampments that I can see, but I'll check on it and get back to the council on that.

We have in shelters, there are to date a total of 27 shelters that have had at least one case and just one death.

In supportive housing, we have 23. that have had at least one case and five deaths in that area.

And that's total.

So that's not reflective of current outbreak status, which we move somebody to a watch list if they've gone two weeks without another case.

So I will ask, we have 40. And again, total cases in homelessness is 266. So there is 46 that's listed as isolated cases.

And isolated cases, the catch-all for that either they might have been linked between a shelter and outside or someplace else, or We don't know where they were, or they could be in a car, I suppose.

But anyway, I'll get that and get more details for you.

But that's from today's report.

Okay, thank you so much.

And Council Member Browns, did you have a follow-up?

Well, the other question was how the navigation teams actually track shelter referrals and whether we have a plan.

There's a plan to distribute masks to folks who are in encampments.

Councilmember, let me start with, again, for the referrals that we have made into shelter since the beginning of March, we have been tracking all of those referrals.

And as I said earlier, I can, the referrals that have been accepted, I should say.

So, as I said, I'm happy to provide that information to the committee for you to see.

But again, I would also say, we are seeing right now in this period of time, 70% of referrals being accepted.

That's up from 40% pre-COVID.

And again, I think that's a reflection of the navigation team's very intensive efforts on the ground, not just in these encampment areas, but around the city.

In terms of tracking, I would say that the navigation team makes referrals into shelters and then coordinates their entry into that shelter.

It's a shelter's responsibility, or the provider's responsibility, I should say, to enroll that individual at HMIS.

and then perform a COVID-19 screening.

Again, based on the partnership we have with public health, if the navigation team is engaging individuals on the street who are presenting symptoms or have some other medical condition or we have reason to believe, public health has reason to believe that they need medical attention or testing.

That is something that public health is in the lead on and working with our team on as well.

And then specifically on masks, you know, we have purchased masks and supplies that we made available to service providers, including the navigation team for distribution.

And I can send you, I believe we sent a press release about that a while ago.

I'm happy to forward that to your office as well.

Mr. Chairman.

So I have a couple of quick closing questions, and I would appreciate quick responses from the panelists.

And I don't know, Deputy Mayor Sixkiller, if this is better for you or Deputy Mayor Fong.

But as Deputy Mayor Fong outlined earlier, All of us are well aware of the posture of this legislation that it is emergency legislation.

If seven of us vote for it and send it to the mayor, it requires the mayor's assent.

Deputy Mayor Sixkiller or Deputy Mayor Fong, Is there any pathway given the amendments that have been introduced and given kind of the discussion today where you can envision assent from the executive on this legislation?

And if so, what kind of changes would the executive want to see?

Council Member, I think I'll go ahead and take a stab at that.

I mean, I've said a couple of times through the course of our spirited discussion this afternoon that Fundamentally, we simply don't believe that this particular issue with regard to encampment removals is something that should be legislated and that we think that we are open to dialogue, as I've said a couple of times in this discussion, to look at a continuous improvement effort around our policies.

At the same time, we've emphasized that some of the issues that have been raised are far beyond just the issue of encampment removal, really speaks to a broader policy and strategy around our overall efforts around homelessness.

And I commit to you on behalf of the executive, that we welcome that conversation.

And frankly, more than welcome, we're gonna have to have that conversation.

The truth is, is that as we go into this budget balancing process for 2020 and then for the biennium, homelessness is a significant issue that we will all engage around a policy discussion about.

And we look forward to that.

But we just don't think that this bill related to encampment removals is really the right vehicle or the correct approach so that we can have that more meaningful, broader policy discussion.

So I'll just leave it at that.

Right.

And I appreciate your candor on that.

Deputy Mayor Fong.

I don't have any other questions for the executive panel.

It is 6 p.m.

I really appreciate the patience of the folks on our next panel, and I think we're ready to transition, so I'm going to just call it at that.

I want to thank Director Hayes, Deputy Mayor Sixkiller and Fong, and Chiefs Best and Scoggins for generously providing us with so much of their time this afternoon and early evening, and for coming before this committee.

Thank you so much.

I want to move on now to our next panel and I do apologize to the members of this panel that we are starting later than we expected given that we had very long public comment earlier and there were a lot of questions for our executive stakeholders who are raising a lot of issues that It was good that we were able to have that frank exchange and have our questions answered and get responses.

But now we can move forward to a panel of folks who are here to provide a wide ranging diversity of community and service provider perspectives on this legislation.

So I wanna welcome Jessica Kwan from the Evergreen Treatment Services Reach.

I want to welcome Allison Isinger, Executive Director of the Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness, Tara Moss from the Public Defender Association, Elizabeth Aggie from the International Community Health Services, Esther Lucero, the CEO of the Seattle Indian Health Board, and from the Pioneer Square, BIA Lisa Howard.

So thank you so much, everybody, for sticking around.

I apologize that we're starting probably an hour and a half later than I thought we would begin this panel, but thank you for your patience.

I'll call folks out one by one for their comments, like I did with the executive panel.

Again, if we could try to keep the balance of time for answering questions.

I know my colleagues and I have a lot of questions and really look forward to your responses.

Uh, why don't we start out, um, in, in the order that I introduced the panel, um, uh, Jessica Kwan, if you would like to go first.

Hi.

Yes.

So, um, I was wondering how much time I had, just curious.

Um, if, uh, you know, um, about a minute and a half to two minutes, if, um, but you know, I'm not going to be a stickler for it if you got to go over a little, so.

Okay.

Okay, so displacing people without a place to go is harmful for the entire community.

I was at both encampment removals in the CID last week and outreach for weeks ahead of time while outreaching with the navigation team, city navigators during the week leading up.

I was able to give warm handoffs to refer people into the shelters available, and I respect how much effort and care they put into their work, but it is no secret that there are not enough resources that fit the needs of the people living outside.

The shelter resources available do not match the need of the people.

At the 8th and King encampment, there was a couple where one of them has pseudo epilepsy, and they were both displaced due to there not being a co-ed shelter bed available.

At the 12th and Weller encampment, Lots of people wanted to get into the navigation center, but there were not enough beds for all of them.

We know what resources work because the people ask for them.

Having shelters available that people don't want is a waste of resources.

When encampments are scheduled to move and when there are not enough of the right resources, they either move to another part of the community or another community, which is why this is happening all over Seattle.

People do not have a safe place to go or a way to move their stuff.

This is not a constructive or effective way of offering resources, moving people to safe spaces, collaborating with providers, or prioritizing the health of the entire community.

From my own personal experience on outreach, I know, or from my own professional experience on outreach, I know that people will proactively move to motels and enhanced shelters.

Many people ask me to get them into the navigation center, the bridge, or tiny homes.

I'm with people who are forced to make a choice between their free will and privacy or a roof over their heads.

The people that I work with want resources, but there aren't enough resources where they don't have to sleep on mats on the floor and where they are able to keep their privacy, dignity, and autonomy.

The process of helping our communities needs to be trauma informed with, again, the right resources.

In addition, policies in place should be clear to all parties, especially to people whose lives are affected the most during these removals, which are people living on the streets.

When the stay-in-place order first happened and providers were told about how their removals would stop unless it was deemed a hazard, I made it a responsibility to inform people living on the streets of these policies and COVID-19 safety protocols so they can have information about the environments that they are living in.

Lots of people found it helpful and took action, cleaning their spaces, having their belongings out of the sidewalks, not having large fires, and trying their best not to have large fires, not setting up near building entrances, exits, or freeway ramps.

Everyone I talked to appreciate the information, and I saw them encouraging others to do the same.

I let them know their right to ask SPD for social workers or city navigators for resources or shelters, which a lot of people don't know that they are able to do.

I gave them trash bags and helped problem solve when their tents were too big for their sidewalks.

I was also told that before a removal will happen, the navigation team will speak with individuals and problem solve with them first.

before removing the entire encampment.

When the removals were posted, providers were given minimal to no notice of them.

My clients and people living outside asked me why they were getting removed, and I could not get them a specific reason.

Then the removals would happen, and people would be displaced, relocating to different areas of the community.

Then this repeats.

This was happening before COVID, and it's happening during COVID, and I still have yet to find most of my clients.

During a removal, I'm sure you know, a time limit is given for people to pack their stuff.

They're figuring out where to go.

They haven't eaten or drank water in the morning, so it's very stressful to wake up to.

There's loud machinery going on.

People are watching them with media around and very high SPD presence.

It's very dehumanizing.

People are also told to wait.

So the people living in the encampments are also told to wait until the time of the removal to see if there will be openings for shelters that they are wanting.

When the removal happens, like I just illustrated, it is a very intense environment and not trauma-informed, yet people are told to wait until the moment to see if the shelter bed that they are wanting is available.

It's hard for people living on the street to have access to the internet or news, so I became one of the sources to get that information about COVID-19, what's going on with the pandemic and policy changes.

If providers do not have accurate information or it's changing often without notice, this contributes to a break in care and rapport An increase in trauma, stress, frustration, and confusion to all parties, especially to people who's impacting their lives the most, the people on the street.

When we help people experiencing homelessness by offering them resources that they are wanting, treat and make them feel like they are an equal in our society and give them dignity of being human.

This positively impacts our businesses, neighborhoods, and the entire community.

Sorry if I spoke too fast.

Thank you so much.

That was, that was great.

I really appreciate you being here and I really appreciate you sharing that.

Um, I do just want to remind, uh, fellow council members, if you could hold your questions until the entire panel has presented, um, similar to the format of the last panel.

Um, so Jessica, thank you so much.

Um, our next presenter is Alison, um, Isinger, Alison, take it away, please.

Thank you, council member Lewis.

Um, and good evening, everyone.

I am going to read as quickly as I can some prepared remarks.

I want to also say that in preparation for this testimony, I did ask a number of people to share their perspectives, outreach staff and healthcare providers.

And if there is time, I'm happy to share some of those extremely important firsthand accounts with you.

My name is Allison Isinger, and I'm the director of the Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness.

I'm a social worker.

I'm also affiliate faculty at the University of Washington School of Public Health.

Before I came to the coalition, I worked in the Epidemiology Planning and Evaluation Unit of the Public Health Department of Seattle and King County for nearly a decade.

You may be surprised to hear me say this, but I do want people to move, even in a pandemic, only if it makes sense.

And it only makes sense to move people under these extraordinary circumstances when that movement is managed thoughtfully and planned and carried out in a way that supports that person getting into a safer and better housing or shelter option.

Unfortunately, that is rarely what is taking place.

I want to point out that it is not true that this legislation would cause people to camp everywhere.

People are camping all over public spaces in our community because of a simple fact.

Our shelters are full.

They were full before COVID-19.

and we don't have enough housing or a plan to respond to the immediate unmet needs of thousands of people.

And under these critical circumstances, that has to change.

This conversation isn't about whether or not homelessness is itself a public health crisis, which it is.

COVID-19 is a public health crisis.

That's well established in our community.

At least it's not in dispute here as it is in some other communities.

And so I want to set aside the fact that while we may indeed disagree on certain underlying policies and practices that the city has undertaken, we need to focus on the best practices to prevent mitigate and respond to the coronavirus.

The question that no one has answered to date is why can't our city bring additional resources to bear to solve this critical public health situation for people who are unsheltered and for the people who are housed and who work in those communities.

If there was ever a time to bring appropriate outreach and engagement and emergency housing resources to bear, to keep people who are at high risk of illness and death safer.

It is now in a crisis.

In this moment, common sense has to prevail over politics.

Yes, a tremendous amount of work has been done, important work, and in many cases, good work, and it's continuing.

But yes, fewer than 100 new spaces of any type have been created.

And overall, we have lost capacity in our shelter system.

I'm happy to walk council members and executive staff through that analysis at some other time.

Responding to the COVID-19 outbreak shouldn't be different than responding to any other contagious disease outbreak, with the exception of the fact that the specific nature of this new and highly communicable disease does mean that it is now and will continue for the foreseeable future to be extremely difficult to rely on congregate shelters as the primary means of sheltering people in our community, especially those people who are highly vulnerable to COVID-19.

As a matter of public health and public policy, it's a terrible idea to move people around to make it harder for them to access services or stay connected to services, to deprive them of their personal possessions, their medicine, to expose them to the elements and to predators, and to generally criminalize their existence.

Those things all make it worse for the people who are on the ground, whether they are lucky enough to have homes or whether they do not have homes.

And these practices create impossible conditions for people who live and work in the neighborhood.

Again, those who live there with shelter or homes and those without.

The actions that we're talking about are profoundly counterproductive and ill-considered They're also, in my opinion, ill-informed by the basic understanding of communicable disease and public health practices.

In fact, what the city is continuing to do makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to take the actions that are necessary from a public health perspective, to assess each individual person's health and health risks, to connect them to health care and other services and keep them connected to the services they are connected to, to encourage people to seek care and agree to testing, to agree to go to isolation and quarantine if that is warranted.

and to participate in contact tracing, which is a crucial element whether we're talking about HIV AIDS, hepatitis A, or coven 19 by continuing to displace people and disrupt their lives.

The city is harming people and damaging trust and undermining.

people sense that there can be respectful and useful help at hand.

It unnecessarily risks exposing people, first responders, city employees, frontline workers, outreach staff, homeless people, and housed people.

The city's current approach is failing as public policy.

It's failing to respond effectively to community and neighborhood concerns.

It's failing in the core responsibility of government to help people in a crisis in ways that they are not able to help themselves.

And it is making our work ahead more difficult.

I want to just mention to you in response to some of the questions that council members have asked that Today, I received notice from an outreach worker who is a health professional that they had tested a client camped outside on Weller Street for COVID.

And the test came back negative, but they have been unable to locate that person to report the news.

They have been finding people who were swept, who are now in greater health crisis than before, who are still unable to find anywhere to stay.

And just finally, I wanna tell you about a story that an outreach worker called to tell me this morning because I had asked if they knew anything about the people who were swept last week.

And this outreach worker reported to me that for two years, he had been working with a young African-American person under 21 years of age.

For two years, he'd been doing outreach with this person through his own changes in jobs He had lost contact with this young person, but found them again at Weller Street, spent many hours working with them to get their paperwork in order to apply for housing, met with the housing case manager in the tent on Weller Street.

And this young person's housing appointment was last Friday.

This outreach worker went at eight o'clock in the morning on Thursday to try to find his client.

Having discussed the fact that the sweep was coming, the client had said that he would hang on as long as he could.

And the outreach worker has been unable to find his client.

He's asked the housing provider to try to hold the space while he tries to find this young person.

And what I think is that this city can do a whole lot better than we are currently doing for that young person and for the outreach worker.

And for all of us who surely understand that if we can agree on the rhetoric that we all really want to get to the same solution and house people and keep them safe always, especially in the middle of a public health emergency, then we have to do things differently.

Thank you.

Allison, thank you so much for your comments.

I want to move on to our next panelist.

Tara Moss from the Public Defender Association.

Tara.

My name is Tara, by the way.

I'm so sorry.

I actually get to be able to clarify.

So I appreciate this.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

I just want to thank you all for allowing us the time to talk and staying late to hear the stories and the firsthand perspectives, especially I appreciated I believe even Chief Best called our outreach workers and service providers essential workers and they so very much are during this time.

They're going out on the streets when so many of us are staying at home because they care so much about their clients and what's happening to them.

I would say that we believe that and we agree with people within the community that we can't just leave people out there on the streets.

We can't leave vulnerable folks without supportive systems, help, and a safe place to go.

The crime that people are talking about, the concerns that business owners have and other neighbors have are real.

Those same concerns exist even with those who are existing in tent encampments.

So it's really important that it is clear that we can't just leave individuals out there.

At the same time, just moving individuals without a plan that others have talked about more explicitly is also a concern.

And we agree that we can't do that either.

What we also need to recognize that there aren't that many resources, especially right now, for clients to go to.

People need help.

They need strategies about what to do.

And they need the support that they have become used to if they've been privileged enough to access that.

What we have found within CoLEAD and LEAD that using hotels with low occupancy rates and intensive case management has been effective.

It has allowed people to stabilize, it has reduced drug use, it has allowed for more access to sanitation facilities, and they get their basic needs met.

I heard a lot of individuals in other tiny homes talk about the stability that they have and their concern about that stability being shaken with their moves.

So we have really found that for low-level drug users, people with low-level mental health services really benefit from being in hotels and being stabilized.

We have also found that the harm reduction-based services and individual-based services really has created effective stabilization for this population, as well as once those individuals are in those hotels, constant staffing and support and coordination within those hotels.

But there is something that I really want to take a moment to highlight, and that's something that I've heard from business owners in the larger community around the populations that they're most concerned about in tent encampments.

And that is people who are displaying more concerning behavior or increased threats of safety.

I will say that the service provisions we have right now don't meet those needs, especially for individuals who are struggling with high acuity mental health needs.

So there is an aspect with COLEAD, with REACH, with all the other service provisions out there that we don't have a service provision for that population that business donors and community members and people who are living in tent encampments are the most concerned about.

And I believe that we that there could be a package in place to address those needs, but that needs to be intentional.

Otherwise, if people are relocated to other places, they're probably the least likely to go into shelter.

and for that issue to be resolved and we'll move into other locations and still be a concern to the community as a whole.

I just want to thank the council for your efforts and are oriented about not abandoning people outside and you're providing meaning, trying to provide meaningful relief for these individuals that actually meets those needs and the concerns for those who are living outside as well as the community as a whole.

We really do need a third path, not just removing individuals, but also not leaving people where they are at.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next up, and Elizabeth, I don't know how to pronounce your last name.

I'm so sorry.

Is it, well, why don't you tell me?

From the International Community Health Services.

All right, is my audio and video working?

Yes, yes, we can see you.