Seattle City Council 2/18/20

Oh, that's right.

All right, everybody.

Let's do a call to order here.

I actually get to use this.

Just kidding, actually.

Okay, so.

This is a full council meeting, Tuesday, February 18th.

Seattle City Council will come to order.

It's 2-0-4.

My name is Deborah Juarez, president pro tem of the council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Strauss?

Present.

Herbold?

Here.

Lewis?

Present.

Morales?

Present.

Mosqueda?

Peterson.

Here.

Sawant.

Here.

Council President Pro Tem Juarez.

Here.

Seven present.

Thank you.

At this time I would like to invite Senior Deputy Mayor Mike Fong to hand deliver Mayor Durkan's 2020 State of the City Address.

Mr. Fong.

Council President Pro Tem Juarez, Council Members, thank you for giving me a few minutes this afternoon.

Earlier today, Mayor Durkin delivered the special presentation of her State of the City Address at the Rainier Arts Center.

We were pleased to see many of you in attendance.

And in her address, the mayor highlighted several accomplishments over the last year.

that we together as a city have achieved.

And these accomplishments, of course, would not have been possible without the council's support, partnership, and tremendous leadership.

Achievements including passage of legislation expanding resources for affordable housing and child care, legislation supporting TNC drivers, and of course, the work around missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, just to name a few.

It is my pleasure now to formally deliver to you the Mayor's State of the City message here at the third regular meeting of the City Council in February in compliance with Article 5, Section 6A of the Charter.

Great.

Thank you, and we look forward to working with the Council on the many important issues that face our city in the coming year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

We look forward to working with you as well.

Thank you.

So do we have copies?

Are you handing those out or are we okay?

Do you want them right now?

No, we don't have to.

I'm just wondering if that's, do you want to wait?

Okay.

So let's move on to on their calendar to the approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the February 3rd, 2020 city council meeting have been reviewed.

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

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

Sorry.

That's all right.

Okay, so next we will go to adoption of the referral calendar.

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

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

At this time, let's see, we will move to adopt the agenda.

So I move to adopt the proposed agenda for today's meeting.

Second.

Just a second.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant and Herbold.

I have my second.

Are there any comments?

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Juarez.

I move to amend the agenda to add as item one resolution 31934 titled a resolution supporting the taxation of big businesses in Seattle to fund housing and essential services, urging the Washington State Legislature to oppose any preemption or other ban on Seattle's ability to raise revenue through big business taxes or other progressive revenue sources, and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations to communicate this resolution to Washington State lawmakers.

And I wanted to motivate that, if I get a second.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Our tax Amazon movement in Seattle to fund a major expansion of green built, union built affordable social housing for working people has historic momentum.

Big business and the political elite are terrified at how much public support there is for the Amazon tax.

So it's no surprise that facing the prospect of a real Amazon tax Big business and the wealthy are trying to maneuver at the state level and get a ban against big business taxes.

And in return for the big price of a ban on the Amazon tax in Seattle, big business would reluctantly concede to a small tax at the county level.

Our movement strongly supports county-level big business taxes in addition to an Amazon tax in Seattle, so we support House Bill 2907 in its current form, which would grant King County the authority to raise taxes, though we also think that even if King County were to use the maximum taxing authority, it would still fall far short of funding our needs.

But any kind of ban on big business taxes would be a historic selling out of working people especially in the state with already the nation's most regressive tax system.

In 1981, state politicians banned cities from rent control and here we are 40 years later still suffering and so this is a really serious threat.

Last Wednesday, the Tax Amazon movement went to Olympia to protest and to meet with legislators to speak out against the threat of a ban.

We need to be clear that there can only be one reason why the establishment of the Democratic Party is so far refusing to publicly oppose preemption.

The only possible reason is that in their backroom discussions with Amazon and big business, they have accepted this historically regressive attack on progressive taxes already.

Indeed, this is precisely what we gathered over this past weekend when my staff was invited to a meeting of human service providers convened by Representative Nicole Macri to update us on the status of House Bill 2907. I really appreciate Representative Macri convening this meeting, but what my staff and other community members learned there was frankly alarming.

Big business interests, namely the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Seattle Association, the hotel lobby, and other interests are insisting, absolutely insisting on the legislators including a preemption clause in any bill that raises taxes on big business to fund affordable housing and essential services.

The discussions apparently are focused on how business can insulate itself from the Seattle City Council or voters from enacting a big business tax.

This is utterly shameful.

It is extortion, pure and simple, to dangle the prospect of a small amount of progressive revenues, which we all know, even if passed by King County, would be grossly inadequate for our needs, in order to get a ban on any other big business taxes.

In other words, if the bill that gets passed in the state legislature includes a ban, a ban of any geographical reach or of any duration, then it will not be a progressive revenue bill anymore.

It will become the Protect Bezos Act, and it will be a historic betrayal reminiscent of the selling out of Boeing workers in 2013 when the state legislature gave Boeing the single largest corporate handout in US history.

Further, if the Protect Bezos Act passes, it will be at the doorstep of the democratic establishment because they have the majority in the House, they have the Senate, and they have the governor's mansion.

What's even more alarming is that legislators including many who are progressive, along with some human services providers, are willing to entertain preemption under the theory that it is better for the county to get some amount, 10 to 20% of the funds we need, than to get nothing at all.

After decades of gutted funding, human services providers feel that even a small amount of progressive revenue, even with a ban on any future big business taxes, needs to be accepted.

While I am sympathetic to that feeling, it is our collective responsibility as a movement to point out what a tragic blunder it would be for advocates to settle for a tiny fraction of what we need and relinquish any right to raise further big business taxes to fully fund our needs.

And it is our collective responsibility as a movement to fight for what we need, for the marginalized need, not accept the crumbs that billionaires are willing to grant us.

It is important to recognize that the only reason this bill got introduced in the first place is because of the growing movement.

The other thing we heard from Representative Macri is that the future of this bill could be decided by tomorrow at 5 p.m.

when bills have to move out of their house of origin in Olympia.

There are discussions happening, probably right now, on the fate of House Bill 2907 and the inclusion of a preemption or a ban, so it is absolutely urgent that the Seattle City Council go on record by voting on this resolution today.

The resolution states that the City Council supports progressive business taxes rather than big taxes on working people.

It states that the City Council opposes preemption and it urges Mayor Durkin to publicly oppose preemption, which she has so far refused to do.

Similarly, most legislators in Olympia have been unwilling to make clear statements against preemption.

Senator Joe Nguyen is the exception, authoring an op-ed opposing the ban, along with Seattle City Councilmember Tammy Morales, SeaTac City Councilmember Takele Gobeina, King County Councilmember Girma Zahilay, and myself as co-authors.

If other Democratic legislators had made equally clear promises opposing preemption, then this resolution would not have been necessary.

Last week, our movement was disappointed to see that the City Council refused to consider this resolution, but we have now had an additional week.

And given the urgency of the moment, I don't see any reason to refuse to include it on the agenda today.

And also, I hope my colleagues understand that Timing is of the essence.

This resolution, if passed, will be important, but it will not be enough, and we know we have to use every tool at our disposal and make sure that we keep building our movement to oppose the ban.

And if the council moves forward and places the resolution on today's agenda and they approve it, this action will add to the weight of the letter that we all signed as a council last week, the letter initiated by Council Member Mosqueda, opposing the preemption.

And as we have all said at different occasions, we need to use all the tools in our toolbox.

So we need to buttress that letter with such a resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Solan.

Just for the, okay, please hold your applause.

So what we have before us was basically Council Member Sawant made a motion to amend the agenda.

We're not going to be discussing the merits of that yet.

Council Member Herboldt moved to second Council Member Sawant's motion to amend the agenda.

So what we're voting on now is to add, whether to add Council Member Sawant's resolution to today's agenda.

We will get to the merits and the discussion where other colleagues can weigh in on the resolution itself.

So with that, on the issue of adding the resolution to today's agenda, not the merits, just to add the resolution to today's agenda, are there any more comments?

Okay, seeing none, then those in favor of the amendment that is adding a resolution for today, vote aye and raise your hand.

Those opposed?

Okay, so what we know now is that we have amended, the motion has passed, and the amendment or the resolution is now on today's agenda.

And so with that, we will pick that up after we do public comment.

So, Jodi or Amelia, who's doing that?

You're doing the name.

Okay, so what I would like people to do, so I'm not put in a position to have to interrupt you or cut you off, everyone today is going to have one minute.

I'm going to ask that you line up.

Microphones one and two, or one, two, and three, however you want to do that.

Are we calling names out three at a time, Jodi?

Three at a time, four at a time.

So why don't we do four names.

When you hear your name, all four of you, that's microphone one, two, and three, so we can move through, so you can use your minute, and then we will see where we're at in 20 minutes, and if there's still more to go, because we have well over 30 people signed up, I think close to 40, then we will move to suspend the rules to add an additional 20 minutes.

So with that, Joe, do you want to call the first four names?

Alex Finch, Sean Butterfield, Vivian Camel-Rusin, and Barb Oliver.

So we have one, two.

All right, sir, go ahead.

All right.

My name is Alex Finch.

I live at Nicholsville Northlake.

Y'all have heard about the mayor's office backtracking on the promise to let us stay at our current location until the end of March.

Last Wednesday, we were given the two main reasons why.

The executive representative stated that the city will not work with churches to host those camps.

And number two, I direct quote, the city would never reach an agreement allowing a self-empowered and self-sustaining encampment to continue operating, especially if Nicholsville was involved.

I hope y'all understand the implications of these two statements.

It means that Northlake, or any encampment, cannot exist if the residents don't surrender their freedoms and submit to an authoritarian rule.

If the ordinance passes with that philosophy behind it, it will be more meaningless than the promises of a mayor.

Just state your name and what you would like to speak to, sir.

Hi, my name is Sean.

I'm a member of Socialist Alternative.

I wanted to speak to the issue of preemption and the state ban.

Preemption strikes at the heart of city's ability to generate revenue in a progressive manner, not just for Seattle, but for cities across Washington.

This is an outrageous price to pay for the county tax authority granted by the legislation under consideration in Olympia.

Seattle must vigorously defend its right to raise progressive revenues and lead in the defense of other communities across the state.

Housing is not the only need that remains underfunded, and we should not sit idly by while our only opportunity to equitably fund transit, healthcare, and other spending priorities is negotiated away.

I'd like to thank Shama Sawant's office for bringing this issue and pushing it so effectively.

And please, City Council, vote to stand against the state ban today and send a clear message to Olympia that this is not how we should be doing business in our state.

Thank you.

Yes, hello.

My name is Vivian Corneliuson and I am a born and raised Seattleite.

I am a member of the League of Women Voters and I'm also a member of the North Progressives.

I am here and I am just horrified at the fact that We're going to be going after all businesses who make $150,000 or more.

The Soance is going for the top 3%, which is who we should be going after, all big business.

The fact that there has to be a quota of 2 million population of a county to have that taxable right that in several years, if these big businesses decide to move into one of these smaller counties, we can no longer tax them.

Because there's a quota put on there.

There is no other county that has two million.

The next biggest county, which is Pierce, only has 800,000 citizens.

I'm gonna have to ask you to wrap up, ma'am.

Pardon me?

I'm gonna have to ask you to wrap up.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Please.

We need Sawant's plan.

You wanna go?

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Barb Oliver.

I'm on the leadership team of Sound Foundations Northwest.

We build tiny homes at Camp Second Chance.

I would respectfully ask you, as you're looking to add more tiny home villages, to think about two things.

First of all, the number of tiny homes that you need and the quality of tiny homes that you need.

We have a system now where we build tiny homes that are mold resistant, last over 20 years, and we build them faster than any other group in the city.

Aside from that, the real reason I'm here is to talk about why tiny homes matter.

And I'm going to use just one story in my 26 seconds left to talk about my friend Sonia.

This is the day that Sonia got her tiny home at Camp Second Chance.

Six months later, Sonia found out she had brain cancer.

And so, this is Sonia with her best friend, Lili.

These are communities, folks.

They're more than tiny homes.

Homelessness is about a lack of community.

And here, her friend Lili gives her medicine, gives her food, helps her out.

And now, six months later and six surgeries later, This is what Sonya looks like in her permanent home.

This is why we do this, and this is why we need to get more people off the ground.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You want to call the next four names?

Our next speakers are Laureen Kaye, Jane Doe, Asuka Jacks, and Alicia Lewis.

We have those four individuals up here, and state your name and what you're speaking to on today's agenda.

Ma'am?

Good day, city council members.

Thank you for being here and paying attention to issues.

I am here to speak upon the tiny homes, and I am a STAR student, Students Together Against Racism, and also a tiny home villager over at Othello, and also do volunteer with Sound Foundations Northwest in building tiny homes.

And the most important part about tiny homes is being in the transition of shelters and having nowhere to go during the day, being in the rain, being cold.

I just wanted to emphasize that tiny homes actually gives people the courage to have area and to get back out and to start building themselves up again instead of being so down.

So I'm just here to say thank you so much again for paying attention to this matter and if we can get more tiny homes that would be wonderful.

Thank you.

I'm Oscar Jacks.

I represent the intersex community, live in Capitol Hill.

I am part of the movement to tax Amazon and for more tiny villages for those that are unhoused.

Those of us that are intersex that are unhoused, it's not safe.

So please pass.

that resolution and Shama's resolution to oppose the no preemption, no state ban.

Thank you.

Next, we call for names.

We have Jane Doe and Alicia Lewis still to come.

Don't see Jane Doe or Alicia Lewis, so let's move on.

Okay.

John Manella, Jake Britzenhoff, Nagis Berhoun, and Ed Last.

Is this Alicia?

Are you Alicia?

Yes.

Okay, good.

So let's call up the other four names, but let Alicia go.

Whenever you're ready, Alicia.

You ready?

Yes, so my name is Alicia.

I'm a member of the Tax Amazon movement, and I am here to emphasize the absolutely massive popular opposition that we have to the statewide ban.

Among legislators in Olympia, there's this narrative floating around that we have to accept the addition of this ban so that it can move forward, but working people understand that if HB 2907 were to move forward with preemption, it would no longer move forward as a progressive bill.

It would turn into a protective Bezos bill.

And while preemption has the support of big business, it does not have the support of working people.

It does not have the support of our movement.

In just the last week, our petition that we put up online has gained 2,206 signatures.

1,078 of those have been online.

And 1,128 were collected just last night at the Bernie Sanders rally.

We collected these with only 20 activists there in a crowd of 20,000.

Every single person we talked to was eager to sign this.

I know that we could have collected more if we'd had a stronger show of force.

And the reason I know this is because the 20,000 people that were there at this rally cheered when Council Member Sawant announced our tax Amazon movement.

And also, I need you to wrap up.

They were also booed, the statewide ban, when council members arrived.

So we need to pass this resolution.

You know, you're not more special than everyone else.

Okay, so we have four other people.

Is this, did we miss this person right here?

I think we did.

So who do we have now?

We're now on Lorraine Kaye.

No, excuse me.

John Manella, Jake Britzenhoff, Nick East, Barahun, and then Ed Mast.

So first is John Manella.

OK.

Hi, City Council.

My name is John Manella, and I'm on the Board of the Tenants Union of Washington State.

I'm speaking today in support of Council members who want a resolution against preemption or any kind of ban on progressive taxation.

Look, just to speak very plainly, we have a ton of problems in this City and in the County.

It's not just housing, but housing is the big one.

We have a homelessness crisis.

We have a climate crisis.

We have all of these problems that will require resources and attention to address.

If we do not get those resources from progressive sources like big business or the rich, Where do you think they are going to come from?

Those taxes will be raised on you.

So that means an increase on your sales taxes.

That means an increase on your property taxes.

That means that Washington State will go from 50th in the nation in regressive taxation to 60th.

How can that be?

How can we allow that to happen?

Please, City Council, all you have to do is support this legislation.

It's great.

It's a great resolution, and you should be in support of it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead, sir.

Who's next?

Is it this gentleman?

Jake Brinson.

Hi there.

I'm Jake Brinsonoff.

I'm an Eastlake resident, a formal volunteer at PSKS Homeless Shelter on Capitol Hill.

I want to speak on the taxation ban.

A primary role of any government is to speak for its constituents and represent their group interests by accounting for the costs they bear via externalities from transactions in which they are not directly involved, whether that be in gasoline transactions which pollute our air or land development transactions which shake our communities.

The primary tool for this representation is taxation.

Any ban on taxation can thus be seen as an act of ignoring responsibility and an act directly in opposition of the interests of the people.

I support taxing Amazon and other big businesses, which have led to the gentrification of the city, the displacement of many citizens, and a housing crisis.

I stand with Ms. Sawant.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Negist Berihun.

Thank you, City Council.

I wrote letters to state and federal Congress, the problems and the solutions.

On my topic, I am the only one present or talk.

I am the one make John Andrew Boehner, former House Speaker, resign from U.S.

Congress that he live a double life.

I wrote letters to United Nations and went to New York City.

Tax are very important.

Amazon and others must pay taxes.

The Governor and the Congress please contact me in person.

Thank you kindly.

Thank you.

Ed Mast, I'm what is called a homeowner in Coast Salish Territory, currently called Wallingford, Mr. Peterson's district.

Thank you for ending winter evictions.

Yes, please.

Yes, please, tax Google and Vulcan and Amazon and all those big companies that are creating wealth for a bunch of people who are moving here and creating poverty for a bunch of people who already lived here.

Yes, please, more not-for-profit housing with all the millions of dollars you will raise by that tax.

And until that not-for-profit housing comes, yes, please, pretty please, with sugar on top, more tiny house villages all over town, including in my neighborhood in Wallingford.

And therefore, please, no winter eviction early for North Lake Nicholsville, as is currently being threatened by your Human Services Department.

Gotta wonder which side they're on.

No early eviction for Nicholsville, no corporate monopoly for operating of tiny house villages.

Thank you, sir.

Let's go ahead and call the next four names.

Ready?

Next speakers are Sharon Lee, Alton Orhan, Alan Martin, and Fred Cade.

Great.

And again, I remind everyone it's one minute.

I really do not enjoy cutting people off, but it really isn't fair to other people who sign up, stand in line, and exercise their one minute.

So, oh, Sharon Lee, how are you?

Go ahead.

Thank you, I'm Sharon Lee, Low Income Housing Institute.

We urge the council to oppose any preemption or ban on your ability to raise revenue.

And I want to thank tremendously your work to allow more safe parking as well as villages and tent encampments.

We are supportive of Shama Sawant's substitute bill that basically cleaned up the select committee vote.

and we would oppose any sunset because there's already a provision for year-to-year review and also there's budget control from your part.

We would oppose the amendment that says it would have to sunset and we would oppose a reduction to 15 sites because we have such a homelessness crisis and we have safe parking as well as tiny house villages that are covered by the ordinance.

We do support one amendment that Shama Sawant is offering to grandfather in the existing villages.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir?

Hi, I'm Olson Orhun.

I'm a constituent of District 3. Thank you, Council Member Sawant, for your rapid response in introducing this resolution to preempt those that have a mind to preempt the working people of Seattle.

Anything less than full-threaded support today would be preempting the will of the people who demand social housing, climate justice, and that the government do its job to represent the people and not other unnamed stakeholders.

It would be a foreclosure of the better world that you can clear a path for today by opposing the preemption clause in HB 2907. You have the chance to serve not just your own constituents, but people across the state to live in counties and cities that would similarly have their hands tied by any type of preemption.

I also understand you're introducing a bill that climate change impacts on legislations and projects commissioned by the city must be considered.

It's encouraging to see these kind of signals that climate change is being taken seriously, but the best thing you can do today on this day as City Council to tackle your constituents suffering from climate change and pollution is to put your support behind this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, I'm sorry.

As residents of Nicholsville, we ask you to respect our rights to govern and self-manage our own lives, same as you do every day.

We do not need to want or live underneath a person that dictates us.

It's what we can do, how we do it, and why.

Show us the same respect that you yourselves have.

Let's be ourselves.

We're not two-year-olds in a daycare center.

whether it's from City Hall or HSD, we have to be ourselves and live our lives the way we want to.

Thank you.

I'm a proud resident of the Georgetown Tiny House Village.

We're a self-managed village, which our personal responsibility and how that coincides and coexists with the community.

You know, we've lost our community, the homeless, and we need these type of programs to give us that sense back so we can feel that we are part of something again.

We provide 24-hour security, our residents do, so the security issues that have been raised are really, you know, are not valid.

you know, if you build them more tiny houses, the people will come to them.

As far as the sunset clause, why not eliminate the problem in three years instead of eliminating the villages in three years?

Okay.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The next speakers, Howard Gale, Brent McFarlane, Peggy Hotez, and Cassandra Guspard.

Good afternoon, it's Howard Gale.

I, of course, support the council opposing preemption.

I also support transitional encampments, but I'm also here to speak to something that's not on the agenda, and that is in the middle of January, the city of Seattle has sued King County to stop the inquest process, the process, the only process that affords some measure of justice for people who have been killed by police in the county.

Right now, That has been is being opposed.

It's being done in your name That means there are 20 families that have been waiting over two to three years for an inquest and now that's been turned upside down They have no idea when they're going to get any kind of justice or clarity So I would call upon you in the immediate like next meeting to take this issue up Mayor Durkin has remained mum on this issue This is hundreds of people in our county who have been waiting for years for justice.

And that just got overturned last, a few weeks ago.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Before we begin, Jody, should we do the, do we, we're up 20 minutes.

Sure.

So I make it, I'm not sure how you want me to do.

Okay.

Do I do a motion?

If there's no objection, I will extend public comment for 20 more minutes.

Seeing no objection, so 20 more minutes from now is 2.56.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

I'm Brent McFarland, and I'm here to talk about the preemption that we hear big businesses pushing for.

in House Bill 2907. While I appreciate the efforts of Joe Nguyen and a few in our state legislature who are willing to take a moral stand on what's happening in the state government, we really do need our city officials, we need our city council and mayor to take a strong stand on this.

And I would also say, I had read 2907. There is nothing about green building standards in that bill.

either the Senate or the House version, no green building standards.

So if our city council is serious about a Green New Deal, we cannot capitulate to the forces that would control our ability to tax appropriately and progressively in this city.

And also, I would like to say to the city council, any ideas you have for raising progressive revenue in this city are welcome.

But this is one of the few concrete ideas that I've seen that actually does this.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm a Nicholsville founder and volunteer.

I have a few points to make.

First, I hope you'll pass the encampment ordinance without amendments.

Some of them are terribly harmful, I'll say.

Secondly, don't allow, for the love of God, don't allow HSD to operate tiny house villages.

One reason is they've encouraged a monopoly on tiny house villages.

And another one is not only does HFSD not have a grievance process, they've allowed Lehigh to have no legitimate grievance process.

That puts homeless people at their mercy.

The third point is please don't let Mayor Durkin evict Nicholsville-Northlake in the dead of winter.

That would be wrong and she's threatening to do that once again.

And my fourth point is please vote yes on the resolution to oppose the preemption on the payroll tax.

It's the only progressive means we have left to end homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

My name is Cassandra Gaspard, and I'm also a resident of Camp Second Chance.

I would like to say that most of us in this room have probably done the work of, A, being homeless or unemployed and other struggles in our life.

I myself was evicted last year and found myself at the doors of Camp Second Chance.

As a single woman, I don't know where I would be without it.

What I do see is the folks that are still struggling on the street, sleeping with a piece of cardboard or a tarp.

And we've done our work, and now it's time for you folks to do your work.

This is your opportunity to do the work for us, the people.

You know, it's an historic moment.

If it means that the big corporate businesses have to pay to get us little people off the street, then that's what needs to be done.

So thank you for your work.

Thank you.

All right.

The next four speakers are Michelle Basque, Prashant Nima, Kyle Malone, and Eric Patton.

So we're starting on this end, right?

Hi, I'm Michelle Bassick and I'm a resident at Camp Second Chance.

And prior to that, I was living on the 45th Street off-ramp in the U District.

And I can't implore enough how important it is for the expansion of these tiny houses.

For anybody to expect people to get themselves up, you know, and get a job and off of drugs and such when they're living in mud and in cold and not having anybody come You know, no outreach from the city to come see them, to help them with anything is a, you know, ridiculous request.

The tiny house villages are safe as a single woman.

I'm in sobriety.

I've been sober for over 10 years.

It's a great place to remain sober.

And it's just huge.

You can't expect people to live out on the streets anymore when we have this available.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle.

Go ahead, sir.

My name is Eric Patton.

I'm the co-founder of Camp Second Chance, and I'm also an employee of Lehigh as a site coordinator.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of what Tiny House Villages has done to change the lives of the homeless here in the Seattle area.

Not only does it give the people off the streets into a safe and warm environment, it provides other much-needed services such as showers, food, clothing, and a chance to enroll and live in permanent housing.

To me, one of the most important aspects of the Tine Home Villages is a sense of community, friendship, and serenity that helps one develop confidence and self-esteem to bear face to the challenges of getting out of homelessness into affordable housing, as well as being a productive and responsible person.

I urge the city council to pass a tiny ordinance of 40 tiny home villages, encampments, and safe parking lots because there's a whole lot of homeless out there and not enough villages to go around.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I think, are you next?

Who's next?

You are?

Yeah, I'm Kyle.

Okay.

I'm a resident of Camp Second Chance.

All right, go ahead, sir.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm Kyle, resident of Camp Second Chance.

You can move your microphone up.

I just want to encourage the increase of tiny house villages.

I myself have quite a story.

I'm epileptic as a result of a traumatic brain injury that I incurred on the streets.

So now I have to deal with epilepsy in addition to homelessness.

This has provided me with a sort of a foothold in my life, as opposed to being on the streets, where I can coordinate appointments with doctors, counselors, and people that I need to have in my life to deal with these overwhelming challenges.

And I just know that there are lots of other people out there who need a place like this in their life, just to get things leveled out and get a group of people around you who know what you're going through.

and to help you move forward in your life.

And that's what this place has done for me, and I've seen it do it for other people.

And this is a real deal, it really is.

So I encourage you guys to do this.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Hello, my name is Prashant.

I'm a tech worker, and I have been in Seattle for the last 19 years.

I have witnessed how homelessness has grown in this area, right from the big crash of 2008, we have seen homelessness increase in our area.

And both Wall Street corporate greed and local corporate greed have been responsible.

So I urge you to tax my industry to help pay for solving the crisis it created.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next four speakers are Alicia Roberts, Mona Lee, Becca Finks, and Naomi Zee.

Let's wait till we get all four of our folks up here.

One, two, three.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

We are disappointed that the Mayor's Office and HSD has reneged on their commitment to let Gift of Grace Lutheran Church be the religious encampment sponsor for Northlake Tiny House Village.

We call on the Council by letter or resolution to insist that we not be evicted this winter.

Let us stay until the end of March.

We urge you not to make the Tiny House Village draft encampment ordinance any worse.

It is good that there will be many more encampments and disappointing that the ordinance does not acknowledge the human rights of homeless people in them or a way to redress our grievances against the operator or HSD.

Please pass a resolution against the state government to not preempt our city's ability to tax big business.

We need at least $450 million a year for 10 years to build enough affordable housing here for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Mona Lee.

I'm a member of the Othello Station Community Action Team.

I wanted to speak in favor both of many more tiny house villages and also in favor of taxing Amazon to get them.

Okay, so Othello Village, So Tiny House Village is in our neighborhood, and it's a wonderful place for, way better than living on the street.

People are warm, dry, they have a community, and they have case management assistance to help them find permanent housing.

Much, much more of this is needed in Seattle.

Well, what we really need, of course, is affordable housing.

Well, there was a time when HUD, Housing and Urban Development, built New Holly, they built Rainier Vista, and we need more, we need to have more federal funding for tiny houses, for homeless, for affordable housing, and we might get that if we were to elect Bernie Sanders president.

But in the meantime, in the meantime we need to tax Amazon to get more housing.

I ask you to keep your applause to a minimum so people can speak.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Hello, I am Becca Finkus.

I work for Lehigh with the Tiny House Program, and I live in District 2. So thank you, Council Member Morales, for your support.

And I'm especially proud to be represented by you today.

As leaders of our city, I ask that you hear the stories and acknowledge the pivotal role that you have to make a historical shift in how we approach homelessness in our beautiful city.

By voting in support of this ordinance and against amendments that will only make implementation more difficult, You are saving lives for many years to come.

I cannot emphasize enough that it is about so much more than tiny houses.

It is about community, dignity, and safety.

I hope to work myself out of a job someday, honestly.

But for now, our unhoused neighbors need our support.

We must work in alliance in our joint mission to solve homelessness.

And thank you all for your leadership and commitment to do just that.

Thank you.

Let's see.

We want to go ahead and call out four names.

There should also be Naomi.

Okay, I'm going to read the other four.

After Naomi, we have Juan Lopez, Chris Kulitz, Teresa Homan, and Josh Castle.

Okay, go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Naomi See.

I'm a student at the University of Washington and a volunteer at the Low Income Housing Institute.

Over the past year, I've had the opportunity to participate in the creation, support and advocacy for the tiny house village model.

Each day I spend around the tiny house villages, I'm in awe of their impact on individuals and communities.

I've had the privilege of watching high schoolers build tiny houses, families attend four work parties in a row, and community groups sit down for weekly meals with their neighborhood village.

Most importantly, I have watched individuals begin to heal from trauma, seen networks of support created and celebrated the movement of countless residents into housing.

In that same time frame, I have attended numerous council meetings where extremely complicated and nuanced issues are discussed, followed by discussions about tiny house villages.

What has become clear is that tiny house villages, the conversation is not complicated.

It is simple.

People have the right to shelter that supports their needs, and tiny house villages provide just that.

With that said, it is critical that we maintain the current 40 village limit in order to provide the clear and critical solution we need in the coming years.

Thank you.

Can you call the next four names?

Wait, we have one left.

Do you want to call four?

Okay.

Four more.

Just hold up.

Just hold one minute.

Just one sec.

Juan Lopez, Chris Kalkulitz, Teresa Holman, Josh Castle.

Okay.

Go ahead, sir.

Hello, my name is Juan Lopez, and I am a volunteer at the Low-Income Housing Institute.

As a resident of the University District and a constituent of District 4, I ask you, Council Member Alex Peterson, to vote in the best interest of your constituents by voting yes on the proposed signing house ordinance.

From walking down the avenue around campus, it is obvious that the homelessness crisis affects our district just as much as any other district in Seattle.

With a total of 11,199 individuals experiencing homelessness in the Seattle area in 2019, An ordinance like this is much needed.

According to the 2019 One Night Count report, 47% of the homeless population were in shelter and individuals.

That is over 5,000 individuals that this ordinance could benefit.

I myself have had the privilege of seeing firsthand the healing and growth that takes place in these tiny house villages.

It is a successful and efficient model that works.

Therefore, I ask all of you to vote yes on this proposed ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Either one.

Hey, everyone.

My name is Chris Kakulitan.

I'm currently the Special Projects Manager at Lake Union Village, located in South Lake Union, but I'm also a longtime resident of Seattle's South Seattle Rainier Valley, South End, whatever you want to call it, where Othello is now currently located.

one of the tiny home villages by Lehigh.

And I want to talk about the success that I've seen as someone part of that neighborhood and how that community has integrated itself and hasn't been as problematic as I had thought or my family had thought when it first popped up a few years ago.

And since then, I found myself working for this cause as well, overseeing the South Lake Union Village and seeing successes of having 24-7 security on site, case managers to help people organize and work towards their goals, whether it be employment or looking for homes.

There's a lot of great successes, and I'd say especially our transparency with the community, with Facebook, the Juxtapartments, NextSource, Courtyard, and Marriott.

I think what we're doing with the tiny home villages through Lehigh has been very successful, and I hope that we can expand on these projects up to the 40.

Thank you, sir.

Hi, my name is Teresa home and as always I'm so excited to be here because I love this idea of tiny house villages And I implore that you allow for the expansion with as few amendments as possible that will impede us to get as many of these built as quickly as possible and They are a great stepping stone.

I worked in permanent housing, great stepping stone.

They help people over the hurdle of living within walls, living within rules, living within community.

It sets them up for success.

And then secondly, it also in the meantime gives people a place to think and heal and grieve and dream up their new life, and set goals toward making that happen.

Here's the coolest thing.

I just promoted to program manager of all the tiny house villages.

And I just visited Camp Second Chance, where we have this factory.

And they build tiny house villages on site.

So it's really, really cool.

If you haven't seen it, please visit.

And thank you so much.

Thank you.

Josh?

I'm Josh Castle.

I work for Lehigh.

Hi, everyone.

I am a lifelong resident of Seattle.

I'm a proud resident of District 5, and I just want to say that we are grateful to our partnership with the council and with the city for four years and the funding and support of eight tiny house villages in Seattle.

As you know, most of the residents of the villages are here today, and please listen to them.

I also want to mention of the amendments that have been introduced, please don't vote for amendments that would water this down or make it less robust or less flexible.

I want to urge you to please not vote to reduce the number of sites to 15. Please keep in mind this covers the current number of sites.

It doesn't just include tiny house villages, but also safe parking and encampments and of any size.

So for example, a three-car safe parking lot or a village of five houses would be included among that threshold.

So any new site would have to come back to council for funding.

So the chances of getting to the current cap is not likely.

So it's crucial to keep this as robust and flexible as possible.

Please also oppose the Sunset Amendment and support grandfathering in current villages.

Thank you.

Thank you, Josh.

Calvin Priest, Siatha, Beth Reese, and Michael Foster, or Easter.

I'm Calvin with Socialist Alternative.

As mentioned earlier, already more than 2,200 people have signed our tax Amazon petition against the state ban on taxing big business.

And this is because working people are not fooled by the totally dishonest narrative being spun by corporate Democrats in Olympia.

They see that this represents an historic attack on working people.

It's not because we oppose the $121 million being promised, but there is in fact not one real dollar on the table yet.

It's just very limited authority for the county to tax big business while stealing all authority away from working people at the city level.

As Kshama mentioned earlier, this is extortion, pure and simple.

And if the ban is added, then this becomes the Protect Bezos bill.

This city council needs to go clearly on the record today against this attack, this attempted sellout of working people.

Thank you, sir.

Hi, my name is Sujata, and I'm here to support Council Member Sawant's resolution to prevent any preemptive ban on taxing.

Also, we would like to call it the Protect Jeff Bezos ban.

Jeff Bezos recently bought a home for $165 million in L.A.

He doesn't need these kinds of tax handouts from us.

He is worth $1.37 billion.

That would mean you would have to earn $200,000 every day since the day Jesus Christ was born, till today.

That's the amount of money that he has.

He does not need any tax handouts from us at the cost of everyday working class people.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Beth Reese.

This is my wife, Barbara Steele.

We're homeowners and reliable voters.

We live in District 2. We don't represent any organization and we want to support the tiny house villages and transitional encampments in every neighborhood, including ours.

We understand that Local constituents who are housed worry that tiny house villages and encampments will depress their housing values by increasing crime.

But violent crime rates have been dropping for over a decade and housing costs have been growing at a ridiculous rate.

Yes, Barbara's and my equity in our house is growing, but so what?

We would have to buy something else if we sold our house anyway.

And in the meantime, our grown children can't afford to stay in Seattle.

They have to move away in order to ever own.

So propping up housing prices at the expense of our unhoused brothers and sisters is totally crazy.

Thank you.

You're up.

Your time.

Thank you.

We just have three more people.

So if there's no objection, I'm going to extend the comment time for four more minutes because we have three people left.

So we'll do our last three folks and then we'll finish our calendar.

Following Michael Foster, we'll have Dick Burkhart, Joe Reed, and Elizabeth Campbell.

So Northlake Tiny House Village must stay until March.

Please let sponsors work with self organizing villages in our city.

These are solutions that work.

How much would it take to make my neighbors at Northquake Tiny House Village a permanent self-organizing solution?

Jeff Bezos Earth Fund is launching with $10 billion to start.

It's okay, he could donate $100 billion.

He'd still be one of the top 10 richest people on the planet.

So thank you for passing the resolution that allows cities to raise taxes.

You had to do that because there are voices in Olympia trying to say that cities can't raise taxes.

So please do what you can.

Get on the phone to make sure that Olympia understands that Seattle has to be able to pay for the solutions that the people think is best, not the solutions that billionaires think are the best.

Thank you, sir.

Joe Reed, a housing advocate.

And I was happening to watch Channel 21 and hearing our mayor give her State of the City speech.

It put me right on the number 21 bus and come down and talk to you.

If you think we're going to find any help from Olympia, really addressing our housing problem, you belong in Olympia.

We are at a place here where we can only expect our people right in front of us, our politicians, to address these housing problems.

They know about them.

They can solve them.

They know who to get the money out of.

Thank you, sir.

Is there a next speaker, Jodi?

We have Dick Burkhardt and Elizabeth Campbell.

I'm Dick Burkhart, and I'm on the committee advisory, the city advisory committee for Othello Tiny House Village.

But first I'd like to say is that we need far more affordable housing, social housing.

So I'm a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders' proposal for 10 million new affordable housing units.

But beyond that, We need many more, I support the extension to 40, authorization for 40 tiny house villages in Seattle with some of the amendments.

Because a key point here is that we need responsible operators of the villages who work well with the city, who are successful at getting people into housing.

And unfortunately, Nickelsville has performed very poorly, especially in Northlake.

So that's a huge issue I have, and to see at the Othello Village, I've been able to see directly and hear directly, and it's been very painful, the attacks on Lehigh by Nicholsville.

Thank you.

Okay, sir.

Thank you.

Please don't do that.

Let's be respectful.

For those of you who come up here and say they'd like to recognize that they're on indigenous land, they're not words, it's behavior.

So I ask all of you to please allow people to speak, because that is our way.

Thank you.

I'm Elizabeth Campbell, and I'm here in opposition to your expansion of the tiny house village ordinance.

One of the things I'd like to say, truly, there's oftentimes things that you get involved in in the community, and it gives me no pleasure to do this to say, well, I don't think that you should expand them, but the qualification is.

There's some redundant I don't agree with the assembly of this law and even the operation of the tiny house villages that needs to take place.

I don't think Lehigh should have a monopoly on it.

I think you should expand the roster of companies that can give the services to the tiny house villages.

The structures themselves do not comply with building code.

And finally, you've gutted the SEPA part of this.

Many of the tiny house villages were built on land that is critical areas, and that will continue to happen.

In the end, I think the problem is, is that the only reformation comes at the end of a lawsuit.

That's what happened when it came to- I have to ask you to wrap up.

Yes, that's what happened when it came to putting heat in them, electrical in them.

Thank you, Ms. Campbell.

Your time is up.

Let's cut the mic.

We're done.

Thank you.

Okay, so at this time, we are going to close public comment.

I just had handed up to me today.

It's been brought to my attention that Councilor Mosqueda will not be able to attend this meeting.

If there is no objection, Councilor Mosqueda will be excused from today's meeting.

Hearing no objection, Councilor Mosqueda is excused from today's meeting.

With that, we'll continue with the calendar.

We've closed public comment.

We've made the announcement about Councilor Mosqueda.

Let's go to payment of the bills.

Please read the title.

Council Bill 119740. in Oregon's property mining to base our claims for the week of February 3rd, 2020 through February 7th, 2020 and ordering the payment thereof.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council Bill 119740.

Second.

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

Are there any comments?

Seeing none, please call the roll.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No comments.

Please call the roll of the passage of the bill.

All those...

Strauss.

Sorry, I was going to do it.

I don't know why.

Yes.

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

President Juarez?

Aye.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

All right the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Thank you.

Okay, hand that back.

So now that we have an amended agenda, we are gonna go to our first item, which is the resolution that Council Member Sawant put forward, I'm sorry, to amend the agenda.

So we have an amended agenda.

Please read the new item number one.

Resolution 31934 supporting the taxation of big business in Seattle to fund housing and essential services, urging the Washington State Legislature to oppose any preemption and other ban on Seattle's ability to raise revenue through big businesses, taxes, or other progressive revenue sources, and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations to communicate this resolution to Washington State lawmakers.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawant, you want to move?

I feel like I've made a real motivation for why it is important in terms of timing, just given the pace at which this potentially a ban or a preemption could appear.

in the bill, and so I would really urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution.

And just one other thing I will mention is that, as I said earlier, most of us on the council have already signed a letter that was initiated by a council member, Mosqueda, in which we are taking a clear position against preemption, but as many of us have also said we need all tools in the toolbox and I dread to think of what message it will send the corporate Democrats if we if this resolution gets passed.

does not get voted through and get a majority yes vote today, I don't know what message it will send.

The message it will send will be basically that the Seattle City Council is not actually standing against preemption or ban.

So I think it is historically crucial that we take the correct position and vote yes on the resolution and be consistent with the letter that most of us have already signed.

And I would like to hear my colleagues on this.

So, now, please help me out here.

I thought that Council Member Sawant had to move to adopt Resolution 31934. And did you do that?

I do have to?

Yeah, you do.

To adopt it.

You have to move.

I move to adopt Resolution 31934. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay, so now we can go.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt a resolution.

Now we'll move to discussion.

Are there any comments on the actual merits of the proposed resolution from any of my colleagues?

Council Member Peterson.

I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry.

I actually have it written down here.

I'm sorry.

It's only February.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair or Madam President Pro Tem.

So I just wanted to make a couple of comments before we formally vote on this resolution.

I want to thank Council Member Sawant for bringing it forward and totally respect the spirit in which it was introduced in which we will discuss it here today.

I did just want to reiterate that on February 10th, I was one of the council members who signed the letter that we did send down to Olympia to Representative Macri, as well as the sponsor in the Senate, Senator Kaiser, expressing four key concerns.

First concern, the increasing of the total revenue, because we know that while the current proposal is a good start, it does not go far enough to fully and comprehensively respond to the scale of our crisis.

Second, excluding the preemption Third, making sure we're allocating those funds to essential services and housing in an equitable way.

Fourth, clarifying how much revenue is going to go to the regional homelessness authority versus the city and the county.

We sent this letter.

And since that time, we've been at the table as a stakeholder regionally and in Olympia on discussions in this bill.

From my conversations with my delegation in the 36th, from my conversations with Representative Macri, the concerns of this council are being heard in the halls of Olympia, and we are active participants, not passive observers.

And while I adamantly believe in the good intentions behind this resolution, I also believe that the framework of our engagement based in that letter of February 10th and our follow-up conversations both as individuals and an institution through our table discussions with the Office of Intergovernmental Relations on a weekly basis has been the better approach for working out this policy with our friends than this resolution would.

And I want to be clear that I have complete confidence and trust in Representative Nicole Macri, and that's part of the reason why I'll be voting no on this resolution today.

The sponsor of HB 2907, Representative Macri, who has managed this difficult process with grace and fortitude so far, which has not been easy.

Nicole Macri is a progressive hero, is the Deputy Director for the Downtown Emergency Service Center, She takes a backseat to nobody in her dedication and commitment to helping our neighbors experiencing homelessness, and no local politician can match her direct experience as a service provider.

I just want to say that her progressive credentials are beyond reproach in my knowing her as a friend and knowing her as a colleague, as a local leader.

Her work has advanced the rights of renters, students, commuters, people experiencing homelessness, and her work at DESC has unambiguously saved lives and provided respite to people who have suffered on our streets experiencing homelessness.

She's the person in the room on this.

I trust her.

I have her back.

I'll continue to actively engage in making 29907 the strongest bill possible.

I don't think this resolution will help that cause at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

So with that, is there any other comments before I turn it over to Councilmember Sawant to make a closing statement?

Okay with that, Councilmember Sawant.

The floor is yours.

Well, if any other council, I appreciate Council Member Lewis stating what his opinion is, although I don't agree with his position.

But if other council members are planning to vote no on this, I would prefer to hear your opinions.

And I think you owe the public an explanation of why you will be voting no on the resolution.

Well, I think we're just going to take a vote.

So I'd like you to have, if you have any closing comments, and then I'd like to go to the vote.

So I don't agree with the council members who are planning to vote no on this resolution because I don't think that any politician, including myself, any politician has some sort of lifelong hold over any kind of progressive label.

You get to be called progressive only if you're absolutely fighting for a progressive agenda, and I don't, I would second the person who spoke, I'm sorry, I don't remember your name, but when you said that only somebody who, I mean, I'm adding some words here, but only somebody who is either being completely politically naive or politically disingenuous would say that we don't actually need to use all tools in our toolbox.

And to say that a representative who is the prime sponsor of the bill and who has refused to say that she opposes preemption, which is something she needs to say, that that person is a progressive hero.

I want to clarify, this is not about individuals and certainly not about politicians.

I have the greatest respect for every elected representative who at any time and any given day is fighting for progressive causes, and I will work with anybody who is willing to do so.

But in our conversation with Representative Macri in Olympia, when 50 of us were there, she said to me, you know as a fellow progressive, our lives are hard.

And the people who spoke there basically summed it up, which is that I don't think progressive politicians can complain that their lives are hard because the lives of ordinary people are a thousand times harder and it is our duty.

It is our duty to absolutely be fighting and as I've said this before and I will say this again, if as a progressive, if somebody who claims as a progressive and your life is not hard as an elected official, then you're doing something wrong and you're failing ordinary people.

Your life better be hard because that's what it's like when you're actually fighting for ordinary people.

And I don't think that anybody who votes no on this resolution can claim that they are doing everything in their power to prevent what will be, if the ban passes, a historic betrayal of Seattle's and the state's working people.

First of all, thank you, Councilmember Sawant, for bringing this forward.

Thank you, colleagues, for giving Councilmember Sawant the opportunity to amend the agenda and put this resolution in front of us.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for your comments regarding our representatives down in Olympia.

And with that, I'm going to take the vote.

Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Those opposed vote no and raise your hand.

No.

No.

The resolution fails two to five.

Two to five.

Two to five.

And that's two thirds.

That's less.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

We will move on with the calendar.

Okay, so we're going to move on to the calendar.

The next item is the report of the City Council.

Please read the report.

Agenda item one, clerk file 314445, 2020 state of the city address delivered by Mayor Jenny A. Durkin on February 18th, 2020.

So correct me if I'm wrong, this is basically what Mr. Fong delivered to City Hall, which was a copy of the mayor's speech, correct?

Okay.

I move to file clerk file 31445. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

We have a second.

Those in favor of filing the clerk file, vote yes or aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, vote no.

The ayes have it.

Motion carries.

The file is placed on file.

Okay, let's move to our next item.

So now we have a new item number two, which is a little bit different than what we have on the agenda that was published.

The Select Committee on Homeless Strategies and Investments.

The report of the Committee on Homeless Strategies and Investments.

Please read the short title.

Agenda item two, Council Bill 119-656 relating to land use and zoning, providing that transitional encampments for homeless individuals are allowed on any property owned or controlled by a religious organization without approval of a permit under the Seattle Land Use Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended with Councilmembers Lewis, Herbold, Morales, Sawant, and Strauss in favor with an abstention from Councilmember Peterson.

Okay, so before we begin, this is how we're going to do this.

I'm going to allow Councilmember Lewis, since this came out of his committee, and also Councilmember Sawant to kick us off, and then I have a few comments to make about the nine amendments that we're going to have in front of us for discussion and vote.

So with that, I'll hand it to you, Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam President Pro Tem, and I'll be brief on this so we can get into the meat of the matter and give council members who want the opportunity to talk more broadly about the bill.

I'll just say I'm really grateful to my colleagues on the committee for the two great sessions that we had on this council bill leading up to this.

We had a really good presentation from folks in the community as well as service providers and folks with learned experience.

about the need to protect and expand tiny house villages and the scope and scale of these changes.

We had a really good session a week ago where we passed some essential amendments and moved it forward for the final council action today.

And I just want to thank everyone for being diligent with those tight timelines and having very productive conversations during those meetings.

I want to thank Council Member Sawant for bringing this ordinance forward.

I think it's a testament to the strength of the ordinance that the changes that we did enact through amendment last week really did not go to changing the core of her ordinance, merely made a couple of cosmetic changes, cleaned a couple of things up, and then clarified a few things that needed clarification.

And we'll talk about the additional amendments in more depth after this, but I will at this point turn it over to Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I wanted to start by thanking everybody who has advocated not only for this bill, but also has been fighting for our homeless neighbors and for housing justice as a whole all these years, many of them preceding my time in Seattle.

Special thanks to Nicholsville community and to the Low Income Housing Institute for spearheading the work that eventually became Tiny Homes.

As you all know, as I hope you all know, this bill expands options for and removes obstacles to establishing tiny house villages in Seattle, but it also, as Sharon Lee from Lehigh pointed out, is relevant to safe parking spaces and other sanctioned homeless encampments.

Tiny house villages have been, hands down, one of the most successful homeless services that have been created in our city.

decidedly the most humane, the most respectful and dignity offering to our homeless neighbors and have one of the best track records in helping people find permanent housing.

Their self-managed model helps homeless people form community and really abandon the isolation and alienation of life on the streets.

In the public hearing last fall, we heard moving testimony after moving testimony of homeless people courageously sharing personal stories about how tiny house villages help them get safe, get clean and sober, get their dignity, and begin to manage post-traumatic stress, help their neighbors in the village, and ultimately find housing.

The City Council should be doing everything in our power to make it easier, not more difficult, for people to set up tiny house villages.

And this includes providing every assistance possible with this legislation to tiny house community providers who work on shoestring budgets and don't need any more obstacles in their path.

They need it to be easier for them to do what they're doing.

That means removing the red tape that has been associated, which this bill will do, minus some of the bad amendments that are being proposed, and fight for funding to expand villages and provide them with services like case management.

Just to be clear, this legislation does not provide the funding for additional tiny home villages.

We will need to fight for that funding in the budget this fall.

So we should not confuse the two things.

And we all know that a tiny house is certainly far better than having a tent, and we need to support every effort to replace tents with tiny homes.

However, I do not agree with making that a condition.

to get a permit because putting that obstacle in the way does not help anyone to go from a tent to a tiny house.

It only makes it harder because what homeless service provider will set up a tiny house in an unsanctioned encampment?

You need to make sure that we remove the obstacles.

This bill addresses the land use laws that create the restrictions on tiny house villages.

They have proven beyond any doubt their effectiveness, and I don't think that any council member who adds more obstacles in the path of making sure that, you know, people are able to provide this service can claim to be serious about addressing the homelessness crisis.

I urge council members to support this legislation and to oppose amendments that would constrain opportunities to establish tiny house villages.

First is a substitute bill that is a technical amendment.

It corrects numbering after the amendments in committee, updates the date on the signature line, and so on and so forth.

The second amendment that I'm bringing forward with Grandfather in the existing encampments, and I'll talk more about that.

But there are also other amendments that would actually not help this bill, and I appreciate people speaking in public testimony about them, and I will reserve my comments for when the specific amendments come up.

All right.

Thank you council member Sawant.

So I believe we have nine proposed amendments on the agenda and as chair I will call on each council member in the proposed order as outlined on the table.

At that time the sponsor will have the opportunity to move their amendment and I'm hoping somebody will second their amendment or I will.

So just let me just share this as follows and then we have a We actually have it lined up all nine.

So we'll start with, I'm just gonna list the council member and what amendment numbers they are, and then we'll start with the, we'll just go down the way it's listed in the following order, but we'll start with this.

Council Member Peterson has amendment number one, number seven, and number nine.

Council Member Sawant has amendment number two and number four.

Councilor Mosqueda has amendment number three, and I understand that Council Member Lewis will be presenting Councilor Mosqueda's amendment.

And then Council Member Lewis has amendment number five, six, and eight.

So with that, we're gonna start with amendment number one for Council Member Peterson.

Mr. Peterson, you have the floor.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

So the purpose of this substitute would be to, one of the reasons we're here is because the current ordinance is expiring.

So this substitute would extend the ordinance for two more years.

The idea is to honor the regional homelessness authority that we just established because that authority will be coming back to us with a five-year plan.

It will be informed by experts on this issue, including people with lived experience, and we set that up so that we can have a regional response to this regional crisis.

So this substitute would extend the current law by two years.

It would also allow greater flexibility with the one-year extensions on interim use encampment permits.

And then it would also increase the number of allowable interim use encampments from three, which is the current number under the current law, to 15. As just a reminder to the public, there is no limit on the accessory permits, those that are accessory to a religious institution.

This is just for the interim use, but again, it's increasing it from 3 to 15. Now, realistically, there are several that have a temporary use permit that would convert to an interim use, so it would be using up about, we'd get to just under 10, but this is still adding a greater number.

And I got feedback from that at our committee of the whole last week to look for a larger number.

I'm fine going up to 15. Again, this is meant to extend the current law, allow greater flexibility with the one-year extensions and go from three to 15. Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, did you move to amend the council bill?

So my motion is to have my substitute bill with those three parameters.

The substitution, I'm sorry.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, seconded by Councilor Herbold.

Is there any other comment?

Okay, I'm sorry.

It's been moved and seconded.

Are there any comments on the substitution?

Thank you.

I just want to speak to appreciation to Council Member Peterson in hearing, I think, some of the feedback that he heard last week about the fact that the sunsetting encampments are very likely to be rolling over to use this unsunsetted authority.

and the number of encampments that he proposed last week would essentially take up the new authority.

I regret though that I think the number 15 is still too low and does not allow for enough growth because as we have learned that safe parking Projects also count as transitional encampments, and they will count against this total.

We all received a really welcome update from Human Services Department Director Johnson, Acting Director Johnson, about new safe parking lot locations that are in development.

Some of them are hosted by religious institutions, but some of them are not.

I would hate to just take this action today and not realize any ability for significant growth to meet the need, particularly the need for moving people directly from the streets into safe shelter with a door, with a sense of community, the things with a key, the things that are making this intervention so successful in realizing outcomes to permanent housing.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

All right, seeing no further, oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Sawant.

I apologize, thank you.

No, no problem.

Thank you.

So I just want to be clear with members of the public that this is not really, I don't consider this a substitute.

bill, I consider this is really a no vote disguised as a substitute.

And since Council Member Peterson obviously opposes expanding opportunities to build tiny house villages, I would have preferred if he was just honest about it and voted no on the bill, rather than attempting to tell the public a story that is not actually accurate.

I mean, just to give you an example, he just gave you an impression that he's increasing the number of sanctioned tiny house villages or sanctioned encampments to 15, but really what his substitute would do is take away what is in my original bill, which is 40, and then reduce it to 15. So he, you know, it's a sleight of hand that he's engaging in.

And in reality, this amendment would remove.

If this passes, it would actually be really bad for the whole objective that we are trying to achieve here, which is that this is, the Tiny Home Project has been so successful, and it has been through so many evaluations of all kinds of metrics.

I mean, compare it to the sweeps of homeless people that continue year after year, and the city spends over $8 million every year And it has not proven to be effective in any way whatsoever.

In fact, it creates trauma in people's lives.

And here is a program that very hardworking nonprofit providers have worked on, which actually is providing service.

And the best assessment of this is from homeless people themselves, who will tell you that this is the only thing that has actually helped them get their lives together.

And if this amendment passes, so-called amendment passes, it would be really bad for the underlying bill because it would take away many progressive measures that are contained in this bill, such as streamlining the permitting process for religious and temporary encampments, making tiny houses available in different zones, significantly increasing the number of permitted tiny homes.

And as I said before, and then it would create another sunset clause expiring in two months, two years, sorry, in 2022, which would mean that we would have to go through another seven-month period to extending the permit.

And in reality, if you look at the timing, it would mean we would have to start the process of the next bill to extend it again in the next couple of months.

I'll just say in closing, when my office earlier this year put forward resolutions taking a stand against the war with Iran and against religious persecution in India, issues that matter very deeply to our constituents, Council Member Peterson said that that was a waste of Council's time and that the Council should be focused on addressing the homelessness crisis.

But now I have brought forward a bill that will actually address the homelessness crisis and we have the council member opposing it and attempting to really undermine it.

So I will oppose this amendment.

I will urge the public to be aware of what is going on.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Okay, let's...

Let's go forward with the vote.

I just want to speak to our comments as individual council members and as a body in impugning the motives of our colleagues.

You know, there was another proposal before the committee last week by Councilmember Lewis that was for 20. And so I believe that Councilmember Peterson has brought forward this amendment in good faith.

Nobody accused Councilmember Lewis last week of acting in bad faith.

I believe that Councilmember Peterson heard my concerns and tried to bring forward a proposal.

I'm not supporting that proposal, but I would just like us to show a little grace for one another up here on this dais.

Okay, I'm going to let Council Member Herbold respond briefly and then we're going to go to a vote.

Go ahead, Council Member Sawant.

Well, my colleague Council Member Herbold is free to have whatever opinion she has, but I also am an elected representative and I was elected by the voters of my district.

My loyalty is to ordinary people, not to any elected official.

and I don't believe that this kind of substitute is directed with good intentions, but it's not a question of intentions, it's a question of what effect this substitute would have, and I am primarily focused on the effect it would have, and that is undebatable.

Okay, thank you.

So listen, We have nine amendments in front of us.

And so I'm gonna ask that you withhold your clapping.

This isn't a rally.

I too will agree and second what Councilmember Herbold said about impugning other people's intentions.

I think we're all here trying to do the right thing in a good way.

So with that, I'm gonna move forward with our vote.

Those in favor of the amendments last substitution vote aye and raise your hand.

Those opposed?

Vote no and raise your hand.

No.

You know, at times like this, I would like the public to know that most of the time, 90, 95 percent, we are in agreement.

It's just how we get there.

Jesus.

All right.

So let's go on to the next one.

The next thing we have is amendment number two, which is Council Member Sawant, which is a substitution.

And Council Member Sawant, do you want to go ahead and present it and move to amend or make your motion?

Yes.

This substitute bill is a technical amendment.

It corrects numbering after the amendments that were made in the committee.

It updates the date on the signature line to 2020 from 2019, and it corrects the language around the amendment that Council Member Herbold, who's just left the room, who passed in committee for a geographic spread of villages.

That correction, with Council Member Herbold's agreement, makes the language match how the amendment was verbally described at the committee table, because the written language of the amendment was not the way she had intended, and so we worked it out.

I think I have to move this amendment.

I move amendment two.

Thank you.

Thank you Council Member Peterson for providing a second to Council Member Sawant's amendment slash substitution.

Are there any other comments before we move to a vote?

Okay so with that those in favor of Council Member Sawant's substitution vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

The ayes have it.

It passes.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

All right, let's go to amendment number three.

This is Council Member Mosqueda, but I understand Council Member Lewis will be presenting it.

Council Member Lewis, please take the floor and make the motion.

Thank you, Madam President Pro Tem.

That is correct.

In Council Member Musqueda's absence, I will be moving her amendment.

Quite simply, this amendment modifies a recital in the ordinance, proposed ordinance, to reflect that the appropriations subject to a council proviso in the 2020 budget for homelessness could be expended on tiny house villages, enhanced shelters, or both.

And then it references council budget actions HOM 2 dash D dot 1 and HOM dash 3 dash B dash 3 So just a kind of technical change to the recital And I move that we so amend the council bill okay, so we have the motion can have a second second great

I don't know who said it, but somebody, three people did.

So we have a second as well.

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

Are there any other comments?

Okay, let's go to a vote.

Those in favor of Council Member Mosqueda as presented by Council Member Lewis's amendment, those in favor vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Those opposed, no.

The ayes have it.

The motion carries and is adopted.

So let's move on to amendment number four.

Council Members Sawant, the floor is yours.

No problem.

Yes, I don't expect this amendment to be controversial.

It would grandfather in the existing encampments from the setback requirements that were created in an amendment in the committee meeting.

Practically speaking, this would only impact one encampment, Whittier Heights.

In that encampment, the structures are three feet inside these new setback requirements on one side.

The neighbors are supportive of the encampment.

It would be inefficient and unnecessary to remove them to move a number of their structures by three feet when they renew their permit.

There will be no other impact of this amendment, so I assume it should be okay.

Great.

And I need to move amendment four.

Is there a second?

Second.

Great.

We have a second.

Are there any other comments for Council Member Sawant, Council Member Lewis?

And just really briefly, Madam Chair, I just want to state that this is a particularly personal amendment to me, given that it does impact the Interbay tiny house village in District 7, which I am particularly proud of.

I think they're great neighbors in District 7. I live just up the hill in the uptown neighborhood.

The idea that we would pass something and it would accidentally not incorporate them is something that would really grievously affect me if I found out about it later, so I appreciate that this was caught in time to incorporate in here.

You know, I had the opportunity earlier today at the State of the City address to talk to a few Port of Seattle commissioners again, and Commissioner Steinbrook did come to the committee meeting last month to talk about the port's commitment to that village as well.

It really is a great example of intergovernmental cooperation and I really enthusiastically support this amendment and support the work that's being done at that interbay village.

Thank you.

So with that, it's been moved, it's been seconded.

Are there any other comments before we move to a vote?

Okay.

Those in favor of the amendment vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Those opposed, vote no.

The ayes have it.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Let's move on to amendment number five.

Council Member Lewis, you again?

Sorry.

Yes, yeah.

Thank you, Madam President Pro Tem.

So this amendment, this was part of our discussion as a committee last week where we were discussing the requirements for case management and security.

at the encampment sites.

I had previously proposed an amendment.

The language and wording of that amendment had perhaps in practice would have been too prescriptive and could have impacted the current practices of some of the encampments.

That was something I was concerned about.

So I pulled back that amendment to work on it over the course of the last week.

Having consulted with service providers and central staff, it's my belief that this amendment more appropriately fits the kind of current standards HSD uses when they are talking to providers to provide case management and security in accordance with an approved encampment management plan that allows for the flexibility to accommodate unique circumstances.

So based on that, I move that we incorporate that amendment and that language into the council bill.

We just have a little sidebar here.

So you may, can someone second it?

Oh, Council Member Morales.

I might be doing this too soon.

It's okay.

But I have a proposed amendment to this amendment.

Oh, that's what I was afraid of.

Is this the right time?

Yeah.

Okay, so I'll finish my statement.

And it was not distributed before noon today.

So I'm requesting that the rules be suspended to allow consideration of the amendment that did not meet the council rule.

Okay, so I need to go back.

I apologize.

I didn't know that if you were going to come forward with that.

Yes, my apologies.

That's okay.

So this is actually your amendment to Council Member Lewis's amendment, correct?

Yes, are you passing it out?

I can pass it out here.

So I move to suspend the council rules to allow consideration of Council Member Morales's amendment to Council Lewis's amendment number five.

Yes.

Oh, there it is.

I see it.

I got it.

Second.

Okay.

So we have it moved and we have it seconded.

And go ahead, Council Member Morales.

So I'm moving to amend Council Member Lewis's.

I have it as amendment one, so we should.

Hold on.

Yeah, we need to move to now suspend the rule.

We already moved it.

Oh, I need to, now we need to vote on suspending to allow consideration of the amendment.

Okay.

All, I thought it's just a hearing no objection, but okay.

All those in favor of the Council Member Morales introducing an amendment to Mr. Lewis's amendment vote aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes have it.

The floor is yours.

Thank you.

And again, my apologies, especially after complaining last week about everybody bringing amendments at the last minute.

I appreciate your indulgence.

I move to amend Council Member Lewis's amendment as presented on the distributed document.

The amendment revises section D.1.2 of the Municipal Code 23.42.056 by deleting and security after provide case management.

And the reason that I'm doing this is because, one, I do think that the security requirement can pose additional barriers and costs to beginning new communities.

But also, I believe that we shouldn't be codifying the security requirement when there are different circumstances for different kinds of encampments.

The kind and whether security should be provided can be determined based on the circumstance and really managed during the contracting process.

So that is the rationale for removing it from, for this amendment, removing that language from Council Member Lewis's amendment.

All right, Council Member Lewis, did you want to speak to this?

yes thank you madam president pro tem and i do appreciate council member again um uh council member rouse bringing forward this uh um amendment to uh the amendment um because i do think this is an important thing to to discuss and talk about i appreciate the um spirit in which this amendment has been introduced um i do think it's important First, to mention that regardless of what we do here today as a council, that security requirement that is enumerated in my unamended amendment is in existence.

So regardless of what our action is, and Council Member Morales did acknowledge that in her remarks just now, that requirement does exist.

There does need to be an approved security plan.

From my conversations over the last couple weeks with service providers, you know, one of the things that I think has been the most inspiring is looking at a lot of the peer-managed governance systems that exist in a lot of these camps, how effective they are at coming together as a community, at empowering folks to help manage and run the camps, including providing the security.

And a lot of the security programs that have been approved by HSD are significantly peer-participated in or even peer-run.

And this amendment allows more flexibility for that in a way that the amendment last week might not have.

The second consideration, and I think this is important too, is I do think, you know, there has been a considerable amount of press and public scrutiny regarding the ordinance.

You know, I think one of the criticisms that is often mistakenly levied in the public press against the tiny house villages is that there is no allotment for security or collaboration with neighborhood groups, which we all know is patently false.

I think it helps to enhance this ordinance as a public-facing law to be able to go to the public and say, well, look, this is currently in the HSD rule.

For good measure, we've also enumerated it, spelled it out and codified it in the final ordinance.

I do think it's important that we acknowledge that that is a requirement, it is one that's enforced, and that in many cases it is peer-driven and cognizant of the specific needs of a specific camp.

So I will be respectfully voting against Councilmember Morales' amendment.

Okay, so before we go, I need a second for Council Morales's amendment to Council Lewis's amendment number five.

Can I get a second?

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

So we have a second.

Is there any more comments?

Go ahead, Council Member Sawant.

I will, I want to speak to both the amended version of the amendment and the original.

I will be voting yes to the amendment, but I will be voting no on whatever the final resulting amendment is, whether it is an amended version or not.

But I would like my comments will explain both so based practically speaking either version of the amendment whether it includes just case management or case management and security I don't think it changes much because the requirements are already a condition of receiving funding from the Human Services Department and because of that if the If abstaining were an option, then I would have abstained, but we have to vote yes or no.

So given that, I will be voting yes on Council Member Morales's amended version of the amendment because it sort of mitigates it, but voting no on the final amendment because If there was ever a scenario where the clauses could result in a tiny house village failing to receive a permit, then I think that would be a bad outcome, even though those conditions are already contained in the requirements to receive a permit.

But in the spirit of making, the whole spirit in which I brought this bill forward was to remove obstacles, not put them back in place.

And so in that spirit, I would vote no on the final amendment because it's largely even though it's largely academic in in this case because the encampments already have these requirements.

Thank you.

Okay so what we're going to do is first we it's been moved and seconded and we're going to vote on council member Morales's motion to amend council member Lewis's amended number five first.

So those all in favor of council member Morales's motion vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Okay.

Those opposed?

No.

No.

No.

It fails.

It fails.

The motion fails.

Thank you Council Member Morales for providing that for us.

So we will go on and now we will vote on the base legislation which is Council Member Lewis's which is amendment number five.

All those in favor of amendment number five as presented by Council Member Lewis and seconded vote vote Those in favor of the amendment vote yes and raise your hand.

Well, if you want to vote yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

All those opposed?

No.

No.

It passes.

It passes.

All right.

Let's go to amendment number six, which is Councilmember Lewis again.

Councilmember Lewis.

Uh, and so this amendment, um, and I spun, um, this amendment off from, uh, amendment number five.

Uh, they used to be combined.

The reason for that is, uh, currently it is theoretically possible, though it has not happened yet, that a service provider not receive HSD funding but still open a village.

So this amendment would require that encampment operators who are not funded by HSD still provide case management and security in accordance with the all-home standards.

Those are standards established in the Seattle-King County Continuum of Care Community Standards.

So this just gives, some guidance to providers who might want to go ahead and get a permit without HSD funding, how they would get security and case management requirements met.

But I separated it from the other amendment because it is sort of a distinct category of potential tiny house village operators.

Do you want to move?

And I do move that it be adopted.

Second.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss.

Any other discussion?

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I just want to honor the many, many years, maybe decades at this point of transitional encampments that have functioned without city funding and recognize that onerous obligations such as case management for a more do-it-yourself approach of taking shelter and providing companionship and safety in numbers that has, you know, been able to do so for years and has gotten us to this point that we're talking about expanding sanctioned encampments.

I don't think it's fair to have onerous requirements on the sponsors of transitional encampments that don't receive city funding.

I do feel it is absolutely 100% responsible for requiring it of encampments that do receive city funding and for that reason I will not be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion, we've had it seconded and let's move to a vote.

Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Swan.

Thank you.

I do agree with Council Member Herbold's points as were just made.

And just to clarify, unlike the previous amendment that was put forward, in this case, this amendment, if passed, could really result in tiny house villages failing to get a permit, unlike in the previous case where there's a potential, but not really because those requirements are already in place.

We know many tiny house villages start as groups of self-organized homeless people forming a village.

like a community, and then they request a permit and start to put together services like replacing tents with tiny homes and getting case management services.

I mean, if we want to be connected to the real world, that has been the process through which this has happened, and many, many people have worked on this hard, as Council Member Herbold said, for years, if not decades, on these issues.

And so, you know, I think we have to make it clear that we don't want to increase obstacles in their path, so I would be voting no against this.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Okay, let's move to a vote.

Those in favor of the amendment, vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Those opposed, vote no.

No.

It fails.

It fails.

Let's move on to amendment number seven, which is Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

The purpose of this amendment would be to memorialize the benefits of tiny home villages in that they are providing a physical structure.

They are providing a roof, four walls, a door.

And this legislation, when it originally came out, it was called a tiny home village bill, but it was really just expanding the number of the tent encampments and not providing the structure, what we know of as tiny home villages.

We know that tiny home villages had a shaky start in terms of getting the outcomes we were seeking in terms of getting people to exit to permanent housing.

Tiny home villages made substantial strides.

One of the reasons is because of the case management and so I appreciate my colleague's amendment to add the case management.

This amendment would, in addition to providing that physical structure, would have required case management as well as security.

So the second part of this amendment is consistent with what just passed.

What I'd like to do is there was some discussion during the committee about vehicles and making sure that we were including vehicles in this.

So I am open to removing the last sentence that talk or the part that talks about sleeping areas shall not include recreational vehicles, but may include other owner occupied vehicles.

Happy to accept friendly amendments to that.

But again, the purpose of this is to provide the structure, the case management, and the security.

Thankfully, we just amended it to provide the case management and security, so that's really leaving us with providing that structure that we know of when we see, when we visit tiny home villages, we see the structure.

That's the attraction to have the roof, the four walls, and the door.

So that's what this amendment would do.

So Council Member Peterson, for clarification, is someone proposing a friendly amendment to strike the language you're suggesting or are we just moving forward?

Nope, okay.

Is there any other comment?

Getting ready to ask them.

You need to move the...

Yes, so I'd like to move this amendment number seven.

Is there a second?

Okay, so the motion fails for lack of a second.

Let's move to amendment number eight and that would be Council Member Lewis.

Thank you Madam President Pro Tem.

So amendment number eight, this is a pretty technical change, one, it occurred to central staff that there were some modular developments, well, modular encampments that perhaps would not fit into the definition that we had previously established.

Specifically, there is a modular development that I'm very excited about coming online in Soto that Chief Seattle Club will be the operator for that uses These kind of modular structures that are secure and good spaces This just closes that loophole to make sure structures like that are included in camps like that could get permitted under this ordinance and so I move that we Incorporate that into the definition and move that this amendment be adopted.

Thank you for any comments Okay, so Can I ask a question?

So The legislation would not preclude this kind of housing from being used in different contexts?

Yeah, good question Council Member Morales.

So all this amendment would do is just add modular structures to Our current definition of structures that can be included it wouldn't it wouldn't preclude any of the other definitions that are in there now And and it's strictly talking about this permitting authority not talking about other buildings or other types of Arrangements.

Okay.

Thank you.

So it's been moved

Yes.

And it's been seconded.

Oh, Council Member Sawant.

No, no.

Oh, okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, good.

We have a second there.

Okay.

So with that, we have it moved and seconded.

So let's go to a vote.

Those in favor of the amendment vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Let's go to amendment number nine, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

This amendment would extend the sunset date by three years.

So right now, it's sunsetting, unless we pass what we're aiming to pass today, it would sunset next month.

This would extend it three years.

The rationale here is that we've made some amendments to strengthen the proposal by adding case management, for example.

I'm dismayed that we haven't actually created a tiny home village structure, that this is really a tent encampment expansion instead of tiny home villages, as the bill was originally advertised.

But because we passed the Regional Homelessness Authority, it's important that we allow those experts to come back to us with their five-year plan and their evidence-based strategies to reduce homelessness.

And we revisit this in three years.

Three years is plenty of time for the Regional Homeless Authority to get back to us with their recommendations and their five-year plan.

Thank you.

Did you move to?

I'd like to move this.

This is Amendment 9.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any other comments?

Council Member Herbold.

I just want to say that I believe that the legislation before us is zoning and permitting legislation.

It is not legislation that will be impacted by future decisions of the Regional Homelessness Authority, decisions about how to support Tiny home villages and transitional encampments with our budget might be impacted by those discussions in the future, but not zoning legislation like that we had before us.

Anyone?

Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Pro Tem, thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you Council Member Peterson for bringing all of these amendments forward and to all my colleagues.

Speaking as the Land Use and Neighborhoods Chair, I do want to remind the body that this is a technical bill regarding our land use code.

All of these tiny home villages have a two-step process that they must go through to be stood up and that includes funding.

And that includes a permitting process.

So there is an additional regulatory process that every tiny home village will have, or interim encampment, or safe lot, or any of these programs that we have discussed to go forward.

And that it is in our best interest, to align ourselves with the SEPA analysis that has already occurred to not support this amendment and to use the maximum capacity that we have and to move the bill forward as the procedural bill that it is.

So you're voting no?

That's correct.

Okay, and it's because you believe that it would be duplicative of what your committee is already doing?

This is in accordance with the SIPA analysis that was a that was done even before The new council came to the came to the dais Okay, got it Thank You councilmember Strauss

I just want to go on the record to say when there is a determination about SEPA, that's very important for us to get that input.

It's required to get that input, but that doesn't remove our policy decision as policymakers on whether to proceed with a particular proposal.

And again, this amendment would give us three years of runway to allow this ordinance to take root and to blossom, and then to take the input from the Regional Homelessness Authority, which will be coming to us with a five-year plan that will include the entire menu of evidence-based strategies.

All right, we have a motion in front of us and it's been seconded.

And so now we're going to move to a vote.

And this, I'm sorry, I'll go, go ahead Council Member Sawant.

Thank you President Pruitt, I'm Juarez.

I will just add to the comments that have already been made by Council Member Herbold and Ms. Chavez that Tiny house villages, again, you know, just as a reminder, have a proven track record of success and should not be forced to fight for their very existence every few years.

That is the whole point of what we're doing here, this exercise here.

And I'd also say, just as a thought, exercise.

Imagine if big business was treated that way.

Imagine if corporate developers were told that they could get a master use permit only until 2023. Such a thing doesn't happen, but just think about it.

Think about all the hoops that we force non-profit homeless service providers to jump through to provide the modicum of services for our most vulnerable neighbors.

All right.

Are we ready for a vote?

Okay.

So we have in front of us the amendment and so those in favor of the amendment vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Those opposed?

No.

It fails.

All right.

So we've gone through nine amendments.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for all their conscientious comments, concerns.

I know this has been a lot of work.

I apologize for not being here the last two Mondays as President Pro Tem.

I was out of town.

And particularly to Council Member Mosqueda who took my place for me.

But I'm here today.

So we're going to move forward on the final vote on the bill as amended.

So, I believe before we go that Council Member Sawant wanted to make some comments before the final vote.

Is that correct?

All right.

And then if there's anyone else, and then we will vote.

Council Member Sawant, you have the floor.

Thank you.

So I just wanted to start by saying there's no reason why a city like Seattle, it is one of the wealthiest cities in the history of humanity, why a city like Seattle should be home to any homelessness, let alone the amount of homelessness that we see.

This is a city that is home to so many millionaires and even billionaires, and still we have not succeeded in ending homelessness.

In fact, the skyrocketing rents have created a pipeline into new homelessness.

And to be sure, even after the passage of this bill, which I hope it passes in its current form, we will need to tax big business to fund a massive expansion in investments in publicly owned or controlled social housing.

We will need rent control.

We will need to shore up renters' rights as a whole.

We will need to make sure that middle-class property owners, working people, and small business owners are not facing the brunt of the funding, the addressing the crisis.

But today, this will be an important victory for our movement to stand with our homeless neighbors and to make sure that we take steps towards making this a humane city.

We know tiny houses are not a replacement for actual housing.

But while homelessness exists, there is no reason why people should be left on the streets.

There should be a tiny house available for anyone who has nowhere better to go to.

While not an alternative to affordable housing, it is a powerful way to make homelessness less harmful and has been proven to help homeless people get back on their feet.

Passing this legislation will be a real triumph for homeless activists and advocates who have fought for years to establish their first encampments and then tiny house villages.

It is really important to remember the history of this struggle because homeless people and their advocates and their house neighbors had to fight for it and they had to be united to fight for it.

Camp Second Chance was first to be created when activists took bolt cutters to the chain lock blocking access to the unused Mayor's Way parcel.

and set up an encampment.

It's important to remember this history.

They were threatened with a sweep, and we had to organize to stop the then mayor from kicking them out at that early stage.

Similarly, Shareville and Nicholsville have occupied city, county, and state land to set up unpermitted encampments until they won permits.

Over the last year, both the Georgetown and Northlake tiny house villages have been threatened with losing their permits, and Northlake is currently under threat.

Our People's Budget Movement won the first funding for encampments in 2014, and I wanted to, again, in terms of remembering, thank Councilmembers, at that time Councilmembers Licata and O'Brien, and also Councilmember Herbold, who worked in Councilmember Licata's office at that time, to help win that funding, and then win increases to that funding in subsequent years.

Imagine what tiny house villages could accomplish if they were really supported by City Hall rather than having to fight constantly for their right to exist.

Today we are passing this legislation.

to massively expand opportunities to build tiny house villages, but tomorrow we will have to fight for their funding in the budget.

I don't mean literally tomorrow, but this year.

To make this expansion a reality.

To all the homeless people who have fought for and won tiny house villages, today's victory belongs to you because of your dedication and courage And I also want to thank the churches and all the faith leaders of different faiths who have not only hosted tiny house villages, are currently hosting, but have spoken in favor of the tiny house villages.

The neighbors, the house neighbors of the villages who have shown that the majority of Seattle does not buy into the safe Seattle rhetoric, and that we care about our homeless neighbors deeply, and that we care about ending homelessness.

And I want to thank Cher, Weill, Nicholsville, Lehigh, Women in Black.

Thank you for all your organizing.

The history of the struggle for tiny houses in Seattle has shown that when we fight, we can win.

And I thank council members who voted against some of the worst amendments, keeping this bill, as it goes out, strong.

Thank you.

Good.

So before we go to a vote, I just briefly want to thank the public for coming here today and providing public comment.

Believe it or not, we actually listen and appreciate.

We see some of the same faces and it means a lot.

Some of us up here have experienced homelessness and we do know what that feels like, including myself.

I think at the end of the day, though, all of us want to do one thing with you and all of us in this city is that we continue to make a commitment to be connected to each other's humanity.

Because at the end of the day, we do care about sheltering the unsheltered.

And again, it's how we get there.

So with that I'm gonna go and Now that we've had in front of us Please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended Strauss.

All right, Herbold.

Aye Lewis.

Aye Morales.

Aye Peterson.

No.

Sawant.

Aye President Juarez.

Aye Six in favor one opposed.

All right

OK, so OK, hold on.

OK, OK.

OK.

Done with that, the bill passes as amended in the chair will sign it.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

So moving along in our agenda, We're going to go to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, the report.

Please read those items three and four, both appointments into the record.

The report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee agenda items three and four, appointments 1554 and 1547. Appointment and reappointments of Prachi Vyapanchandra Dave and Colleen Echo Hawk as members Community Police Commission for term to December 31st, 2020 and for term to December 31st, 2022. The committee recommends that the appointments be confirmed.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So appointment 01545 is appointment to the CPC of Prachi Day.

There are multiple authorities for the Community Police Commission.

One is the Community Police Commission itself, another is the executive, and the other is the council.

Prachi Dave is an appointment by the Community Police Commission.

She is a senior attorney at the Public Defender Association, and she is filling one of the two positions specifically reserved for people who have expertise in issues related to civil liberties.

The accountability legislation adopted by the council in 2017 reserved two CPC positions for graduates of an accredited law school and members in good standing of the Washington State Bar Association with significant experience in the fields of public defense and civil liberties law.

The second appointment, appointment 01547 is reappointment to the CPC of Colleen Echohawk.

Ms. Echohawk was originally appointed on January 14th, 2019 And Deputy Mayor Reganathan presented this appointment at committee on Tuesday.

Ms. Echo Hawk is Executive Director of the Chief Seattle Club and as founder of the Coalition to End Native Homelessness.

One of the issues that has been raised today is some concern about the fact that although Ms. Echo Hawk is a reappointment, she is taking the place of an individual that the mayor declined to reappoint to the CPC.

This is an individual that I am myself reappointing and this individual will be on the committee agenda for my committee, the Public Safety and Human Services Committee on Tuesday and we will be voting on that individual on Tuesday.

So again, the concern that a member, a current member of the CPC in good standing who has done fantastic work may not serve on the CPC is not an occurrence that is going to take place and I am moving forward with that person because the, or not because but in spite of the fact that the mayor declined to reappoint her.

Thank you.

All right.

Are we doing them together?

Okay.

Do you have a second?

What did you do?

Are you doing Colleen now?

I just did both together.

You did?

Okay.

Any comments?

Okay, good.

All right.

Those in favor of confirming appointments, vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, vote no.

The ayes have it.

Okay, is there any other business?

Yes, of course there is.

Oh yeah, you have your letter.

Yes, the letter.

So over the weekend, I shared with council members a draft letter and get it all set, regarding the need for the mayor to move forward and her executive team to move forward on the finalizing the contract for LEAD.

As I mentioned this morning in council briefings, it requests more information from the executive about the contracting conversations between LEAD and the Human Services Department.

It proposes a contracting approach that would allow LEAD to return to a fully functioning program.

As I think we are all aware, LEAD is reaching a critical point where their effectiveness is severely compromised by caseloads that are far too high and an inability to serve any new or previously referred individuals.

The Council allocated an additional $3.5 million to LEAD to address these problems, but that funding has not yet been committed to LEAD.

We are now at the end of February and I think it is really critical to recognize that this program that I think we all rely on its effectiveness and its effectiveness throughout the city is really bounded by their ability to take new referrals both from the police department and new referrals from our stakeholders within the business community.

We are hampering that ability to continue its effectiveness and it's just, I'm really at a loss as to why we're at the end of February and this trusted community partner does not have a contract yet.

So I'm hoping that this letter that We are signing here today.

We'll amplify for the executive the sense of urgency that we feel around this issue and the sense of responsibility, really.

Thank you, Councilor Herbold.

Are there any other questions or concerns?

Okay, so you were passing that letter around and I can I go ahead and adjourn?

No, I think we have to wait.

Oh, thank you.

Now we just filibuster.

Council Member Sawant is my co-president over here.

I'm glad she's in that seat.

We're passing around the letter for signature and do I wait till everyone signs it?

Okay, I have to wait.

We'll wait until we have our last signatory and then I will move to adjourn.

Where are you going, Mr. Lewis?

We're not even adjourned.

I'm just scratching.

I got ready, but didn't move.

I did that.

Is that letter from this morning going to be recirculated?

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Hurd.

It's been circulated and it's been signed.

Oh, thank you, Council Member Peterson.

And so with that, we stand adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.