Seattle City Council Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies & Investments 2/10/20

Morales and Sawant.

We did earlier have the recess, so I'm gonna skip that part of the script and just call the meeting back to order.

So first, approval of the agenda.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

So chair's report, just very briefly.

This is a special meeting of this committee.

Today we're gonna hear discussion and debate and then I hope to hold a vote on the transitional encampment legislation.

I'm very thankful for Council Member Swan for bringing this legislation forward and for all the work that, and we have just been joined at table by Council Member Peterson and all of my other colleagues who have worked very critically on this ordinance who have contributed a lot of potential amendments, and we will discuss those amendments in turn after public comment.

So now for public comment, I will open it for public comment.

We have 13 folks who have signed up to speak.

I will accept folks to come up and speak as a group if folks elect to do so.

I am going to keep the time limit, I think, at the two-minute time limit.

Just when you come up, I want to note there are two microphones, the one closer to the window, this one that's in the middle of the room.

Please feel free to use either one.

And you can kind of queue up if you know that you're on deck.

I will call up three names at a time.

I apologize in advance for my terrible pronunciation of folks' names.

If I have a hard time reading, the name is written on the sheet.

I don't mean anything by it.

But I will start with, is it Connor McMurtry?

Lonnie McMurtry, oh, sorry, that's an L, yes.

Lonnie McMurtry, followed by Cassandra Gaspard, followed by Sharon Lee.

Hi, Council.

I'm Lonnie McMurtry.

I was a resident at Tiny Houses in Ballard, and I'm here to represent for them, Tiny Houses, and for Lehigh.

Saved my life.

They embraced me with open arms.

I've now moved on and got my own place.

and it's really a vital, essential need for the homelessness crisis in Seattle.

It's not a cure for homelessness, but it's a step up and to move on and get your dignity and your respect back.

They opened doors for me that in nine months that, I didn't see anywhere in my future when I was out there homeless, and they've helped immensely, and I'm still gonna come and advocate for homelessness and for tiny houses.

It's definitely better than tents, and people need that, and people are dying out there from the cold and from homelessness, senseless crimes.

Christy Jackson that got shot for helping somebody, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But homeless is no joke.

It makes you battered and broken.

And as a woman, it's tiny house saved my life.

I mean, they're everything to help somebody boost their morale and to get motivated and back on the right track.

And please keep funding this.

Tiny homes are essential.

I'm living proof that it does work.

I'm just here and will keep coming back for tiny homes because they're awesome and they really do work and it's a step forward out of homelessness and they give you every essential need and you need the tools you need, everything you need to put you back on the right track and the time.

Thank you so much.

Your time has expired.

Thank you.

Next, Cassandra Spard.

Good afternoon, my name is Cassandra Gaspard, and I too am a resident of Camp Second Chance, Tiny Home Village, and I am also an employee of Lehigh.

I frequent going downtown on the streets every workday, and I see the folks that are not privileged enough to have a tiny house sleeping on the sidewalk with cardboard.

whatever they can do to keep the cold wet, you know, off of them and the ground.

The village has allowed me to have security and a safe place to be with 24-hour security for myself to be able to keep my belongings and go look for work.

I seriously don't know as a single woman where I would be if I didn't have that opportunity to have a safe place.

And I'm always going to be fighting for the homelessness.

Tiny house villages seem to be a step towards, you know, giving folks a second chance at changing their lives.

And I don't know about all the ordinances that are in place, but I know that if some of them could be adjusted and moved and rearranged, then certainly there could be room for more tiny house villages to be placed throughout the city.

So thank you, and I hope that it passes.

Thank you so much.

Sharon Lee, followed by Peggy Hotess.

Good afternoon, I'm Sharon Lee, Director, Low Income Housing Institute, and I just want to let people know the overall number of people who have been helped by tiny houses.

1,624 people have been housed in tiny houses.

And of the people who have moved out, we have 740 have gotten housing, 740 people.

And 670 people have gotten income support.

And the majority of people, overwhelming majority, have been able to obtain housing within the one to six month period.

So we really like the idea of tiny houses being a bridge to long-term housing.

In terms of the amendment, we're concerned that, I believe that safe parking and tent cities as well as tiny house villages are considered as part of this covered by this ordinance.

So we know that some private organizations, nonprofits would like to have like maybe five or six cars, you know, people living in their cars, that they could have a place that would be safe.

And so we think that the council should not reduce the number of possibilities or opportunities, because it covers safe parking, as well as tent cities, as well as tiny house villages.

If you were just limiting this to tiny house villages, I think it would be a different story.

Now, because safe parking is also included, overnight parking is an option.

So we know that case management is valuable, but 24-7 security would not apply to, let's say, an overnight parking situation.

Our feeling is that case management makes sense if there's, and city funds are available, case management as well as meeting the HSD outcomes makes sense if the city is funding it.

We feel that the neighborhoods, just about every neighborhood has homeless people.

So we would like to make sure that tiny house villages could be in all neighborhoods and not limited to this one mile or only, um you know one council district before you have to hit every council district before you thank you your time is expired

Good afternoon, council members.

I'd like to encourage you to vote for the tiny house ordinance as it's written, without the slew of last minute amendments, and I'll talk about just a few of those amendments that I find without merit.

Amendment number one would cut the number of tiny house villages from 40 to 20, and there's really no reason to do that, especially when we know that they're effective and safe and they're critically needed.

Amendment number two would direct HSD to establish the standards for operating tiny house villages.

So HSD so far has shown that they're really incapable of effectively administering such a program.

There's no grievance process for HSD.

There's no grievance process or bill of rights for the residents of tiny house villages.

And furthermore, they've very foolishly given the operations one operator a monopoly on operating tiny house villages.

Amendment number three would require professional case managers.

I don't know if you realize this but there are very few that are real accredited case managers at the tiny house villages right now.

Very few.

So what would happen is they would either have to retrain all of them or send them back to school if that were to become a requirement.

Really the biggest value in tiny house villages is that they're safer and healthier than unsanctioned encampments and there's really case managers really are the be-all, are not the be-all and end-all of tiny-ass villages.

They're a value in and of themselves without that.

Thank you.

And then the following folks will be Sean Smith, followed by Alex Finch, followed by Travis Johnson.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Sean Smith.

I am a resident of Nicholsville North Lake Village.

I'm here to speak to Amendment 2, the clear policies set forth by HSD.

I think before doing that, we first have to examine HSD, which has no grievance process at present.

A grievance process must be established at HSD so that it may be held accountable for not following through on the ordinance as is written.

as they have done with the last ordinance.

I think it's vitally important to protect the rights of residents in those villages.

There have been several cases at Othello and other villages where the case managers have violated the rights of those villagers.

And those have been forwarded through the present grievance process and not addressed properly.

there is nowhere to appeal and there is no oversight.

Please fix that before trying to fix this amendment or amend this ordinance.

Thank you.

I hate being tall.

Good afternoon council members.

My name is Alex Finch.

I am a resident in Nicholsville North Lake.

I'm Going to try to appeal to your human nature today, but we'll see.

Because Seattle has three-fourths of King County's homeless population, and as women and black have told you before, 112 of those died last year.

We all know that tiny houses save lives.

So when are you going to put human lives over spending?

When did putting a dollar amount on a human life become the standard?

Please just pass this ordinance as is, so that way we can help save more lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Travis Johnson is next, followed by, is it Andrea or Andrew?

Just one name written down.

Okay, great.

And then that person will be followed by Naomi.

Good evening, Select Committee.

I'm Travis Johnson, a Nicholsville volunteer.

Currently, I am homeless.

And currently, I have read all the I agree with Alex French about it should be as is.

It shouldn't be amended.

That would just be some corporate BS, but that is all I can say on that for this time.

I do think that tiny houses save lives.

I have seen it done.

I have I don't know about case managers.

I knew when I was in Georgetown, I had a case manager.

I see him like once a week, but that was just it.

At the end of the day, I think that tiny homes save lives on the streets.

I've seen the streets.

Believe me, you would not want to be there right now.

In the rain, in the cold, in with no hope, believe me, tiny house villages save lives.

And to say that only 20 is needed, I think 150 is needed.

But if we can only get 40 at this time, that would be great.

I've seen I live like in a shelter like two minutes from here.

We can go down there and I can show you the people who have to sleep outside because there's no room.

And believe me, tiny house villages are a must.

You wouldn't like it sleeping outside in the wet cold because this is Seattle, it rains 40% of the time.

But yeah, that's all I have to say right now.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Andrew Constantino.

I'm the site coordinator for the Georgetown Tiny House Village.

Georgetown Village, on any given day, has 60 plus villagers and takes referrals exclusively from the navigation team.

The majority of our villagers have suffered on the street for many years, if not decades, and have layers of physical and emotional trauma.

The village offers shelter, safety, and community to the most vulnerable in our streets, as well as direct access to services through our on-site case managers.

Our village enjoys the support of the greater Georgetown neighborhood, and we're very thankful for the compassion that they have shown us time and again.

The hardest part of working for the villages is the number of people we have to turn away because we are full.

Many of the villagers have friends and loved ones still on the street and ask me daily how they might get placed into a tiny house.

I respond to inquiries for openings from police, local neighbors, service providers, and people in crisis themselves every day.

Many times the only answer is to not give up and to call again soon.

Tiny house villages are a safe and humane way to quickly alleviate the suffering of those on our streets.

Let's do more.

The next will be Naomi followed by Chris McDaniel.

Hi, my name is Naomi.

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

I would like to speak specifically to a couple of the proposed amendments.

First, while the geographic distribution of encampments should be a priority, the current amendment creates significant barriers to siting encampments and providing desperately needed services for people across the city.

Second, all of our city-funded villages have case management, but many have proven that they can operate successfully without 24-7 security.

It is more important to allocate this money to expanding case management services.

Finally, it is important to allow for an expanded definition of authorized encampments that include the crucial safe parking model, while maintaining the current number of authorized encampments to ensure services are available for all.

It has been a privilege to work with the Tiny House Village community, and I really want to thank you all for everything you've done and really putting voices at the center of policy.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So Chris McDaniel.

Okay, thank you, sir.

You may proceed.

Yes, I'm one of the leaders at Georgetown Tiny House Village.

And yeah, every day I turn people away.

More than I can count.

Sometimes it's two or three a day.

Everybody there has somebody they know who's living outside still.

We have a few people that, you know, visit a lot.

If you could only fund one more, that would be better than none at all.

I think that's about it.

Thank you so much everybody for your public comment and a lot of the questions and concerns you raised I'm sure will be addressed during our discussion, so I encourage everyone to stick around for the rest of the agenda, which we'll now proceed to, and that is to consider Council Bill 119656. So at this time, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 119656. and it has been moved and seconded.

So now that the bill is before the committee, I'm going to propose that the committee first hear a presentation from Ketel Freeman from central staff on all the proposed amendments.

During the presentation, council members are certainly welcome to ask additional questions related to the proposed amendments as we go down the list.

Mr. Freeman will present the amendments in the order that I am proposing and how they are listed on the table chart.

I will just briefly say that the The reason that I decided on this particular order in consultation with council central staff and with the committee clerk, Mr. Thorpe, is just based on the deepest, most substantive changes to the relatively more minor ones.

Obviously would have very big implications if Council Member Peterson's substitute bill were immediately put in, would have a lot of implications for the subsequent amendments.

That's the basis for the ordering.

So based on that just quick overview, I'll hand it over to Mr. Freeman for a general review of the amendments.

Sure.

Thank you.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff.

Each of you has sort of a cover sheet that describes the eight potential amendments, and behind that cover sheet is the amendment language, the amendments themselves, distributed to you last night and again this morning with a couple of additional amendments.

As Councilmember Lewis mentioned, the amendments are sort of put into categories.

The first is Councilmember Peterson's substitute.

The next category deals with the number of authorized encampments.

and the council's intent towards that number.

This next category has to do with interim use encampment operating standards, and the last category has to do with interim use encampment setbacks and location.

With respect to Council Member Peterson's substitute, what you have in your packet is both a track changes version as well as a clean copy, and it's probably worth explaining a couple, some of the content in the track changes version because it's not, it's potentially confusing.

Councilmember Peterson's substitute would leave most substantive and procedural development standards for siting transitional encampments in place, but make some of the changes suggested in Councilmember Swann's bill.

It would allow up to 10 interim use transitional encampments.

multiple one-year extensions of interim use encampment permits and conversions to interim uses of encampments authorized as temporary uses.

And the amendment would also extend the self-executing sunset from March 31st, 2020 to March 31st, 2022. In reading the bill, just to be clear to those folks who may be watching, you will see some pretty big strikethroughs for sections that include some portions that Councilmember Peterson is proposing to amend.

For instance, if you look at page 2 of Councilmember Peterson's amendment, what you see is that most of the locational standards are eliminated.

Those standards are eliminated from the bill and not from the code, so the practical effect of that would be that the locational standards would remain the regulation for citing interim use encampments.

Moving on to any questions about Councilmember Peterson's amendment?

Moving on to amendments related to the number of authorized interim use encampments.

Council Member Mosqueda has some proposed amendments to the recitals that would reflect the council's intent in making some budgetary changes last year and also signal the council's intent in the future to review the cap on interim use transitional encampments based on changed circumstances.

And those changed circumstances could include information that comes from the one-night count that's conducted annually.

citing availability and the success of tiny house villages and exits to permanent housing.

So those are the two amendments to deal with a number of authorized interim use encampments.

Yeah, Councilmember Herbold.

Actually, I kind of lost my way.

If I could go back to amendment one that Councilmember Peterson is sponsoring.

The part of the amendment is to move the sunset date to 2022. And I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, is that this is intended to allow the Regional Homelessness Authority to take over the work on updating the permit process?

Yes.

And I guess I'm just a little concerned that Since that's at least a year away, does this amendment allow for anything beyond sort of maintaining the status quo over the next year until the authority begins its work?

Chair, may I answer the question?

Is that okay?

The 10 cap goes also with the sunset.

It's not like we can move forward with 10 now, wait for the Regional Housing Authority to do its thing, and then look at more than 10?

I think I understand your question.

Thank you for the question.

So the intent here is because we just stood up the Regional Homelessness Authority, rather than introducing a major new expansion or change in our policy to make sure this authorization does not expire, extend it two years, to increase the number of allowed encampments from three to 10, and to allow the one-year extensions, which were part of the original legislation.

So it does expand from three to 10. It allows the additional flexibility, the one-year extensions, and then the date is really just to get us so that the Regional Homeless Authority is operating, and we can then hear from those experts and implement those evidence-based strategies that we're looking for.

Did it move from the three to 10 until after?

The 3 to 10 would happen immediately.

Yes, thank you.

Now I understand.

Immediate increase.

And Council Member Suwanti, do you have a question as well?

One process question.

I'm assuming this is not the time when we talk about our views on the amendment, just the clarification with Cadyl, is that correct?

Right, I think we're just asking for clarifications of central staff and colleagues.

Yes, yes, I think that's, I mean, yes, that is where we are.

I mean, it's your initial question, that wasn't like a leading question, that was an actual question.

Yes, yes.

No, that's why I'm asking that these are just clarifying questions.

Yes, it is not yet time for us to ask our rhetorical questions to undermine the amendments, yes, so.

Thank you for clarifying the process.

On actual questions, I'm a little confused by what Council Member Peterson has said, because the regional authority is not a land use body.

I mean, it's a funding body, so I'm not exactly sure how, what, I actually don't know, I have any idea what you mean, honestly.

Do you have an answer?

Sure.

So the Regional Homeless Authority will be providing recommendations on how to fund interventions and solutions based on the people who have lived experience, the members of the King County Council and Seattle City Council are on that.

those boards.

So I think the Regional Homeless Authority, we are looking for direction.

The whole reason we created that was to have that expertise and sound direction from them on where to fund investments rather than doing anything drastic or any drastic changes to our current.

This, however, would allow from going from three to 10, allow the one-year extensions, and then we'll see how things go with the Regional Homeless Authority.

Do you have another clarifying question?

Well, it's not a question.

I do want to clarify, though.

I think two completely separate things are being conflated.

This is a land use code change bill.

It doesn't comment on funding at all.

All it does is expands the ceiling of the number of tiny house villages that could possibly be situated inside the city limits, but the funding question still remains separate.

And in fact, I've been saying over and over again that this is simply a land-use bill and this is an important step, but we will still have to continue funding.

So I don't know why you're conflating the two.

I don't believe I am.

I believe that the Regional Homeless Authority will provide guidance on what to fund.

That may trigger then land use changes that are required.

And we can visit that in two years.

But they're not, but they won't be able to fund anything if the law, city's law does not allow more tiny house villages.

I just, I don't agree with how you're describing it.

I think at this point we're spilling over into debating the merits of the substitute bill, so good conversation, but let's hold it, I think, at this point until we get to formally considering it.

So, Keogh, can we move on to the next one?

Sorry, I think I was on number three.

Unless there's any final clarifying questions on Council Member Peterson's substitute bill.

Okay.

So moving on to number three here, this is the second amendment that deals with the number of authorized interim use encampments.

This is an amendment proposed by Councilmember Lewis that would increase the number from three to 20. As introduced, the bill would increase the maximum number from three to 40. The next three amendments have to do with interim use encampment operating standards.

The first is an amendment proposed by Councilmember Peterson.

It would in some ways memorialize the notion of tiny house villages into the interim use encampment regulatory regime.

sleeping areas and interim use transitional encampments would be required to have a solid structure to reflect the concept of tiny houses.

And it would also require 24-hour security and case management.

The next amendment is proposed by Councilmember Lewis.

This amendment is somewhat similar to Councilmember Peterson's, except that it deals only with case management and 24-hour security.

The concept of tiny house villages being reflected in the type of structure is not included in that amendment.

And Ketel, if I could just take a moment on that one.

I'm actually going to be withdrawing that amendment today based on some conversations with Council Member Mosqueda's office, Frieda Cuevas, and Council Member Mosqueda's office raising potential concerns with that amendment.

My understanding was that that amendment purely dealt with sort of memorializing already established requirements and kind of our current practices of administering tiny house encampments.

I think that my read from emailing back and forth with you earlier, Ketel, that it's a little more complicated than that.

So my intention would be to take a week and kind of work on some substitute language with that particular amendment for when we bring this forward for the final vote.

It's something that accomplishes the same purpose, but is a little more kind of reflective of what our current practices are with how case management and security is provided in tiny house encampments.

It was not my intention with this amendment to create new requirements for tiny house or transitional encampments.

It was rather to kind of put in writing practices that are already in place.

And just to make sure that that's what we're actually doing with that amendment language, I'm going to withdraw that from consideration today and work on that over the course of the next week.

Okay, moving on to the next amendment.

Just on that, I know you're withdrawing it.

Just to make sure, we're talking about on your preferred order, number five?

Yes, Council Member Swann.

Okay.

The next amendment, also sponsored by Council Member Lewis, would put a requirement in the land use code that The operation of tiny house villages or transitional interim use encampments, the compliance with contract performance standards for those encampments that receive city funds be an operating requirement for that interim use transitional village.

Moving on to the next two, both proposed by Councilmember Herbold, which have to do with interim use encampment locations, both within the city and also on a site, so they deal with setbacks.

The first amendment is essentially a geographic distribution amendment.

It would require that currently, maybe I should remind Councilmembers a little bit of the current development standard, but currently interim use encampments, so not the other types of encampments, but interim use encampments have to be located one mile from any other type of encampment.

with certain exceptions.

This amendment would maintain that standard until geographic distribution is met throughout the city, and there are a couple of exceptions to that dispersion requirement.

The next amendment, also proposed by Councilmember Herbold, would establish setback standards from adjacent properties, 10-foot setback from abutting single-family-zoned properties and five feet from all other abutting properties, no setback would be required when there's not an established use on an adjacent site.

So those are the eight amendments.

And Ketel, I do have a question about that last amendment that Council Member Herbold has put forward, just for clarification.

How does that interface with the current setback requirements that are in the current ordinance that'll be expiring?

Yeah, there's, this is a picture, this discussion would benefit from a picture.

I'll try to describe some stuff to you.

I think I did send around the site plans for each of the established interim use encampments, and there's really only one that, there are a couple that are instructive, I guess.

There is one, currently there is a 25 foot setback that is required from all residential properties.

Whittier Heights has a site limitation based on that setback.

There are, there's an adjacent now multifamily zone across the alley from the Whittier Heights tiny house village.

The alley width counts towards that setback, so what, and it's a 16-foot alley width.

So there are nine feet of the site on the alley edge that are not used for active encampment uses.

The site plan shows outdoor storage and bicycle parking there.

Another place to look to sort of understand what this amendment might look like is with True Hope Village.

True Hope Village is not established as an interim use encampment.

It's currently accessory to a faith-based institution, the True Hope Baptist Church, and they have provided some voluntary setbacks.

That site is actually split zone, so part of that site is in a commercial zone, and the other part of that site is in a low-rise three multifamily zone.

In the low-rise three multifamily zone, they have 10-foot setbacks on abutting residential property lines.

On the commercial, abutting the commercial zone, they have no setback.

Thank you for that clarification.

Are there any final kind of substantive questions related to how these amendments work or kind of what they would do for central staff or for the sponsor of the amendments potentially before we move on to actually considering them?

Yes, Council Member Herbold.

As it relates to the dispersion amendment, because we heard from folks in public comment about concerns as it relates to how the ordinance addresses safe parking lots, and that safe parking lots are also sort of part of the definition of a transitional encampment.

I just want to ask that you share with me what I, what you shared, share with my colleagues what you shared with me after I heard that public comment as it relates specifically to the both transitional encampments as we traditionally think of them, tiny house villages, and safe parking lots that are under the religious exemptions part of the permitting process.

Sure.

So the definition of transitional encampment contemplates vehicles used as shelter.

I'll just read it here.

Transitional encampment means a use having tents or a similar shelter, including vehicles used for shelter that provides temporary quarters for sleeping and shelter.

The youths may have common food preparation, shower, or other commonly used facilities that are separate from the sleeping shelters.

My understanding is that most safe parking lots are not established as interim use transitional encampments.

They are accessory to faith-based organizations that are typically in the parking lot of a church.

So, transitional encampment can include a safe parking lot with or without an association with a faith-based institution.

Currently, they are primarily established as accessory to a faith-based institution.

But the bill as written now would allow safe parking lots to be permitted through the interim use pathway.

They could also be permitted through a temporary use process.

One thing to keep in mind is that there's an exception to the dispersion requirement, and that's for smaller sites.

So let me see if I can find the exact language.

I think it is, if there are 10 or fewer, either residents or villages, then the dispersion requirement does not apply.

So smaller scale, for whatever reason, I'm not finding it here, Council Member Herbold, but for smaller scale encampments that are established through the interim use process, the one mile dispersion requirement would not apply.

All right, well, you've thought of everything, thank you.

And Keitel, I have one additional clarifying question about Council Member Herbold's Amendment 7. Is my reading correct that on the second bracketed part of that, that the one mile separation would no longer apply if there was an encampment in every single district?

That's correct.

Okay, yeah, that's what I thought, just wanted to make sure.

Okay, does anyone have any other final questions for central staff?

Okay, so seeing none, I think we can proceed along here to the amendments.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to move your substitute bill?

Yes, I'd like to move my substitute bill for discussion.

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ketel, for presenting that to us.

The purpose of this substitute bill is to recognize that the current law is expiring and we don't want to, we wanna make sure we keep the number of encampments that we currently have and not let the bill, not let the law expire.

Also wanna increase some flexibility and increase the numbers a little bit as we wait for the Regional Homeless Authority to provide information to us.

Specifically, the, According to the interlocal agreement that the council the previous council passed the authority is to develop and implement a five-year plan and The five-year plan incorporates requirements of the master agreements from the parties and requirements of the funders, may be informed by regional action plan.

The five-year plan incorporates principles of equity and social justice and shall identify strategies to reduce homelessness in at least the following populations, youth and young adults, families, veterans, single adults, seniors, and those experiencing acute behavioral health challenges.

The purpose of this substitute is really to get us to that period when we will have the five-year plan from the Regional Homeless Authority, which will be recommending various interventions based on the experts and people, including people, lived experience.

In addition, this substitute would increase from three to 10 the number of interim use traditional or transitional encampments.

Currently, the Seattle Municipal Code allows up to three, however, it also allows unlimited for accessory encampments and temporary encampments.

So it's already unlimited for those types of encampments.

My substitute would increase the interim use from three to 10. and also allow for one-year extensions of interim use encampment permits to be handled by the director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

Okay, thank you Councilmember Peterson.

Are there any other comments on Councilmember Peterson's proposed substitute bill?

Customer Herbold.

I have a question.

I think I'm going to direct it to central staff if it's okay.

Because I want to understand how this limit of 10 would sort of play out, likely to play out in the real world.

We now have a situation where we have I think about seven encampments, maybe eight that are permitted under the temporary use permit process.

I'm going to look.

We have, I believe there are eight.

I'm going to look back at my colleague, Jeff, to see.

Yes, that is eight.

Eight.

Not all of them are permitted under the temporary use process.

I think when I was looking at the permit records for the eight encampments, I believe I think six of them are permitted through temporary use for the temporary use permit process through renewable four-week temporary use.

permits and two I believe are associated with a faith-based host.

So after passage of this legislation, is it reasonable to assume given the track record of the six of eight that are currently permitted under the temporary use permit process that they are going to move to be under this ordinance to allow for longevity?

That is a likely scenario.

I think probably the most flexible pathway for permitting a transitional use encampment is with, in association with a faith-based host.

There's no limit on how long the encampment, for example, can be at a certain location in that circumstance.

But if there are a lack of hosts, for example, the interim use pathway is preferable.

There's more certainty for a provider than the temporary use pathway.

I mean, given that we don't know everything and it is possible for some additional hosts to come by and agree to enter into a lease agreement with the property owner so that they can be exempt from either our temporary use permit process or this ordinance, I think it's reasonable to assume at least six will, move to be implemented and allowed under this ordinance and so my concern was that this ordinance would only allow for four additional and given Councilmember Peterson's amendment, his substitute version, would only allow for probably four additional encampments until after the sunset associated with the Regional Homelessness Authority.

So that's my concern with this amendment.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sawant.

Thank you.

Just to go over some of the progressive measures in the original bill under consideration that would be removed by this, what's called an amendment, but really it's a no vote in disguise.

I mean, the original bill, if passed, would make tiny houses available in different zones.

That was one of the major components of why we are doing this bill in the first place.

Significantly increasing the number of permitted tiny houses, another big reason why we're considering this in the first place because there is a major homelessness crisis and we don't want to create more barriers.

The whole purpose of this legislation is to remove those barriers and to provide an expansion of a solution that is working.

Everybody on this council says data-driven 10 times a day, but this is incredibly data-driven.

This amendment would create another sunset clause expiring in two years in 2022, which would mean we would have to go through another seven-month period to extend the permits.

And in reality, with the sunset clause, we would want to start the process of the next bill to extend it again in the next couple of months.

I mean, I just...

I mean obviously oppose this amendment, but you know just to highlight that it will undo seven months of work, expanding opportunities to build tiny house villages, and it's really as I said just it's a no vote on the legislation as a whole because it dismantles everything.

All right, thank you Council Member Sawant.

Are there any additional comments?

Okay, seeing none, Council Member Peterson, I'm going to make a few comments and then as the sponsor of the amendment, you have the right to make some final remarks.

So, I am just going to say briefly that first, I do thank Council Member Peterson for bringing this amendment forward and I appreciate the spirit in which it was introduced in the context of the new regional authority.

in the context of accommodating the number of interim use permits that we do currently have funding for.

I am going to vote against this amendment today.

The reason for it is based on a lot of my conversations with advocates and with central staff.

I do think it would be good to incorporate flexibility into our posture to allow additional interim use permits for the same reasons Council Member Herbold highlighted early in her comments.

Even though we only have funding to go up to 10 now, I think it's reasonable to foresee that it's a tool that we might want to do more of and potentially pursue more additional funding for them.

I also am, you know, I'm not excited, and I feel like I'm speaking for the land use attorneys and the city attorney's office now in putting this out there too, for the prospect of relying on temporary use permits more potentially while we're considering I'm a whole new permitting regime just because I don't want to set them up necessarily for litigating SEPA appeal after SEPA appeal after SEPA appeal, even though they're quite good at it.

And I'm very proud of our land use division in the city attorney's office.

I do just think that as long as we have a position where we can authorize more interim use permits, potentially pursue funding for additional permanent tiny house and transitional encampments later.

I think that that would be the preferred course of action.

So I am going to vote no on this today.

But Council Member Peterson, I do want to give you the opportunity to have the last word as the sponsor of the amendment.

Thank you.

I appreciate the debate.

I mean, I think it's really healthy that we're having this discussion and asking these questions.

And I'm glad to have this substitute before us to just sort of set a baseline of we're trying to give people the choice if they wanted to extend the existing law with some additional flexibility.

I strongly believe in the Regional Homeless Authority that we need it to help with our regional crisis and look forward to their five-year plan.

and am cautious about expanding certain policies until we hear from the Regional Homeless Authority, but I appreciate everybody's comments.

Thank you.

Okay, all those in favor of Council Member Peterson's amendment for the substitute bill, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Nay.

Nay.

By a vote of one to four, this amendment fails.

Proceeding now to the next amendment.

Council Member Mosqueda cannot join us yet.

Her staff did ask that I move this in her absence.

So I will move Council Member Mosqueda's amendment one.

and there has been a second.

Council Member Mosqueda is not here to speak to the amendment, so I will also speak to it.

So this is a fairly straightforward amendment to the whereas sections of the ordinance.

It establishes that regardless of what we ultimately land on in terms of the number of interim use permits, that we're basically just saying that we think that tiny house villages and transitional encampments generally have a lot of value in our conversation of navigating folks out of homelessness, that we are going to constantly be looking at tiny house villages in terms of their ability to exit folks to permanent housing, siting availability, and that that will inform future decisions on the number of interim permits that we determine as a matter of policy we want to pursue.

Is there any additional discussion on this amendment?

Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of Council Member Muscade's amendment one, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please signify by saying no.

Okay, by a vote of, how many of us are there?

By a vote of six to zero, that amendment does pass.

And now moving on to the third amendment, and that is my amendment that would increase the number of authorized interim use encampments from three to 20 rather than the three to 40. So I will move that amendment.

Is there a second?

and has been moved and seconded.

So speaking briefly to this amendment, I will admit at the outset of this, I do not have particularly strong feelings about this amendment because the number of encampment permits at a certain level is symbolic.

The Council only has funding currently, I believe, for 10 interim use encampments.

The way that the encampments are funded is through, typically through grants from HSD that go to providers to open-sided encampments.

I do think it's important, as I alluded to in some of my earlier remarks, to have a number that is higher than the number, the pure number that we do have the funding for, which in this case is 10. We can consider in future budgets to increase funding for the villages.

We can consider using that as a bigger tool in our efforts to navigate folks out of homelessness.

The spirit that I introduced this amendment in is I am concerned that if we say 40 permits, folks are going to expect 40 transitional encampments and be disappointed when the funding is only there for 10. I understand that that's also a commentary on our priorities in terms of budgeting and what we do decide to focus our resources on.

I do think that there's another argument, though, that I don't know that 40 transitional encampments is a good use of our resources ultimately in combating homelessness, that what we really need to do is dramatically increase our placements into permanent supportive housing.

We need to scale up permanent supportive housing.

There needs to be more permanent supportive housing.

we shouldn't get into a position where we are overly relying on transitional encampments as the method that we are using to get folks off the street and get folks into shelter.

So for that reason, I think that 20 seems to be a good number.

I did reach that number in consultation with a number of providers that thought it did provide ample enough flexibility to site kind of anticipated even under the most generous of expectations, future encampments.

I do wanna say one counter-argument, since Council Member Mosqueda is not here, that she raised, which I do think is compelling, is that in the event of a natural disaster or something where we would have to site a disproportionately large number of people potentially in interim encampments, It would be good to have the flexibility for an emergency one-time influx of camps.

But barring such extreme circumstances, I don't think it's likely we would get anywhere near the 40 number.

I think to sort of avoid undue controversy and undue heartbreak over having such a high number without the resources to back it up, 20 would be more appropriate.

And now if there's any comments on this, Council Member Strauss.

Chair, I appreciate you bringing this bill into your committee.

This is a land use decision and it touches on the homelessness and the housing crisis in which we are.

As you have mentioned, the city only has funding for 10 of these transitional encampments or tiny home villages.

And this bill here is simply a procedural document that aligns us with our SEPA analysis on these tiny home villages.

And so this is a ceiling, not a creation of tiny home villages, which is why I think 40 is the appropriate number for this bill, because this is a technical bill.

This is not an appropriation of funds.

This is not an appropriation of case management, not an appropriation of security.

This is a technical bill aligned with the SEPA analysis.

I do want to speak on some other points at other times.

I will do just a back-of-the-envelope calculation of everyone who is sleeping outside right now.

If all 40 were built to the maximum capacity, we would be able to bring everyone inside.

Like that, I think that we need to take a moment to understand that because as I look in my community in Ballard, the green space that I look at outside of my bedroom window has had people living in public space, they have been moved, and they are now back.

Right?

So I can see a tent from my bedroom window, and this is a block from where the tiny home village was in Ballard, where there was consternation at outset.

And when they were ready to leave, the community was asking, why will this tiny home village leave?

Because we have more eyes on the street, we have more activation, and we have, less negative behavior because there are more people here.

Whittier Heights is another tiny home village in my community that is excelling very well and is loved by the community.

And so again, I wanna call out the fact that this entire bill is a procedural technical fix to align ourselves with the SEPA amendments and that there is still a permitting process, excuse me, a permitting process for every single tiny home village that is set up.

And so this is not creating new tiny home villages.

This is not setting more money for new tiny home villages.

This is not permitting tiny home villages.

This is simply setting a ceiling in line with the SEPA process that has already occurred.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this amendment?

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I would just like to remind the committee this is actually not a bill to permit tiny home villages.

This is a bill to permit Sanctioned temporary encampments sometimes those are tiny home villages Often they are not every single one of our tiny home villages that we have now started as a temporary outdoor tent encampment and Whereas, on one hand, I could see someone characterizing this legislation as procedural, just to remind what procedure we're talking about, is we are talking about the analysis of impacts on encampments that in some cases will be tiny home villages, in other cases will not.

And I also want to remind folks that when we're thinking about this bill, I think we tend to think about tiny home villages that are recipients of funding from the city for case management, but that is not a requirement for an encampment to function.

There is not a requirement for case management or operating costs associated with the tiny home.

This is an allowance for an operator to establish an encampment of which it could be many different forms.

And for that reason, I do think growing gradually is appropriate.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any other council members want?

Yes, I just wanted to say, I mean, first of all, I agree with you, Council Member Lewis, that the goal is, and we say this all the time, the goal is permanent housing, permanent supportive housing, depending on what the needs are.

We're we're talking about allowing more tiny house villages to be situated in our city Because of the complete lack of funding for housing and now, you know, we have the threat of preemption from the state level so I I hope that we look at this legislation from the standpoint of reality as it is rather than what we wish it would be because at this moment people are, just to echo some of the comments from Council Member Strauss, at this moment there are a large number of people who could have a far better existence if they had a tiny home, and there's no prospect of them having housing right now.

So comparing reality to reality rather than reality to imaginary situation, there is no housing for them to go to.

There's very little affordable housing, and affordable housing is being hemorrhaged as we speak because of the private market.

And so I feel like having limit of 40 as the ceiling is much better than 20 because of all the I mean, I don't want to repeat some of the points that were made, but I feel like just because you have tiny house villages or you permit tiny house villages doesn't mean that it will make people homeless.

It's not like if we made more villages possible that there would be more homeless people.

The question is, if people are homeless, would we rather they have access to a tiny home village and a real opportunity to maintain their dignity and humanity, or would you rather them sleeping on the streets?

For me, the answer is clear, so I will be voting no on this amendment.

Thank you.

Are there any final comments on the amendment?

Seeing none, I'll make a few final comments as the chair.

I totally appreciate and understand the comments of Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Sawant.

I intend to to work with both of you to get additional funding come the budget cycle for more tiny house villages.

As someone who has some near where I live, and two in my district, I'm a big supporter of them, and I've seen firsthand the, the outcomes that we can get from the tiny house villages in our city.

That said, I still think we're in a position where realistically, I don't think that over the course of this authorizing language, we're gonna be anywhere close to 20, let alone 40. I think just in terms of managing the expectations of the public, it's a more appropriate number to set.

But I will at this point call for a vote on this amendment and we can proceed to the rest of the agenda.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.

Nay.

Well, by a vote of three to three, I don't know what happens.

Fails.

Fails.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

Proceeding then to the next amendment.

And this is Council Member Peterson's amendment one.

So Council Member Peterson, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Thank you.

Oh, well, actually, first off, is there, Mr. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to move your amendment?

Yes, I'd like to move my amendment, which is listed as number four.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson, you may now speak to your amendment.

Thank you.

So we've been talking a lot about tiny home villages, the legislations advertised as tiny home village legislation.

I think it's important to note that the actual Seattle Municipal Code, this is a transitional encampment, which means use of having tents or a similar shelter, including vehicles used for shelter that provide temporary quarters for sleeping and shelter.

The use may have common food preparation, shower, or other commonly used facilities that are separate from the sleeping shelters.

So it doesn't actually have what we've grown to known as tiny home villages, something that started off with not great results in terms of exiting people experiencing homelessness to permanent housing.

However, over time, When there was a structure provided, when there was case management, when there was security, the tiny home village model became successful.

And so what this amendment would do is grandfather in the current encampments as they are, and then require that we actually have tiny home villages.

what we say we want to do, which is to have the structure of the tiny home.

It's got four walls, et cetera.

And then it has what we know to be the key to success is the ongoing professional case management for the residents so that they can get into permanent housing.

That's what's led to the higher success rate, the exit rate for the tiny home village model.

So this amendment would actually just do what we're saying we're gonna do, which is to create tiny home villages that have that case management.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments?

Council Member Herbold.

Given the fact that, this is a question for the proposer of the amendment, given the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, nearly every, if not every tiny house village started as an encampment, I sort of see the land use code legislation that allows for encampments as creating a pathway to be born, if you will, as a tent encampment and grow into a tiny house village.

We also see some interest in some of the properties that have hosted encampments, and now tiny house villages may be being used for cottage housing in the near future.

So it's sort of, like I said, an evolution and pathway.

I share your angst that we keep talking about this as if it is a tiny house village legislation and it is not and I think it's really important that we be accurate in how we describe this legislation so that we are fair to the public about what to expect.

But I would just like to hear your thoughts about how that pathway would be impacted for future tiny house villages without the opportunity to start out as a tent encampment.

Thank you.

We have a tiny house village in my district, District 4, the North Lake Village.

And it's, you know, the key to success is really to have the structure and to have the case management.

There wasn't...

the case management there on a consistent basis.

And so I think if we want to expand something, we want to do it right.

We want to start right.

And the success is the case management.

and the structure of the building.

So this would grandfather in the existing encampments, but I think that if we're going to expand it to such a large number, we should just have them start in a way that has success of moving people from the encampment into permanent housing at a higher percentage rate.

So we are helping people.

And then my follow-up is just a clarification.

Does this limitation also eliminate the possibility for these locations to serve as transitional encampments for people residing in vehicles such as RVs and cars, given that 41% of the unsheltered population in last year's point time count is made up of those folks, I would hate to foreclose.

Yes, I hate to foreclose those folks as well.

It is not meant to because it's talking about having the structure of the four walls, a roof and a door.

Vehicles would have that structure.

But if you felt like that was important to clarify that with to say or non-RV vehicles, I would accept that amendment to this to make it clear that car safe lots would be allowed under this.

Council Member Sawant had her hand up, and then Council Member Strauss.

Thank you.

Well, I appreciate the point about vehicles that Council Member Herbold brought up, but in addition, I mean, I think we have to be concrete and understand how tiny house villages are established.

Almost every tiny house village today, and Council Member Herbold has pointed this out before, almost every tiny house village today in Seattle started with tents and then replaced the tents with tiny houses as it developed.

You know, those who have been, you know, long-time advocates know what I'm talking about.

For example, Camp Second Chance in West Seattle started as an unpermitted encampment of tents.

By being well organized, by having community support, they won legal permitting, then began replacing the tents with tiny houses.

My office supported them when they were an unpermitted encampment, and we successfully prevented them from being swept.

After that my office and other council members supported their formal permitting and then we fought for the funding that has helped get them to Has helped them to bring in tiny houses in place of tents So this is this has been the evolution of real-world tiny house villages.

I mean, it's not What you're describing is not how it has evolved.

These are people who are experiencing extreme hardship and they are being helped by very shoestring non-budget nonprofits who do a lot of work on the ground to have made this into a reality and it did not happen in one day and it needed our support first to allow them to be permitted encampments and then transition into tiny house villages.

If they had been required to have the tiny houses before getting the permit, then I don't know how they would have gotten to this point where they would have gotten legal status and then they would not have got the opportunity to get tiny house villages.

And I would really urge that if Council Member Peterson supports tiny houses over tents, which I of course completely agree with you on, but if that's true, then I would urge you to support fighting for funding for them because we all recognize the funding is not being built in, this is just a land use bill, rather than creating more logistical obstacles for something that is already unimaginably difficult.

All right, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

I spoke to both of you about the case management and 24-hour security issue in your amendments today, and I absolutely support having case managers on every single tiny home village site.

And I also understand that 24 hour security looks different for the level of barrier that the site is housing.

So completely sober housing has a different need for security than no barrier housing, right?

And so I wanna make sure that we're using our taxpayer dollars and effectively and efficiently when we're requiring security.

As well, Councilmember Peterson, you may have heard me use the requirement of getting four walls, a door, a roof and a door that someone can lock throughout the last number of months as my gold standard for how we bring people inside.

I agree with the intention of this and I just want to make sure that we're not creating any unintended consequences by being overly prescriptive in this land use bill because there is still a permitting process that every transitional encampment would go through through the bill that we are passing today.

And so again, this is not the final stop for anyone having additional requirements put upon them for each of these transitional encampments.

Instead, this is the framework in which they move through.

So again, just wanted to say I support the appropriate amount of security.

I support case management.

I support four walls, a roof and a door that an individual can lock.

I think that this, amendment might just need a little bit more time, and I would happily support you at full council, Councilmember Peterson.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Morales.

I want to call attention to two important words in this description, which is that this is about transitional encampments as interim uses.

By nature of what we're trying to do here, this is an evolutionary process that is creating a first step, hopefully, for people to get off the street and into a situation, an environment where there is more opportunity for people to be together, to start to build the kind of community that could lead to the development of Tiny Home Village.

I think it is important to consider that this kind of requirement brings with it huge costs for creating this sort of village.

And we know that having these fixed structures would create barriers to addressing the issue that we're trying to address, which is to help people get off the street.

So these kinds of encampments are how we address the issue of homelessness in our city.

And it is not the permanent supportive housing or the low income housing or the warm place that we would like people to have necessarily.

But it is a step in that direction, and I think that it's important that we allow for folks in whatever place they're in to get into a situation where they have a little bit more stability, even if it means that they're getting there in a tent, and we allow for the evolution of that encampment to become a tiny home village.

So I think we need to think more carefully before passing this amendment.

And Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Chair Lewis.

Just what Council Member Morales said sparked another thought which I thought is important to articulate, which is what she was alluding to, which is that ultimately it's the community and the support and that kind of humanity that you get from having people around you that allows you to move towards a village with, you know, four-wall structures.

It's not just about the structure.

I mean, the whole evolution comes out when you have that community of encampment, even if it starts as tents.

And so I don't think we should put barriers to that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And are there any final comments?

Okay, seeing none, so just to kind of speak to some of Council Member Straus' concerns, and I forgot, Council Member Straus, I'm sorry that you raised concerns about that amendment as well.

And actually, after you flagged your concerns and Farideh flagged hers, I looked into it a little bit more and I, I think it is a little more complicated with exactly how the security requirement is phrased in HSD's current kind of contracting when they do have a security requirement.

I mean, it's part of the standard to get the HSD money.

You do have to have a certain amount of security.

Oh yeah, no, certainly, right.

But my understanding had been that the language in the amendment kind of reflected current practices.

That might not be quite as clear the way it's phrased right now.

So I would like to work over the course of the next week on just making sure that we aren't establishing a big new hurdle for service providers above and beyond what they currently do.

I don't want us to be creating any barriers to like peer-based security systems that some of the more democratically governed encampments might use.

So I agree that I think it requires a little bit more time just to make sure that it's not too burdensome and we're not introducing something extremely fundamentally new.

So based on that, I'm gonna vote against this now, but I wanna work with Council Member Peterson and others over the course of the next week to get some language for full council that reflects what we're trying to get at here.

So I'll call the question at this point.

So all those in favor of this amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Nay.

Okay, by a vote of five to one, the amendment fails.

And then I have withdrawn for similar reasons.

I just discussed Amendment 5, which would have been the Lewis Amendment 3. So moving on to Amendment 6, which is the Lewis Amendment 2. So this one is a little more straightforward, I think.

And so while I'm going to move it first, I move this amendment for consideration and has been moved and seconded.

So now speaking of this amendment as the sponsor, You know, for the encampments that operate with funding from the Human Services Department, which is all of the current encampments in Seattle, there are metrics that go, that are attached to that money.

This is just making that clear in the ordinance.

I mean, no matter what we do, that language is implicitly there.

So this is purely sort of a clarifying amendment.

It doesn't functionally change anything.

to my understanding in how these encampments would operate.

It merely states the reality that the Human Services Department does attach performance metrics to the funding that goes with it.

I think this is an important amendment for a couple of reasons.

I just think from a public facing standpoint, I think it is good for the region and for the people of the city to see completely unambiguously that there are performance metrics that are attached to the tiny house village, transitional encampments generally.

We heard when we considered this at committee from Peter Steinberg from the Port of Seattle, from Sharon Lee, from Panda, a person who had experienced homelessness and had gotten into permanent supportive housing through a village, that the providers that operate these transitional encampments are pretty good at providing the data and the metrics that are requested by HSD.

I think that it would be appropriate just to kind of recognize that that is a practice and to insulate ourselves from any public criticism from people that might say otherwise.

We might as well incorporate it into the language of the ordinance, given that it's implicitly there already.

So that's this amendment.

Is there any additional discussion from the committee?

Council Member Morales.

I'm going to support this, but I do want to just point out and see how we follow up with HSD about the particular metrics.

I don't think using exits from tiny house villages or from encampments is an appropriate metric of success when we know that the actual housing, permanent housing, low income housing to move people doesn't exist.

So I just want to flag that as.

another conversation that we need to continue to have.

And thank you so much for those comments.

I completely agree.

Are there any additional comments from the committee?

I would just say that I strongly agree with what Dr. Morales just said in terms of setting up metrics that are actually functional rather than something that don't make sense.

Yeah, and I do think that should be a, I intend that to be a big part of the work of this committee over the course of the next year.

Okay, if there's no final questions, I'll just take it to a vote.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

None opposed.

With six in favor, none opposed, the amendment passes.

Amendment number seven, and this is Council Member Herbold's amendment one.

Is there a motion to consider the amendment?

I move the Herbold amendment one.

Second.

Thank you.

So this amendment is intended to address needed geographic parity to ensure that new encampments are sited where they are most needed and that they're not concentrated within certain communities.

As drafted, this amendment requires that new interim encampments are sited evenly among council districts and that one-mile separations are maintained between new interim use encampments and other transitional encampments just until there's at least one interim use encampment in each district.

So as I described earlier, there are currently six encampments that are are permitted under the temporary use permit, assuming that they all move to be permitted under this ordinance.

Six There are six districts that will have encampments in them, and only one will not.

So this one-mile dispersion requirement will only be in effect until that last district that doesn't currently have an encampment has one.

The intent here, again, is to ensure that new encampments are not concentrated in communities that are already generously hosting encampments, and that encampments are available throughout the entire city because we have homeless people who are living outside throughout the entire city.

The intent is that we bring resources to people where they are.

One of the points that we heard in public comment that I asked central staff to speak to is how this would interplay with transitional encampments as they are defined, because they are defined in such a way to include safe parking.

Currently, the safe parking lots within the city are all under the religious permitting legislation, so they would not be subject to this dispersion requirement, because...

Sorry, can you start?

Sure.

So whether or not it's you are a safe parking encampment or you are a tent encampment or you are a tiny house village encampment, you would not be subject to this one mile dispersion requirement.

Those would be exempt because because they're exempt based on the fact that they are fulfilling their mission under their religious exemption.

And so this dispersion requirement only relates to encampments that are permitted under this ordinance and under the temporary use permit process.

Finally, you know, my district has been home specifically one neighborhood in particular, has been home to Camp Second Chance for a number of years.

And for several years before that, they were home to Nicholsville, both at the current Camp Second Chance location, as well as down the hill.

And it's really important to the folks in that neighborhood to see that tiny house villages and other types of transitional encampments are located in other parts of the district.

The neighborhood that I'm speaking of is a low-income district, a low-income neighborhood, and it's really important to them.

in recognition of their generous hosting for, I think, almost six years now between the two encampments, that other parts of District 1 also host transitional encampments.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, Council Member Swatt, and then Council Member Morales.

So, just first of all, two points.

One is on, thank you for clarifying which and types of encampments would be covered under this amendment because of the underlying bill to begin with.

But even under that, if the last, as you pointed out, there's one district that does not have district.

Five.

Five.

So, in other words, if until that district got, under this permitting process, got an encampment,

No new ones could be permitted under If you're a man, no, they could be permitted But they had they'd have to be a mile away from the existing encampment in the district, correct?

Okay So the two parts of this amendment they are related to each other.

That's right.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that But I just wanted to point out that there are Two tiny house, actually, I'll hold my points to later.

All right, Council Member Morales.

I think my question just got answered, but I'll ask it anyway.

So I appreciate the effort to get better geographic distribution.

I think that's really important.

And the cynic in me is recalling the very heated conversations we've had in this city about homeless people and what neighborhoods should get them and not, you know, invite people in and which ones really don't want to do that.

And so my concern would be that we have a huge need and that there's a barrier if one community insists on not allowing an encampment in, and we need more encampments, that they would not be allowed to become established, and sort of this pull and push of a clear need and an inability to move forward.

So, in my best attempt to respond to that, the intent of this amendment is to ensure that communities that aren't currently hosts to encampments have a chance to do so.

That's where this is coming from.

Again, as the residents of surrounding the hosted encampments in District 1 are frustrated that none of the neighborhoods on the west side of 35th have been a host, and that's what we're trying to get at here.

But again, to go back to the earlier point, this does not limit the siting of encampments within Districts, it just only requires that one mile dispersion until we get to that full coverage Are there any additional comments on Councilmember Herbold's amendment?

Okay, seeing none.

I'll just say a few things so personally, I believe District 7 is host to two tiny house villages currently we heard some presentation on the one in Interbay that's on Port of Seattle land.

You know, we heard from Commissioner Steinbrook that That encampment is very popular with the businesses in the area.

It wasn't necessarily when it was initially sited there, that they've been great neighbors.

A lot of the philanthropy of the interbay community has been dedicated to protecting and expanding that tiny house village, and stories like that have been replicated all over the city, and I'm very proud of the work that folks in the tiny house villages have done to be exceptional neighbors, and as someone who is a neighbor to two encampments, I can personally attest to that.

I do agree with Council Member Herbold's underlying drive for this amendment, which is that I do think it is fair for us to require more geographic equity in how we distribute placement of the encampments.

I think that it is reasonable to expect that every council district should have at least one and that we should attach the potential buffer zone to the siting of future camps.

So I will vote for this amendment.

One of the reasons I'm voting for it is that the one-mile separation, I believe, was a component of the prior ordinance language.

So implicitly, under the old interim permit language, Implicitly, all the current ones will be grandfathered in, so we're not gonna be displacing a current encampment by passing this, which would have been one of my primary concerns.

Based on that, I think that this is a good way to build in a little more geographic equity to this, and I do intend to vote for this amendment.

And Council Member Herbal, do you have the last word, if you have anything else you wanna share?

I'm happy to call for the vote.

All right, and the vote shall be called for.

So all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Four, I guess, votes in favor.

All those opposed?

No.

And two votes opposed.

By a vote of four to two, the amendment passes.

I'm going to ask a question.

Next will be Amendment 8, Councilmember Herbold's Amendment 2. Just as a reminder, it's the amendment on the setback requirement.

Councilmember Herbold, do you want a motion to consider your amendment?

I move Herbold Amendment 2 regarding the setback requirement.

Second.

Thank you.

So as central staff Kato Freeman mentioned in his opening remarks, the existing legislation includes, sorry, the legislation that is before us without amendments includes a removal of the existing 25 foot setback from residential zones.

That has been the standard, a 25-foot setback.

This is a 10-foot setback and a 5-foot setback, but not across the board, only when there's an established use.

So if the abutting lot does not have an established use, there is no setback required.

If the established use is a residential use, the setback is 10 feet instead of the existing 25 feet.

In other zones, a five foot setback is required.

Again, if there's no established use in the abetting law, there's no setback.

both a lower standard than is currently required, but also looking at the scenarios that we have in existence.

It is consistent with the current practice in the few scenarios where there are current encampments using different permitting types that abut single family zone properties.

Encampments are already observing a five foot or a 10 foot setback along lot lines.

It allows for appropriate breathing room between lot usage and residential zones while still preserving significant meaningful space within the property for encampment residents to live.

Thank you.

Are there any comments on Councilmember Herbold's amendment?

Councilmember Sawant.

Just to say that, I mean, I don't necessarily oppose in general the idea that has been put forward about creating setbacks, obviously, as a whole for the city.

Those standards are extremely critical.

But I won't support this amendment because I feel like it's in the spirit of trying to make it more flexible for tiny house villages to be set up.

I don't see why we have to be prescriptive in this way.

in this respect, because tiny house villages already have tall, wooden, a solid fence around them.

So if you, like for example, if you're walking alongside, there's two right in my district, and I pass by them virtually every day, and you hardly, you know, they're hardly visible.

I don't honestly think that the neighbors care how, you know, about the setbacks, because they're, you know, the neighbors are welcoming them in general.

And so, you know, just in the spirit of trying to keep it as easy as possible, I don't think we should do it.

Any additional comments?

So seeing none.

I'm raising my hand.

Oh, well, but, okay, I was, sure, yes, go ahead, please, yes, sorry.

Thank you.

Yes, yes.

I just want to remind the committee, again, we are not permitting tiny house villages, we are permitting temporary encampments and so the standards that you see currently as it relates specifically to tiny house villages are not part of this legislation and without requiring some sort of buffer we shouldn't expect them to exist.

Are there any additional comments?

Okay, so seeing none, I do intend to vote to pass this amendment.

Part of the reason is I don't think that there is any language in the current ordinance related to setbacks.

I would just remind everybody that in the old authorizing ordinance there was language related to setbacks, primarily, I think, from residential zones.

There was a 25-foot setback.

I don't think that that 25-foot setback would be appropriate any longer since we are expanding to residential zones.

I do think that this more modest setback language that is nuanced does anticipate that different setbacks would be appropriate from different types of uses is a good way to proceed with the vision that we expand the available potential sites for transitional encampments.

So for that reason, I think a setback of some type is appropriate.

I think that this gets at some of the potential concerns.

And Council Member, are there any other comments based on?

Okay, and Council Member Herbold, you do have the last word if there's anything else you want to add.

I'm sorry, and I could have waited to have the last word.

That's what I was trying to communicate, and I was like, I'll just let Lisa talk instead.

I was not reading your verbal language, or your nonverbal language, and I don't need to talk.

I was also busy tying my shoes.

Close out the comments, thank you.

All right, thanks.

So with that said, all those in favor of Council Member Herbold's amendment two, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please signify by saying no.

No.

Four votes in favor, two votes against.

The amendment passes.

And that is all of the amendments that are before this committee for consideration today.

So before we adjourn, well, actually, sorry, well, before we proceed to adjournment, let's do a vote on the bill if there is a motion to consider the bill.

Council Member Sawant, do you want a motion?

Yes, I move for the committee to vote on Council Bill 119656.

And it has been moved.

Is it seconded?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Sawant, would you like to speak to your ordinance bill?

Actually, just very briefly, I mean, I appreciate all the council members engaging in this discussion and I appreciate Council Member Lewis, you accommodating this as a priority item in your new committee as soon as you took office, and just to reiterate very quickly, just we all agree, but very, to be very clear, we don't, none of us who's been advocating for tiny house villages and for the immediate needs of homeless community members that we think that this is a replacement for permanent housing, but while homelessness exists, there is absolutely no justification for people to be left unsheltered because we know it has devastating, absolutely devastating consequences.

And I know that, technically speaking, this is about transitional encampments and not tiny house villages, but we should also acknowledge and congratulate how incredible the efforts have been from the community and from our organizations, social service organizations, to move from tent encampments to tiny home villages, and we really should, as a council, I think commend the effort that has been made to go towards that, and we're not going to go back.

We want to go towards tiny house villages and as a bridge to permanent housing, but none of this.

Just to reiterate two final points, this bill's passage is extremely important, but again, we will still have to fight to fund additional villages.

Having the ability to set up villages legally is one thing, but also having the money to do it is quite another.

So we will need to continue that struggle.

And on top of that, really the paramount struggle is for the funding for actual affordable housing.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any additional comments on the ordinance?

Yes, Council Member Morales.

I have to say I'm a little frustrated.

Today we had the privilege to vote on two separate bills to combat the homelessness crisis in our city.

One to keep our neighbors housed and this one to house more of our neighbors who've been impacted by a system that criminalizes poverty.

And in the week since our last meeting, which was two weeks ago, we've had the chance to meet with several constituents who want to see a pathway out of homelessness.

We've heard stories of mothers finding community after losing their homes, of neighbors coming out of homelessness to devote their lives to fighting for the rights of people who face similar situations.

And I say all that because You know, at our last committee meeting, we collectively decided to delay this vote until today so that council members could research issues more and potentially submit amendments for others to consider.

We didn't see these amendments until yesterday at 3 p.m.

That's when they were shared with council colleagues.

Offering these amendments at that late of time is neither transparent nor efficient, not to mention we had several staff members who were here working over the weekend.

Giving less than a day to look over these amendments seems to defeat the purpose of delaying the vote in the first place.

In my opinion, this will only delay the process again, and I'm not on board with that, so.

I don't think that we, you know, should keep kicking the can down the road on these important pieces of legislation.

If we have amendments that we want to research, we need to get it done and stop pushing things off.

So, you know, that sends a message to our homeless neighbors about what our priorities are.

And I think it's really important for the sake of transparency to our constituents and to our city.

that we if we are going to delay a vote that we actually move faster and for the sake of us as council members to do our due diligence and understanding these six or eight amendments on this bill the six or eight that were on the bill that we spoke about earlier it's important that we have more than you know 12 hours to look at these amendments and really understand them if we're going to be expected to vote on them.

Thank you.

And just to respond briefly to some of those, because I do agree with Council Member Morales' frustrations, I would just say that part of going through preparing for this, I mean, some of the sponsors of the amendments were not quite at a place where they were ready for prime time until fairly close to the vote, unfortunately.

I think part of that reflects that we're dealing with a unique deadline with this ordinance, too, which is partly why I'm trying to move it as quickly as possible.

The current interim permitting language does expire on March 31st, and my goal with the timeline we've lined up is to just make it in time to make sure that the providers have enough leeway where it's not gonna lead to potential displacement or eviction of the encampments.

That's partly why I did call a special meeting tonight outside of our normal schedule to try to accommodate that.

I will try to be more conscious in the future of making sure there's enough lead up for the adequate consideration of everyone, especially since this is a committee of the whole membership.

In advance of the votes on these especially this particular ordinance that involved a lot of very technical amendments today So I do apologize for that and and I hope in the run-up to What I'm sure will be a few additional amendments that will be considered for for a whole council next Monday that we can work to try to get more more notice of those amendments before we vote on them.

But I do, to meet that March 31st deadline, I do intend to push the Council President Pro Tem to move this next Monday.

And thank you for sharing those comments.

I appreciate it.

Are there any additional comments?

Just note that section X, Tuesday, and there will likely need to be a substitute bill to some number.

Oh, that's right, it will be Tuesday.

And also this bill has a signature block from 2019 that needs to be changed.

Council Member Herbold, I want to revisit your amendment number seven and make sure that the committee's intent is reflected in the language in your bill.

So it's possible that we may want to come back with that on Tuesday as well.

And Council Member Sawant, do you have another comment?

Yeah, just in the spirit of what Council Member Morales said, can we or can you as chair specify some sort of deadline next week?

I mean, sorry, this week for any new amendments because we've already considered a slew of amendments and it is extremely difficult.

Just to echo the sentiments, it is extremely difficult for, I mean, you know, those of us who are sponsoring these bills, we have to look at all of that and make sure that our community members are able to come and engage in it and it's sprung on everybody.

So, can we set a Wednesday or some Wednesday morning deadline?

Yeah, I was going to only fair this bill has been around for so long I was going to recommend a close of business on Wednesday if you can get your amendments to Ketel and Ketel if we could potentially Maybe have a summary of those amendments by the close of business on Friday so we have the full weekend to consider that the full three-day weekend to consider those amendments and kind of dwell on them and take a look at them, that would probably be advisable as well.

But I know it's asking, I know it's asking a lot, but.

Ultimately, I mean, the council rules have a Monday noon deadline, or it should be Monday, noon Tuesday deadline for submission of amendments.

And that is true only at full council meetings.

So ultimately, it's up to you all to be self-policing in this regard.

But I will certainly, on Wednesday, if I had those amendments, I will put together something for Friday.

for what is known than for distribution.

Thank you so much, I appreciate that.

Okay, are there any final comments on the merits of the council bill?

And we can talk about the scheduling and procedural things offline, maybe.

But if there's any final comments.

Okay, seeing none, I mean, I'll just briefly, I want to thank Council Member Sawant for bringing this forward.

It is a very strong ordinance.

I mean, I think the strength of it is represented by the fact that most of these changes were fairly cosmetic today, and in the amendments that we did consider, the underlying substance of the interim use permitting was pretty much unchanged from our conversation, and I think that reflects the strength of what you and your office put into producing this ordinance, and I look forward to supporting it at full council next week.

So I will move that we recommend that the full council pass council bill, council bill.

119656. 119, yes, yes.

Why isn't it right here in the thing?

Council bill 119656. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please signify by saying no.

And then all those abstaining, please signify.

I'm gonna abstain since my amendments weren't approved.

And we can talk about them later.

Right, I appreciate that, thank you.

And that would be by a vote of five to zero to one.

The committee does recommend due pass to full council.

I'm gonna keep my closing remarks super brief, and that's just gonna be that this will be considered again on Tuesday, February 18th, as we just discussed.

Please try to get your amendments to Ketel by close of business on Wednesday And is there any additional business before we adjourn because I think there is Councilmember Herbold.

Yes.

Thank you so much I think I mentioned this morning to folks that we have a letter that I am seeking each of your signatures on this relates to a Council priority during the budget process last year, we circulated a draft of the letter, unfortunately over the weekend, but over the weekend and hopefully folks had a chance to review it.

And it's expressing the council's intent that the Home for Good pilot is funded for at least 12 months.

Home for Good is the name of the pilot that is in development right now to prevent or end homelessness for people over 50 year olds.

50 years old who are living on federal disability benefits.

Often the benefit they receive is inadequate to cover the cost of rent and still leave enough left over to live on, even in subsidized housing.

This leaves this particular population vulnerable to eviction and homelessness.

Again, even in those instances where they are currently housed in subsidized housing.

Through three separate budget actions last year, the Council allocated $750,000 to create and evaluate a pilot project that would provide rental subsidy to try to stabilize the housing of these individuals.

Stakeholders gathered to give input to the program design.

late in January as per the budget requirement.

And there was some confusion in that stakeholder meeting whether or not the funds must be expended by December 31st as a hard deadline.

If that was the case, that would make for a really short pilot since the Human Services Department is still in the process of both developing the program, developing an RFP, they'll then have to issue an RFP, they'll receive applications, and then they'll select an awardee and enter into a contract.

We expect that to take up much of the first quarter 2020. So a nine-month pilot would not be very helpful to individuals who may rely on the subsidy.

And so this letter simply expresses the council's hope that the $750,000 be available for a full year's funding.

And it also cues up an interest of potential additional funding during the biennial budget deliberations later this year.

Any questions?

No questions?

All right.

With that, I'll circulate the letter and we can open it or sign it and open session.

And we get to filibuster while it's being signed.

The awkward silence.

Yes.

Council member.

Okay.

And thank you for bringing this to the attention of the committee.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.

All right.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you, Chair.