Seattle City Council 6/28/21

Recording in progress.

We are recording.

Thank you so much, son.

Really appreciate it.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome back.

The June 28th, 2021 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It's two o'clock p.m.

I'm Lorena Gonzalez, president of the council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Mosquera?

Present.

Peterson?

Present.

to want.

Present.

Sprouse.

Present.

Herbold.

Here.

Lewis.

Present.

Morales.

Council President Gonzalez.

Present.

Seven present.

Thank you so much.

If there is no objection, Council Member Juarez will be excused from today's city council meeting.

Hearing no objection, Council Member Juarez is excused from today's city council meeting.

Presentations is next.

Colleagues, as we discussed this morning during our council briefing, Council Member Mosqueda has a proclamation honoring Dave Schmitz, past president and founder of UFCW 21. Council Member Mosqueda will first present the proclamation, and then I will open the floor for comments from other council members.

After other council member comments, we will suspend the rules.

to allow our guests to accept the proclamation and provide comments.

So I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Mosqueda to make this presentation.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Colleagues, it is an honor to be able to bring forward this proclamation today, recognizing an honor in the labor movement and an icon in the labor and social justice movement, and a friend and an inspirational leader, Dave Schmitz.

Dave was the founding president of UFCW 21 and passed on Sunday, June 20th.

After a lifetime of fighting alongside workers to improve working conditions, improve community and the life and health of workers across Seattle, Washington State, and across our country, Dave provided crucial leadership in the Fight for 15 that started right here in SeaTac and moved across the national stage.

Notably and importantly, Dave helped set the standard for racial reckoning in the labor movement locally and among international unions across our country.

Dave grew up right in the labor movement with his people-powered, worker-centric approach starting from when he was a local grocery store worker.

He experienced firsthand the importance of having a union in Eastern Washington.

In Seattle, he worked as a produce clerk at UFCW in University Village and became increasingly involved in the political and social justice activism of his union, UFCW 1105, and became an active and strong advocate for workers' rights.

Dave's impacts have been felt far beyond Seattle and far beyond Washington State in helping to protect workers' health, raise wages, and save pensions of thousands here in the meat department and for retirees and many more.

When I had the chance to work with Dave when I was at the Washington State Labor Council, he worked to constantly make sure that we were fighting for health care for all.

He was constantly by my side as we worked to implement the Affordable Care Act and then as we fought against employers who tried to use the Affordable Care Act as a race to the bottom and setting lower standards.

He fought for health care and benefits for all by saying that we should not be bargaining health care, because when we take health care off the bargaining table, we can actually bargain for better wages and conditions for workers.

And fighting for health care for all is something I will constantly admire and do in his name.

It was an honor to work with Dave, and it was an honor to be able to learn from him and his organizational style.

I will always remember his laugh and his booming voice that carried throughout the room.

I do want to have a second to read from the proclamation, if I may, Madam President.

Whereas Dave, thank you, whereas Dave Schmitz led with vision from early on in his career, standing up to fight against apartheid in South Africa, to helping guide UFCW's early endorsement of then-Senator Obama in 2008, to his early labor leadership to help pass marriage equality and Referendum 74's campaign.

whereas Dave Schmidt helped to found many organizations which have gone on to become vital Seattle institutions, reflecting our city's core values, including Puget Sound SAGE, the Seattle chapter of Jobs with Justice, as well as sitting on the board of One America.

And where Dave Schmidt's always put workers at the forefront, helping to lift up the voice of countless workers in their workplace, in community, and in the halls of government, The Seattle City Council has been made better by his contributions because he has fought for more social justice, more worker-centric electeds, and for policies that truly center workers' voices.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council proclaim June 28, 2021 to be Dave Schmidt's Remembrance Day.

Thank you, Council President.

And we're very honored to be able to have with us, as you noted, family members from Dave Schmidt's family in honoring and recognizing his life and today, and want to thank Pam Blumenschmidt and Diane Schmitz for being here to accept this proclamation on his behalf.

Thank you so much, Council Member Mosqueda, for those remarks.

Colleagues, are there any other council members who would like to make comments?

Council Member Sawant, please.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

I wanted to, first of all, offer my heartfelt condolences to Sister Pam, who's here with us today.

Thank you so much for being here, and Dave's family and loved ones, and UFCW and other union members everywhere who were impacted by Dave's life.

And these condolences are from myself, all my staff members, and from my fellow members of Socialist Alternative who have fought alongside so many in the labor movement, just like Brother Dave, this is a loss for the whole labor movement.

I wanted to mention, and I mentioned this this morning, but I wanted to say it again, the important role that Dave played in militant job actions in the 1990s, first with Jobs with Justice and then during the 1999 protests against a World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle.

Dave was a part of and indeed a leader in the important work of building a more militant labor movement in Seattle during that period.

He participated in organizing direct actions, including building occupations, sit-downs in bosses' offices, and other forms of civil disobedience that built worker confidence in a fighting approach.

at the WTO protests, the famous battle in Seattle.

And I'm saying this from accounts I have heard from people who were right there alongside Dave, including Jonathan Rosenblum, who works in my office and who's a longtime labor organizer.

I was myself in North Carolina at that time.

So in the battle for Seattle, Dave led UFCW and other union members in taking the streets alongside tens of thousands of protesters.

At the end of the week of protests after the big labor and community march of tens of thousands of people.

Many in Seattle will recall that the then mayor, Greg Nichols, tried to shut down the mass movement by outlawing all protests downtown.

The movement had to decide in the moment whether to yield in the face of massive police brutality and state repression or to challenge that outrage.

There was a sharp debate within the movement.

Dave was one of the labor activists who argued vociferously that the movement needed to take to the streets to claim our rights and to protest the arrest and jailing of hundreds of peaceful protesters.

In the end, the decision was made to stage a large march through downtown, defying the mayor, the police, and the political establishment, and declaring, this is what democracy looks like.

Dave mobilized and led a huge UFCW contingent that was part of a 6,000-person march through downtown, which set the political establishment and the police on their heels.

Immediately following the successful march, hundreds of union members and community activists staged an occupation outside the King County Jail and stayed there illegally under the mayor's order until all of the protesters were released that weekend.

I recall Dave's vital early contributions because we need a revival of that kind of militant struggle inside the labor movement.

And I'm grateful to Dave for leaving this legacy.

Thank you and best wishes to you, Pam.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any other comments from council members?

I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss, please.

Thank you, Council President.

I just want to echo all of our colleagues with our condolences and thanking for just such amazing work over so many years, putting workers first.

Just wanted to say thank you all for being here, and thank you, Council Member Mosqueda, for putting this forward.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strauss.

I also, in addition to expressing my deepest condolences for your loss, I know I know how hard it is to grieve the loss of a loved one and it is never easy and nothing ever makes it easy and it's not a linear process and there are moments of grief and there are moments of joy and there are moments of grief again and moments of love and I hope that today's proclamation for you all gives you sort of a moment to to celebrate the legacy of Dave Schmitz, who was a giant in our community and a giant in the labor movement.

I first met Dave as a baby lawyer when we both served on the board of One America and his commitment and his understanding of intersectionality and what it meant to fight for Those that the labor movement didn't start out serving was tremendous and really made an impression on me and helped to solidify my strong belief in the need for elected representatives and other leaders in our community to continue to advocate for multicultural, multiracial coalition building that really, really serves us all so much better.

So we stand on his shoulders.

We hope to make his legacy proud in the future.

and I'm really appreciative for an opportunity to celebrate his great legacy and his life.

It will be hard to replace Dave, but his memory and his lessons live in so many of us who he had an opportunity to interact with and mentor and tutor in many ways to be better servants and to be better leaders in our own community.

That is my little pterodactyl in the background.

We are literally bunkered down in our basement.

And so we're gonna make this work one way or the other.

So with that being said, I'm gonna go ahead and suspend the rules.

If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow our guests to accept the proclamation and provide remarks.

It's a good thing my daughter doesn't have the right to object.

So hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended.

And I want to welcome, once again, Diane Schmitz and Pam Bluin-Schmitz to our meeting today.

Welcome.

And I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you all to make some remarks to the city council and the viewing public.

Welcome again.

Well, I just wanted to say thank you.

Dave was always a modest and humble person, so he would be really touched by this recognition.

And yeah, he just amazing, amazing person.

And I just really appreciate it and have always been so proud of his work.

So thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

I wish his mom and dad were here to see it too.

So thank you.

I'm Diane, Dave's sister, and also really gratified for this recognition and always thinking about growing up with Dave and the kinds of traits that he had even then.

Persistence, persuasive, he could talk my parents into anything, which didn't always sit well with the siblings, but the spark and the grin, his grin was there, two years old in the picture.

And so it's wonderful to have him recognized in this way.

And if he was here, I know what he would say.

He would say, it's about we, it's not about me.

Because he was always such a collaborative spirit.

And not just to say the words, he really believed that.

And that's a legacy that he's left and one that I try to live up to is to be bold and fearless and always ready to risk for justice.

and to do it with others, that it isn't a journey that we take alone.

So just to have this proclamation and have you all here today touches our hearts.

So thanks so much.

Well said, Diane.

Really appreciate you both being here.

If we were in person, we would all be clapping, but we are in this virtual world still.

So we are so grateful for your willingness to be here with us and to share a little bit of spotlight for Dave.

I know he was shy and liked to be in the background, but he deserves this recognition.

His life deserves this recognition.

And I hope that we can all work towards honoring the legacy that he leaves behind for so many of us.

Thank you so much, Pam and Diane, for joining us.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Take care.

Be well.

Take care.

All right, folks, colleagues, we're going to go ahead and move to approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the City Council meetings of June 21st, 2021 have been reviewed.

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

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes.

Approval of the introduction referral calendar.

Colleagues, I do know there is a motion on the introduction referral calendar by Council Member Mosqueda, so first I'm gonna put the introduction referral calendar before us, and then I will ask Council Member Mosqueda to make her motion to amend the introduction referral calendar.

So I move to adopt the introduction referral calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the introduction referral calendar.

Councilmember Mosqueda, you are recognized to make your motion.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Colleagues, this morning I mentioned two of the items on the introduction and referral calendar, but there was actually four items.

Two of the items that are included on there are still in need of some technical changes, so that is why I'm making this motion.

Colleagues, I move to amend the introduction and referral calendar by removing items three and four, which are Council Bills 120111 and 120112.

I will go ahead and second that motion.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the introduction referral calendar by removing council bills 120111 and 120112. Are there any additional comments on the amendment?

hearing none, and I will before I asked the clerk to call the roll I will recognize for the record that we've now been joined by Councilmember Morales who is on her way from a different meeting, which is why she is just a little, little late today so That being said, Council Member Morales, if you are still catching up, we are voting on amending the introduction and referral calendar to remove items three and four, which is Council Bills 120111 and 120112. With that being said, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Paterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and both bills are removed from the introduction and referral calendar.

Are there any further comments on the amended introduction and referral calendar?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the amended introduction and referral calendar?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Swant?

Yes.

Sprouse?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

All in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the amended introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Okay, public comment.

Colleagues, at this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda introduction and referral calendar and the council's work program.

I wanna thank everyone for their ongoing patience and cooperation as we continue to operate this remote public comment system.

It remains the strong intent of the city council to have remote public comment regularly included on our meeting agendas.

As a reminder, we do reserve the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is no longer suitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and effectively.

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

public comment period for today is 20 minutes, and each speaker will be given two minutes to address the council.

Speakers will be called on in the order in which they registered to provide public comment on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number used for this registration and using the meeting phone number, ID, and passcode that was emailed to them upon confirmation.

This is different than the general meeting listen line call-in information.

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

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

Public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and automatic prompt if you've been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak and then the speaker must press star six to begin speaking.

Please begin speaking by stating your name, the item that you are addressing and as a reminder, your comment should relate to an item on today's agenda, introduction referral calendar or the council's work program.

you're gonna hear a chime at about 10 seconds.

That chime means that you have 10 seconds left to wrap up your public comment.

If you do not end your comment at the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, please disconnect from the line and you can watch the rest of the meeting on the Seattle channel or any one of the listening options listed on the agenda.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt if you have been unmuted.

First up is Howard Gale followed by Asaya Corbray.

Howard, welcome.

Good afternoon, Howard Gale, District 7, commenting on continuing failure to have police accountability in Seattle.

Two weeks ago, OPA Director Andrew Meyerberg stated on KUOW Radio that the OPA is the, quote, most robust, transparent, civilian-led system in the United States of America.

It is not debatable.

We have more civilian oversight here than anywhere else.

I have not seen a model that is better than ours, unquote.

Marburg statements are Orwellian and patently ludicrous based on hype and public relations without any reference to objective data, some of which I will now mention.

Policescorecard.org is the first and only regularly updated database that evaluates almost all U.S. policing agencies using a variety of metrics measuring different outcomes and dimensions of policing.

The percent of misconduct complaints upheld in Seattle was 9%.

Police Scorecard gives Seattle a total accountability score of 20% out of 100, ranking Seattle 35th out of 51, far worse than average.

For 2019, Police Scorecard shows that SPD's racial disparity for arrests was 6.2 times, marginally reduced from 2013 at 6.5, with only six out of 128 policing agencies in the U.S. the same or worse.

The rate of fatal and non-fatal SPD shootings per 10,000 arrests was 4.47 for Seattle in 2019, making it the seventh highest out of 39 cities.

the numbers actually having increased between 2013 and 19. The SPD killed more unarmed people per arrest than 71% of other policing agencies, with more racial disparities in the use of deadly force than 72% of other policing agencies.

We also have the objective reality that the SPD has killed more people during the decade after the killing of John T. Williams when compared to the decade prior.

The only way to have true police accountability is to create 100% civilian-led investigation and oversight of police.

please visit seattlestop.org to find out how.

That's seattlestop.org.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Asayah Corbray followed by Susan Koppelman.

Asayah, welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Asayah Corbray with the Low Income Housing Institute, and I'm calling Referring to agenda item number 12, CB 120081, and I'm calling in support of this legislation for affordable housing on religious organization property.

This legislation is important in recognizing valuable land owned by religious institutions, many of which have historically served communities and communities of color throughout the city.

This legislation increases capacity for providing that needed affordable housing while also supporting those culturally relevant institutions and land ownership.

By providing an increase in allowable height and allowable floor area ratio, religious institutions with land and a mission to serve their communities will be able to provide responsive, safe, and affordable housing for our neighbors in need, especially those who have been displaced from gentrifying neighborhoods.

Many of these institutions have had to fend off market rate developers hungry for their valuable land for years, if not decades.

This legislation provides a mission-driven opportunity to provide housing for our neighbors in need and will likely be taken advantage of by many religious organizations throughout the city.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and we look forward to seeing this legislation pass.

Have a good day.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Susan Kopelman, followed by Ryan Packer.

Susan, welcome.

Susan Kopelman, I'm testifying in support of legislation to end the Dudley Exchange as one small piece of defunding SPD and severing ties with the settler colonial apartheid state of Israel.

My values and experiences as a Jewish person compel me to take action in solidarity with Palestinians and Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color.

Demilitarizing the SPD and demilitarizing the Israeli state are in line with progressive values.

The more we step away from the racist authoritarian institutions of policing in both countries, the safer all of our communities will be.

It is not just between the U.S. and Israel, but between the U.S. and the so-called Palestinian Authority, too, that police trainings are fostering the worst authoritarian tendencies of policing in all places.

As part of colonial agreements, the U.S. has trained Palestinian police to respond to political dissent with deadly force.

Just four days ago, Palestinian security forces, funded and trained by the U.S. and the took the life of Palestinian journalist Nazar Benat.

He was arrested eight times and ultimately murdered while in police custody for political dissent.

Fact, most funding for Zionist settlement in Palestine comes from Christian donors.

Only to Canada did the SPD travel more than they do to Israel.

Canada, where millions of indigenous peoples have been tortured, killed, violated, exploited to steal land and minerals.

as is true of the U.S. too.

Only now we are learning of thousands of Indigenous children buried in unmarked graves at Catholic boarding schools.

Struggles for Indigenous sovereignty and way of life resisting pipelines and other extractive industries are ongoing.

The primary purpose of police is to maintain colonial order.

Ownership by settlers.

Training with Canada is not better.

Justice is abolishing the police ending W exchanges with all countries and engaging in a process of truth and reconciliation to take.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Ryan Packer, followed by Naomi C. Ryan, welcome.

Thank you.

Hello.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today on the impending landmark status for the Bordeaux House at 14th Avenue East and East Valley Street.

I live near the Bordeaux and I agree that this house is a landmark.

It's a landmark to Seattle's exclusionary housing policy.

What should be at 14th and Valley between the 10 bus and volunteer park is an apartment building.

The multifamily building that I live in is blocks away and yet it exists on the other side of the line on the 1936 map that designated my area as definitely declining and the area where the Bordeaux is as still desirable.

The Bordeaux is just as accessible to trans as where I live yet.

It's 11,750 square foot lot contains space for one family in contrast with the 8,000 square foot lot that contains my building and space for 21 families.

When I walk by the Bordeaux, I will definitely think of all the people that have been pushed out of Capitol Hill due to our current housing policies and the enshrining of this building in the municipal code is a landmark to that.

Thanks so much and have a good day.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Naomi C., followed by Guy O'Brown.

And Donald King, if you can hear me, you are showing up as not present on my end.

So if you call in to the appropriate number, I can give you your two minutes.

Naomi, welcome.

Hi, all.

My name is Naomi C.

from the Low Income Housing Institute.

And I just want to thank you for supporting the critically important and exciting ordinance to give religious organizations density bonuses to develop affordable housing.

To ensure that the ordinance achieves the true intent of the original bill, please support the amendment which requires that units average at most 60% of area median income.

This is essential for ensuring that the implementation of House Bill 1377 at the city level achieve its true goal, to empower churches to provide deeply affordable units to combat displacement and fulfill mission-based initiatives.

Right now in the majority of neighborhoods across the city market rate rents are below what is considered 80 percent AMI for studios and one bedrooms because of the rapid growth in Seattle's median income.

It is key that we use this important ordinance to advance housing opportunities for the lowest income households.

This proposal still allows religious organizations to subsidize low income units with 80 percent units while providing and holding accountable these organizations for lowest income households.

This proposal is more in line with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission's policies, which allows for income averaging to achieve a 50% average AMI for a subsidized building.

Thank you for your consideration, and again, thank you for supporting this incredibly exciting bill.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Guy Aron, followed by David Haynes.

And I also have Bill Bunch, who is showing up as not present.

Bill, if you call in, I will give you your two minutes.

Next up is Guy.

Welcome.

Hello, people, city council members.

My name is Guy Aron.

I hope you're staying cool amidst this heat wave.

Um, I am here to call on the city council to stand up for human rights and pass legislation to ban police exchanges and trainings with foreign governments and militaries and police departments, including those of Israel, as well as others who have documented a documented history of human rights abuses.

First, I just wanted to address, um, my sadness at hearing from fellow Jews in Seattle who.

conflated the rightful and righteous critique of human rights abuses in Palestine by Israeli police and military forces as anti-Semitic.

This is not anti-Semitic to target a country which has been in routine violation of all sorts of human rights abuses.

Secondly, we're calling on legislation that would target all countries which violate UN human rights conventions, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.

And Israel is in violation of that.

But I believe and I think many of us in our community believe that our police officers should not be training with any country which is violating the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Thirdly, this Legislation would also help, um, mitigate some of the harm that our police have, um, inflicted on black and brown people in our communities, including Arab and Muslim people, um, by.

Um, mitigating some of the surveillance, racial profiling and, um, suppression of lethal, lethal and, um, less lethal force, which has been exchanged, um, in these exchanges again.

Please, like we heard from Susan as well, please commit to standing up for human rights both here in Seattle and across the world.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is David Haynes.

Hello, thank you.

Good afternoon.

I just want to point out and complain about the fact that the Central Library is closed.

It's like the largest library in the system, and there's no excuse for them to close down for two days, Sunday and Monday, after only opening up for five days after being closed for over a year.

And they have the largest facility with the largest air conditioning unit in the whole county.

And yet every local downtown resident doesn't get access on Sunday and Monday.

But yet I saw a whole bunch of employees in there yesterday getting paid and staying cool.

That's kind of offensive that the city council would go around acting like they care so much with their 30 cooling centers and just fail to even keep tabs on the taxpayer financed assets that are supposed to have been open.

It's not fair.

Um, the other thing is I live in pioneer square, those apartments and first and cherry is an uncivil war zone.

Three weeks ago, guy has a gun in two.

addicts' faces demanding money.

I guess he fronted them drugs the week before and he came to collect.

When one guy said, what are you going to do, shoot me in front of everybody?

He pulls out a knife, a nice big fat knife, too.

And Justin's about to stab him.

I yell at him.

He gets startled.

He turns around.

And then I walk away.

I go grab my phone.

I call the cops.

They don't even come close to finding the guy.

I go back out to my apartment.

I see him right by Yesler, where all the other open drug markets are that have never been shut down.

And he gets away.

I call the cops again, but they want to interview me and get information from me about who I am.

And that doesn't make any sense to me.

And I've lived there no more than a month and a half.

And I have been awake and stressed out every single night because there's all this God forsaken thing is going on because city council exempted crack, meth, heroin and sex crimes.

You all should all be kicked out and resign and stop running for reelection because you've imploded our society.

Thank you for calling in today.

That is the last person I see on my spreadsheet.

We actually have one caller in.

Hang on.

Just getting under the wire.

I'm sorry, son, I couldn't hear you.

We have one more public comment registrant who just came in.

Okay, I'm waiting for that person to appear on my end.

All right, we now have Donald King present with us today.

Donald, welcome to the meeting.

Just press star six after you hear the prompt and you have two minutes.

Donald, again, if you're with us, make sure you press star six.

IT, is Donald Keen still with us?

Yes, the public comment is still there.

Hey, Donald, just make sure you haven't muted yourself accidentally on your phone.

And make sure you press star six.

I am still not hearing you, Donald.

I need you to press star six.

Okay, I am not hearing Donald King.

I am not seeing him show up on my tiles here in the Zoom room.

IT just looking for you all to see if there's anything else we can communicate to this caller to be able to hear him.

I think we've done everything we can.

Donald, if you try one more time, star six, and just make sure that your own phone isn't muted.

One more time here.

I'm still not hearing anything.

Okay, we're going to have to close out the period of public comment due to technical difficulties.

I'm sorry that we can't hear from you, Donald.

You can email your comments directly to the full council at council.

At Seattle dot G.

O. V. and we will receive that and take that into consideration.

My apologies for any technological difficulties that.

I think we are going to move on to the next item.

The next item may be beyond our control.

Let's go ahead and move to other items of business.

First up is payment of the bills.

Will the clerk read the title?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

The bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Actually, I, uh, let's see.

Okay.

Well, the clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Let's get it.

I Peterson.

Hi.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Rebold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

The report of the city council agenda item one, council bill 120107, an ordinance relating to city employment, authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the city of Seattle and the Seattle Fire Chiefs Association, IIFF, Local 2898, to be effective January 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2021. Thank you so much.

I move to pass Council Bill 120107.

Is there a second?

Second.

I think it's been moved and seconded as sponsor of the bill.

I'll go ahead and address it first and then happy to hear other comments or questions from you all colleagues.

So as I mentioned this morning, Council Bill 120107 would authorize the execution of a collective bargaining agreement with the Seattle Fire Chiefs Association, IAFF, Local 2898. The collective bargaining agreement is a three-year agreement on wages, benefits, hours, and other working conditions for January 1st, 2019 through December 31st, 2021. This collective bargaining agreement affects approximately 34 regularly appointed city employees, and the terms of this contract include wage adjustments of 6.6% for 2019, 2.7% for 2020, and 3% for 2021. The terms of this contract do meet the negotiation parameters set by members of the Labor Relations Policy Committee, and I recommend that my colleagues support the passage of this legislation.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

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

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 12098, an ordinance relating to the Board of Park Commissioners changing the name to the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners.

requesting that the code reviser revise the Seattle Municipal Code accordingly, amending the board's composition and processes, authorizing an amendment to the interlocal agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Park District, and amending sections 3.26.010 and 3.26.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to pass Council Bill 120098. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much, it's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Peterson, I understand that you are going to, in Council Member Juarez's absence, address this item.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, you'll recognize this item because it's a companion bill to the Metropolitan Parks District Resolution 43 that we approved last week.

Council Bill 12098 merges the two official volunteer-run organizations that oversee the activity of our Parks Department and the Metropolitan Parks District.

That's the Board of Park Commissioners, the Park Board, and the Park District Oversight Committee, PDOC.

In order to more efficiently utilize the time, knowledge, and expertise of volunteers and address ambiguity and overlap between the park board and PDOC, the co-chairs of both organizations requested that the two entities be combined.

Doing so will allow all members to consider resources in the full context of overall funding policies and needs for Seattle Parks and Recreation.

The newly combined board will retain the representative 15-member structure of the Park District Oversight Committee.

And this body will be responsible for the traditional duties of a park board and oversight of programs, policies, and reporting specific to the Seattle Parks District.

The combined board will also be renamed the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners.

This is the companion bill to Resolution 43 that we reviewed and unanimously approved in last Monday's Metropolitan Park District Governing Board meeting.

The City Council, being the partner in this interlocal agreement, also needs to take parallel action.

Current term appointments will not be interrupted by this action.

Chair of the committee, Deborah Flores, and I recommend City Council adopt this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

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

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Sprouse?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes, and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Will the clerk please read item three into the record?

Agenda item three, appointment 1951, appointment of Jeffrey L. Windmill as member of Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission for a term to December 31, 2023. Thank you so much.

I move to confirm appointment 1951. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

I am the sponsor of this appointment.

So I'll go ahead and address it first and then happy to open up the floor to comments.

Jeff windmill brings a granular understanding of elections policy insight into state and local elections administration and over 15 years experience working on political campaigns.

He is passionate about ensuring Seattle's elections are open to all, and particularly to communities of color and other historically underrepresented groups.

Jeff previously served as a director of voter protection for the Washington State Democratic Party in 2018, and as a voter protection attorney in Colorado in 2016, he has managed voter protection efforts in 41 jurisdictions.

Through this work, Jeff has worked directly with state and county election officials on pressing election law issues, including automatic voter registration, vote by mail, signature verification standards, ballot carrying, ballot harvesting, voter roll management, prepaid posted, drop box placement, ballot design, and voting rights restoration.

He has served on multiple campaigns at the local, state, and national level and brings a strong commitment and belief in voting and the integrity of our elections.

And I do believe he will make a strong addition to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of his appointment.

Are there any additional comments on the appointment?

I see that Council Member Lewis has his hand raised, please.

Thank you, Madam President.

I did just want to speak briefly that I have the good fortune to know Jeff Windmill professionally as an attorney and just wanted to briefly state that we are very, very fortunate in this community, especially in these times where in a lot of places in this country, voting itself is under attack.

from certain political forces to have an election integrity expert of the caliber of Jeff Windmill in our community.

I am extremely grateful that Jeff has stepped forward to serve in this position and will be an exceptional commissioner.

So thank you for stepping forward, Jeff.

Looking forward to confirming you today.

Thank you so much for those comments, Council Member Lewis.

Really appreciate it.

Any additional comments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointment?

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Swant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Will the clerk please read item four into the record.

And the item for appointment 1871 reappointment of Kimberly Walker is member families, education, preschool, and promise levy oversight committee for a term to December 31st, 2023. Thank you, Madam clerk.

I moved to confirm appointment 1871. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

As sponsor of this appointment, I'll go ahead and address it first and then happy to hear any additional comments.

Colleagues, I'm excited to reappoint Kimberly Walker to the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy Oversight Committee.

She is someone who grew up in this community and has a long commitment to the empowerment of children, youth, and families.

She has served on a number of boards, works with many community-based organizations and faith-based organizations to improve her community.

She earned her bachelor's degree at my alma mater, Washington State University, and earned her MSW at the University of Washington.

Additionally, she also serves children and families in a professional capacity as policy and program manager for King County's Best Starts for Kids.

So I hope you will join me in supporting her reappointment to the Families and Education Preschool Promise Levy Oversight Committee.

Are there any additional comments on the reappointment?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointment?

Rosquera?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Sprouse?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, nine opposed.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Will the clerk please read items five through nine to the record.

Agenda items five through nine, appointments 1952 through 1956. The appointments of Tabor, Jossie, Ian McLeod, Laura Ellen McKinney, Lawrence Norman, and Harriet M Wasserman as members Landmarks Preservation Board for terms to August 14th, 2024.

Thank you so much.

I move to confirm appointments 1952 through 1956. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointments.

Council Member Strauss, you are the sponsor of these appointments.

I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through these items.

Thank you, Council President.

These five appointments are the mayoral appointments to the Landmark Preservation Board, which is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council when designating and preserving historic structures.

So Tabor, Jossie Cotton, Katten, excuse me, is a landscape architect with more than 20 years of construction and project management experience, both in Washington State and Rhode Island.

Ian McLeod is a photojournalist who previously served on the board from 2019 to 2020 in the Get Engaged position.

So we're excited to bring them out of the Get Engaged position into a full-time position.

Dr. Laura Ellen McKinney is a former psychology practitioner and professor who has also a background in strategic planning and policy.

Lawrence Norman is a software developer and property owner and manager and will bring an understanding of building needs and maintenance to the board.

Lastly, and not least, Harriet M. Wasserman has 40 years of experience in information technology and consulting, with final 10 years of her career at Seattle Central College, where she served on the site planning and capital projects committee.

Harriet is being reappointed to the board.

I strongly encourage a supporting vote from colleagues today in these appointments.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any additional comments on the appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of appointments 1952 through 1956. Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Swant?

Yes.

Sprouse?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Aye.

All in favor?

None opposed.

Motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Will the clerk please read item 10 into the record?

The report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, agenda item 10, appointment 1950, appointment of Megan McCann as court administrator of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Herbold, you are the chair of this committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you and provide the committee report.

Thank you so much.

So Megan was selected after a comprehensive recruitment process was conducted by the court in partnership with the Human Resources Department.

The process included focus groups with court leadership, all staff, and their RSJI change team.

The announcement reflecting the group focus feedback and our commitment to equity and social justice and for the communities we serve.

And there were six rounds of interviews with internal and external stakeholders, court leadership, focus group members again, and the RSGI change team.

Presiding Judge Willie Gregory presented Megan to the committee last week.

That's the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

He spoke to her experience designing and delivering training on implicit bias and removing systemic barriers to equity and inclusion.

And Megan returned the council's packet of questions promptly with very thorough answers.

Megan has a long history, 15 years of public service, and most recently worked as the deputy director at the Washington State Department of Licensing, where she was responsible for the agency's $430 million budget and created the agency's first outreach program, the Strategic Realization Office, and Equity Inclusion Office, focused on eliminating barriers for customers.

Thank you so much, Council Member Herbold, for those remarks.

Are there any additional comments on the appointment?

All right, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointment?

Mosquera?

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

DeWant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gribble.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Megan, welcome to the city council meeting and congratulations on your appointment as court administrator of the Seattle Municipal Court.

So at this time, I am going to invite our city clerk, Monica Martinez-Simmons to administer the oath of office to Ms. McCann.

Good afternoon and thank you, Council President Gonzalez.

Megan, it is my honor to administer your official oath of office.

You have your two original oaths in front of you.

At this time, I'd ask you to raise your right hand and repeat after me.

I, Megan McCann.

I, Megan McCann.

Swear or affirm.

Swear or affirm.

That I possess all of the qualifications.

That I possess all of the qualifications.

Prescribed in the Seattle City Charter.

Prescribed in the Seattle City Charter.

And the Seattle Municipal Code.

And the Seattle Municipal Code.

For the position of the court administrator.

For the position of the court administrator.

Of the Seattle Municipal Court.

of the Seattle Municipal Court, that I will support the Constitution of the United States, that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Washington, the Constitution of the State of Washington, and the Charter and Ordinances, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Seattle, of the City of Seattle, and that I will faithfully conduct myself and that I will faithfully conduct myself as the court administrator of the Seattle Municipal Court.

Congratulations, Megan.

At this time, I'd like you to sign the two oaths of office in front of you and share those on the screen with me.

And here's the one.

Thank you.

And once those are transmitted to my office, I will attest your signature and ensure one is retained in the council archives or the city archives.

And I will return one for your records.

Thank you.

The time is yours.

Thank you.

Thank you council members for confirming my appointment.

And I wanted to thank my husband, Max Jacobs, who's joining me today, as well as my family and friends and mentors for reviewing this online.

And I'm honored that Judge Gregory, the municipal court bench and the court staff had put their confidence and faith in me to serve them as their next court administrator.

I am so excited for this opportunity.

I believe in the role and mission of the court.

It's fundamental to our democracy and our wellbeing.

But we have significant work ahead of us to reform the criminal legal system so that it's transparent, anti-racist, community-driven, and trusted by the people we serve.

I'm ready to help the Seattle Municipal Court create a truly community-centered court that supports people to get a better place in their lives.

My passion lies in delivering public services.

And I'll know that I'm successful in this role when our judges, employees, community partners, and stakeholders demonstrate in their actions that they feel valued, included, accountable, and empowered to create barrier-free access to justice with fair and equitable outcomes.

I'll know that the court's operations are successful when our performance data indicates that we're efficient and effective with our resources, and that the court's users' experiences are positive, meaningful, and supportive, and that we've earned their trust and the trust of the community at large.

Thank you again for your support and for this honor.

I look forward to working with all of you.

Thank you again.

Thank you, Ms. McCann.

Really appreciate you being with us and your willingness to serve in this role.

Congratulations.

All right, colleagues, we're gonna move to other items of business on the agenda.

Will the clerk please read item 11 into the record?

The report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, Agenda Item 11, Council Bill 120106, an ordinance relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Bordeaux House, a landmark designated by the Landmark Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code, the committee recommends the bill pass.

Great, thank you so much, Council Member Stress.

I'm gonna hand it over to you to walk us through this committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, this is a landmark designating ordinance for the Bordeaux House, which is located on 14th Avenue near Volunteer Park on Capitol Hill.

The Bordeaux House was built in 1903, altered in 1913. The Landmarks Preservation Board recommended designation based on two criteria.

One, that the structure embodies distinct characteristics of an architectural style, and that this is an outstanding work of a designer or builder.

Controls would apply to the site, the building exterior, and the entry and stairwell on the main entrance.

We had the building owners present with us in committee who spoke about the desire to steward this in a historic way for they are themselves guests within the home, even though they own it and they have done immense historical research on all of the past residents of the home and are even in contact and communication with the descendants of the Bordeaux family.

So I recommend a yay vote on this landmark designation today.

Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any additional comments?

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

Misketa?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record, and you can read the short title.

Agenda item 12, council bill 120081, an ordinance relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations modifying existing development standards to facilitate creation of affordable housing.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Thank you so much.

Once again, this comes out of Council Member Strauss' committee, so I'm going to hand it back over to him to walk us through this item.

Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

This legislation, as stated, would grant zoning flexibility to affordable housing developments on land owned or controlled by religious organizations.

This is a long-awaited bill.

It first was passed by the state legislature, and we are now taking it up here within the city to make it a a law within our city.

And so there are many projects that are already underway, assuming that the language contained in the state bill would be passed at a city level.

These are long-awaited changes that stem from what was already adopted at the legislature.

In most cases, affordable housing on eligible sites would be given one additional story of height.

In single-family zones, additional capacity would be granted without raising maximum heights.

And in some of the denser multifamily and mid-rise zones, additional stories beyond the one floor would be granted.

In order to qualify for this flexibility, sites would need to be owned or controlled by a religious institution, and the housing would be required to be affordable to households, making up to 80% of the area median income.

We do expect that for the majority, most of these projects using this flexibility will be providing affordable homes to incomes below 60% area median income due to the Office of Housing's requirements for funding.

So if a site uses Office of Housing dollars, they already have to meet the 60% area median income threshold providing housing to people at 60% area median income or below.

The difference between the 60 and 80 percent is flexibility that the legislature wanted to provide for institutions to use private dollars, rather than city funded city funds to create this affordable housing.

This is flexibility I have heard is desired.

We heard from the greater church, the Church Council of Greater Seattle that they would appreciate this flexibility, at least initially so that we can see if this flexibility is going to be used as intended, or if not.

And that's part of why I really appreciated Councilmember Peterson's amendment to the bill.

The Office of Housing and the Land Use Committee chose to leave the requirement at 80% area median income because we have heard, as I said, there is interest from churches to see if this middle-income affordable housing development could be possible without city subsidy.

Additionally, we have heard from the Church Council of Greater Seattle.

They were, again, opposed to the lowering of the 80% threshold out of concern it would exclude churches who are navigating an already difficult process of financing permitting affordable housing.

I am excited.

I am excited to see this legislation passed today to open up more possibilities for much needed affordable housing across the city.

I expect to see an immediate impact as there are projects awaiting this bill to pass today before we can begin development processes.

And as we confront a homeless and housing crisis, more creative solutions like this are necessary to ensure we are doing all we can to meet these challenges at the scale of the crisis.

Colleagues, I'm happy to take additional questions.

That is the committee report at this time.

Thanks so much, Councilmember Strauss.

We do have a couple of amendments as discussed this morning during Council briefing, so we're going to go ahead and consider the proposed amendments.

That's Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. Both come from Councilmember Herbold.

We will have debate on each of those amendments and then we will take a vote on the respective amendments and then I will open up the floor for discussion and conversation on the bill as amended or not amended.

So if you are hoping to comment on the bill as a whole before final passage you will have an opportunity to do so.

Right now what we're going to do is focus our energy on the two proposed amendments that Council Member Herbold discussed during this morning's Council briefing with a slight modification to Amendment 1, as I understand it.

So I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Council Member Herbold to make her motion on Amendment 1.

Thank you so much.

I move to amend Council Bill 120081 as presented on the recently distributed Amendment 1B.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1. I'm going to hand it back over to Council Member Herbold to walk us and the viewing public through Amendment 1 as proposed.

Thank you.

So Amendment 1B would lower the average affordable housing income eligibility threshold to 60% of AMI average median income for renter households after an initial period at 80% average median income.

State law requires a minimum 80% AMI affordability and allows cities lower affordability requirements, just like we do with MFTE, the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program.

That too sets a minimum affordability requirement, and we have, as the policy body, have deepened those affordability requirements under the MFTE program, most recently under the leadership of Councilmember Mosqueda.

In response to the concerns that I heard from Councilmember Strauss this morning, I've altered the amendment to change the effective date of the average 60% AMI until not be effective until July 1st, 2022, so that any projects that are currently in the pipeline that have been operating under the state's law will have the certainty that they need.

80% AMI rent for a studio is $1,620.

For a one bedroom, it's $1,851.

We do not need to incentivize private developers to build units at these rents.

It's practically market rate rent already.

If we do that, if we create an incentive for churches to work with private developers to build these basically rather expensive affordable housing units, there will be fewer mission-based nonprofit developers partnering with these same religious institutions and less rentals at lower affordability rates.

So I really hope this sort of compromise version of this amendment can be supported by the council today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Strauss, you have your hand up.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Herbold, as discussed at this morning's meeting, I will not be supporting this amendment today.

I hear your, and I thank you for making that change.

I did give you a call.

You didn't, I didn't, we weren't able to connect by phone, so I think some of this could have been worked out.

At this time, it is important for me to see if this program actually exists and if this flexibility is actually used, because as we know and as I stated just a minute ago, the majority, if not almost all, of these projects that will be using this flexibility will receive city funds that require meeting the needs that you just described of 60% AMI or below.

It is important to me that we provide when the Church Council of Greater Seattle, who are the majority stakeholders who would be utilizing this flexibility, have called in and testified that they would not support this amendment.

It is important to me that we respect that request.

which is why I think that it would be important for us to take this up in a year when we have the data that Council Member Peterson has requested in our hands to review the effectiveness of this plan.

I share your concerns of wanting to have more affordable housing at lower rates, and that's why I would still be open to this conversation.

Because I know of the number of projects that are waiting for this bill to pass, I do not want to delay this today.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Are there any additional comments?

Councilmember Peterson, please.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for bringing these amendments forward today.

The city council central staff memo, when this bill was put forward, sort of laid out issue identification and it mentioned this as one of the issues to potentially lower the affordability threshold, which the state, the bipartisan state bill, you know, representing the entire state, put it at 80%.

I think that, I support Council Member Herbold's remarks where we're trying to lower, make it for very low income residents.

I appreciate that it has the averaging so that you can bring in folks who are experiencing homelessness at 30% AMI or lower and try to average it out with higher AMI, but still the average being at 60%.

And appreciate that, you put in that one year grace period.

So I'll be supporting this amendment.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I...

I will admit I'm a little conflicted here.

I totally agree that we do need to be providing more options for housing that is affordable at lower rates, at 60%.

And I am concerned that this amendment would hinder religious organizations that can build affordable housing without public finance, as there's been indication some could and some are interested in.

So at this time, I don't think I can support an amendment that would impede the synagogues and churches in my district from developing affordable housing for their seniors.

And I know that there are some projects that are hoping to get started just that way.

So at this time, I won't be supporting this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I have a quick question.

So Council Member Herbold, it's clear that the council wants to create more deeply affordable housing.

I think we're all aligned in that desire and that intent.

And I think that Amendment 1B is designed to hopefully create that incentive.

And what I'm hearing from the organizations that would be impacted by this legislation, that they are concerned that in practice, the intent or the sort of the theory that we're presenting in Amendment 1B may not be able to be executed in practice.

And I guess I'm wondering whether you and your office have done any analysis on that particular concern that has been expressed by religious institutions who have an interest in participating in the program as structured.

This amendment is intended to disincentivize religious institutions partnering with anybody other than mission-based nonprofit affordable housing providers.

If it's at 60%, they're gonna partner.

If it's at 80, there's no reason for a religious institution to partner with the nonprofit, because the nonprofit's already gonna be doing the 60%.

They are then going to look at a partnership that will result in a higher yield, a higher return, to the religious institution.

Um, I'm just I'm very concerned that we're talking about, um, uh, the position of the, um, of the owners of the property as if that is the thing that should be driving our policymaking.

Our policymaking is really about, um, creating, um, identifying the affordable housing that we need to build in our city.

um, listening to people who would operate under those regulations and delivering policy that reflects the needs of our city.

I'm not surprised that an advocacy organization who is representing in this case is as fine as I am of the advocacy of the Church Council.

They are there.

They're advocating for the interest of the property owners in this case.

And just like we hear from private property owners when we're debating MHA or debating MFTE, property owners have an inclination to prefer more flexibility with the potential for greater financial return.

And I believe that our decisions today should be based on the type of housing that we wanna see developed using these incentives.

I don't I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis.

My question is about the kind of housing stock we want to create and whether we are whether your amendment advances in practice, not in theory.

but if it will actually be achieved.

And I'll just sort of lay it out there.

I don't want to support an amendment that is, in theory, values aligned and sending the right signals, but then in practice may not actually come to fruition.

And that's what my question is about, is about when you say that there you know, these religious organizations who are property owners, who are interested in developing the property for affordable housing, if they, that they will, you know, find someone who will construct at 60% AMI.

I guess my question is, is how, how do you know that?

Has there been an analysis on that component?

We have been told that the units that are at 60% AMI that are developed under this regulation would, in effect, have city dollars in them because they would be built by nonprofits.

We have heard from members of our nonprofit developer community.

Sharon Lee has contacted, I think, many of us in support of this amendment.

And I don't know if she was signing the letter that we all receive from the Central Area Land Use Committee in her capacity as a neighbor or her capacity as an employee of Roots Housing.

But Donna Moody signed the letter from the Central Area Land Use Committee in support of a similar amendment to the one that's before us right now.

So based on that letter, you believe that there are nonprofit housing developers who would be available and ready to participate with religious organizations to effectuate the intent of Amendment 1B?

I do.

Okay.

Okay.

Council Member Strauss, I see that you have your hand up.

Thank you, Council President.

I think what I heard Council Member Herbold say is that there's no incentive for property owners to use to get to 60% AMI, and I just need to call out the fact in my previous statements, and I've said a couple times today, the majority if not almost all of these projects will most likely be using city funds requiring 60% AMI.

The flexibility that we are looking at is to see if, and to your point just now, do all of the nonprofit housing developers have the capacity to take on all of the projects that have now opened under this new legislation?

And that's the question we just don't actually know the answer to.

We also don't know how many of these institutions have the capacity to do that private fundraising to utilize that 20% flexibility of AMI.

These are questions not yet known and I believe that we need to provide as much flexibility as possible and also not I think we just need to allow as much flexibility as possible for the next year.

I'm happy to come back to this in a year from now, analyze the data and make changes or come back sooner than that.

I do think that at this time, we made sure in my committee to have this bill before us twice so that we met my desire to have the committee review an ordinance twice before passing.

We're doing so as quickly as possible because we know that there are churches waiting to utilize this policy.

as written from the state.

Thank you.

Okay, Council Member Hurdle, you'll get the last word, so I just want to scan the room and make sure no one else has any questions or comments on Amendment 1B.

Council Member Peterson, please.

Thank you, Council President.

Just a point of clarification for the people viewing this.

The 80% AMI is still for the homeownership projects.

This amendment applies just to the rental residential.

So there is flexibility already built in for homeownership projects where you tend to look for a higher AMI to be able to afford the mortgages.

So that is there.

So those religious organizations that wanna pursue home ownership projects will still have the 80%.

And then this amendment applies just to the rental housing.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Any other comments before I ask Council Member Herbold to close out debate?

Council Member Skate, I've seen you come off camera a couple times.

Would you like to add anything?

I'll give you a minute to settle in.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm seeking cooler rooms in our home here, so apologies for the change in location.

Okay, I appreciate the opportunity to again weigh in on this.

I do want to make sure that I clarify for the record.

There is not currently a policy that I think we could put into place to, quote, deter nonprofit developers from developing affordable housing more than 1,600, for example.

The fact that rental units are so high is in part because we do not have enough rental units.

It's not a matter of whether or not there's developers who are seeking certain price points.

It's that we don't have enough rental units.

And so if we want to address the cost of those rental units, I think one of the best things that we can do through this legislation is increase the amount of rental units in Seattle, across the market, especially up to 80% AMI.

All of the lack of housing, as pointed out by the McKinstry study that came out now twice in the last few years has constantly showed that we don't have enough housing, including at 80% AMI for affordable housing units.

And all of that puts downward pressure on affordable units across the across the market.

I again will be not supporting this amendment because I do think that it is a counter to the shared goals, which is making sure that there's more affordable housing units out there overall period and that we're doing everything that we can working with these.

uh, current, um, uh, property owners who are part of religious institutions who have said, help us develop this parking lot or this empty space into affordable housing.

I think if we can work as fast as possible to build those affordable units up to 80% AMI, it will actually help those who are 60% and below as McKinstry report came to the conclusion.

So I apologize for not having that typed out to be able to more eloquently make the point as I've been shuffling through very warm rooms.

But hope that the point gets across that if we can encourage as many housing developers to build affordable units, including at 80% AMI and below, then it does absolutely, the data shows that it does support affordable units, opening up for folks who are at the lowest income levels as well.

And I appreciate the leadership of Council Member Strauss on the bill as underlined that came out of committee and look forward to supporting that today.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

And I now have Council Member Sawant in the queue, so I'm gonna give her an opportunity to make some comments here before we close out debate.

Council Member Sawant, please.

Thank you.

First of all, I just wanted to second the points that Council Member Herbold made in explaining why this amendment makes sense, because I think that all of the points she made are absolutely based in fact.

And like her, I also have a lot of respect for the Church Council.

My office has worked with the Church Council and with many other faith leaders, and we will continue to do so, including the projects that I mentioned this morning in briefing that my office is going to be advocating for and I'm hoping that the rest of the council will support for affordable housing projects, especially in the central district, but also on Capitol Hill and Othello and District 2 and so on.

And we need to continue that united work.

But I think that in this case, it is a little bit akin to the debate that the then council had on the question of mandatory housing affordability.

And it is a similar situation here where with or without this amendment, what we're talking about are changes on the margin really.

And that is what MHA also, and ultimately, as I've said before, the main objective that the chamber of commerce and the corporate landlord lobby had with the MHA was not so much that they were gaining a whole lot.

What they did gain though was completely drowning the incipient affordable housing debate at that time or into this question of, you know, very shreya shankar Aiyar, Ph.D.: : esoteric affordable questions of the image a related legislation which didn't really ultimately talk about actual affordability and I think.

shreya shankar Aiyar, Ph.D.: : I am supporting this amendment and i'm going to say a few things in addition to what comes from her both side, but also, I wanted to say that.

You know, at the end of the day, and this is my message to also my friends at the Church Council and others that ultimately, you know, obviously, even though we may not agree on this particular amendment, I think we have to going forward really continue to work together to massively expand affordable housing because the crisis is so acute, the affordability crisis is acute.

I do think it is unfortunate.

that politicians continue repeating the supply side arguments about how it's mainly the lack of the number of rental units that is causing the affordability crisis.

This is not borne out by the data.

Yes, of course we need, do we need more density?

Absolutely.

Do we need much more of a zoning change in the city to allow multiple housing units, you know, to like apartment buildings to be built?

Absolutely.

Do we need more housing to be built?

Absolutely.

All of that is true.

And yet none of that makes it true that the lack of the number of rental units is the problem.

This is a supply side argument.

This is the argument that the real estate industry makes.

This is what property management corporations say, and you will certainly not catch me making those arguments.

At the end of the day, the question is affordability, and simply building more does not ensure affordability.

As an economist, I'm speaking in terms of just having looked at the data, and there is no economist in this world who can tell you that okay you build up to this critical threshold and then housing will start becoming affordable because rents will start coming down.

There's no evidence to show that that happens.

There's simply no empirical evidence and as a matter of fact you know in the pre-pandemic period Seattle was the construction crane capital of the world three years running.

So if you look at the data and if the council claims to be data driven then none of these arguments are supported by the argument that that is the main reason for the lack of affordability is not supported.

Do we need more density and more expansion?

Absolutely.

And I also think there are important arguments that have been made by affordable housing providers.

One is that when we look at 80% area median income, that is, if you look at the actual numbers, in terms of what the rent actually is, it happens to be market rate in some cases.

And it's just difficult to believe that it is not possible to build housing more affordably than that.

And we know there are housing providers who can build to greater affordability if there are avenues for them to get those opportunities.

And there are public funding options available for even 80% area median income housing, like 4% federal tax credits.

And so I will be supporting this amendment because from everything I've seen, the housing can be made more affordable than 80% AMI.

And I think it should be just, if you look at the rents that qualified 80% AMI, they are like market rate units.

I mean, it's quite stunning actually when you see the numbers.

I would urge council members to look at those numbers as well.

And I will, as I said, support this amendment and I continue, my office continues to look forward to working with the faith community on really pushing for affordable housing and continuing to make the city much more affordable than it is today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Herbold, before I pass it back to you to close that debate, in having this conversation, there's been a few comments about how lowering the AMI from 80% to 60% AMI would require a subsidy from the city.

What is confusing to me about that statement is whether that means that if this amendment didn't pass, there wouldn't be a subsidy required.

And I'm not sure that that's the case.

But secondly, if it is the case that a subsidy would be required, do you think that your amendment has the impact of requiring a deeper subsidy from city resources in order to effectuate the intent of more deeply affordable rental housing units?

The amendment itself has no impact on whether a subsidy is required.

The fact that non-profit developers working with religious institutions to develop land on the property owned by religious institutions, it's just a statement of fact that those non-profit developers are likely to be getting funds from the city, and as a requirement of those funds, they will very likely be maintaining units at 60%.

So this issue is being brought up to say that this amendment, my amendment, is unneeded because, as Council Member Strauss has said, the majority of developers that will be working with religious institutions will be receiving a subsidy from a city, and will be maintaining their rents at 60% AMI.

So that is a statement that is used to say that my amendment is unneeded.

I believe my amendment is needed.

I do not want to create the conditions where for-profit developers are in a position to basically bump out our nonprofit housing developers in a situation where a religious facility, a religious institution is choosing between which developer to work with.

If they choose to work with the developer who does not intend to take city dollars, does not intend to do mission-based affordable housing development, the religious institution could then choose to work with the for-profit developer at a greater financial return to the religious institution, which I understand that that is something that is desirable.

But, and I'm just gonna make these my closing comments, if that's okay, because answering your question, I think is my closing comment.

Reportedly, the density bonus about doubles the land value.

So religious institutions need to be, I think, in exchange, giving a public benefit in exchange.

As has been said before, 80% AMI rents are basically market rate rents.

And just to say those numbers again, in case people didn't catch them when I said them the first time, that's $1,620 for a studio.

and that is $1,851 for a one-bedroom apartment.

That's 80% AMI.

That is basically market.

If you do accept the argument, as Council Member Sawant does not agree with the argument, but if you do accept the argument that building more supply of housing will drive the market down, well, then you're gonna have an incentive program where the rents are actually higher than market.

Again, there's no public value in that.

All right.

Thank you so much, Council Member Herbold, for both answering my question and wrapping up debate on this one.

I appreciate it.

I think we have exhausted our conversation and debate on Amendment 1B.

So I am going to go ahead and call this one up for a vote now.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1B?

Mosqueda?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Sorry, I got locked out.

Yes, I am a no on the amendment.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Skrouse?

No.

Herbold?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member, or Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

And Council Member Mosqueda, that was a yes, is that correct?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Just wanted to double check.

Five in favor, three opposed.

All right, the motion carries.

The amendment is adopted, and the amended bill is before the council.

We do have another amendment, and that's Amendment 2. So I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Herbold to walk us through Amendment 2.

Thank you again.

Just get over to my notes here.

So I move to amend Council Bill 12-0081 as presented on the recently distributed Amendment 2.

Second.

been moved and seconded to amend.

The bill is presented on amendment to I'm gonna hand it back over to council member horrible to address her amendment.

Thank you.

Um, so this is pretty straightforward.

This amendment would simply increase the term of affordability to 75 years from 50 years.

Um, really wanna, um, in in offering this amendment uplift the, um, leadership of, uh, former Council Member Rob Johnson, I think he really, with the MHA program, did the city a great service in moving our affordability requirements, the term of the affordability requirements, to a longer term, and I think that that is something that we should endeavor to replicate at any opportunity that we have so that, again, the value of the public benefit is more sustaining.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much, Council Member Hribble.

Are there any additional comments on Amendment 2?

Okay, no additional comments.

Oh, Council Member Strauss, please.

Thank you, Council President.

Much like the last amendment, I am encouraging my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

It came before the committee, and it did not receive enough support to pass on.

This is all, and Council Member Herbold, I appreciate you bringing this, both of these amendments, these were both amendments that we had long conversations about in committee, and it is still my desire to see this program work as it has been written out for a period of a year.

I understand that was, it was your desire, and I appreciate you bringing forward a better amendment for that last one than what was originally put forward so I do appreciate that.

Again, there is confusion within within the community about the length of time, this amendment adds more confusion and clarity with some of these projects that are currently on their way to being built.

So again, I'm not seeing a one-year delay in this amendment.

Can you confirm that at this time?

This would go into effect today, is that correct?

It would go into effect with the passage of the legislation or the fee.

the passage and signing and normal 30-day period, yes.

But you're right, there is no phased implementation.

So even more so, I think that through the process of these amendments over the last 10 days, we have not had a cohesive stakeholder process with the amendment sponsors and the stakeholders both the builders and the owners.

This is an amendment that without the year delay poses risks to projects currently desiring to use the legislation as written by the state.

So strongly encouraging colleagues to put down this amendment.

I'm happy to bring all of this back up in a year or in six months when we have more data about whether this program is being utilized, is being utilized as intended, and if it needs changes.

So not opposed to the intent.

I'm very supportive of the intent.

I am not supporting this amendment at this time, and I remain open to future conversations regarding this.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Any additional comments on amendment two?

Okay, I'm not seeing any hands raised, so I'm gonna go ahead and move towards calling the roll here.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment two?

Mosquera?

No.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Sprouse?

No.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

No.

Council President Gonzalez.

No.

Four in favor and four opposed.

Okay.

Um, the motion fails for a lack of a majority vote.

Uh, so it is not adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

I'm not seeing any other hands raised.

Council Member Strauss, you are the sponsor of the bill, so I do want to make sure you get the last word if you would like to have one.

Thank you, Council President.

Just looking forward to this bill passing so that the religious institutions who have been counting on this bill to be passed can move their projects forward.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, colleagues.

I urge a yay vote.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strauss.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill?

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Swant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Will the clerk please read items 13 through 19 into the record?

The report of the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee, agenda items 13 through 19, appointments 1957 through 1963. The appointments of Katie Garrow, Steve Gelb, and Keith Weir as members Green New Deal Oversight Board for terms to April 30, 2022, and the appointments of Maria Batoya, Dennis Comer, Thomas Alberto Madrigal, and Tyler Valentine as members Green New Deal Oversight Board for terms to April 30, 2023. The committee recommends the appointments be confirmed.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Sawant, you are the chair of this committee.

I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through these appointments.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

These seven items are mayoral appointments to the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

Katie Garrow and Keith Weir are being appointed to positions reserved for representatives of the labor movement.

Katie Garrow is the deputy director of the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, and Keith Weir is the business representative and political director of IBEW Local 46. It is important that they have agreed to serve on the Green New Deal Oversight Board because ending the climate crisis will be possible only with workers in the labor movement internationally, especially workers and unions in the fossil fuel sector and the construction and trade sectors moving into serious struggle, building broad solidarity and putting forward clear demands for just transition and retraining for all workers in the fossil fuel sector.

Steve Gelb is being appointed to a position reserved for a workforce training representative.

He is the Northwest Regional Manager of the Emerald Cities Collaborative, where he has had a long history of advocating for a just transition for workers into green jobs.

Maria Batayola, Thomas Alberto Madrigal, and Cyrus Tyler Valentine are being appointed to the positions reserved for representatives of impacted communities.

Maria Bataiola is a co-founder of the Community Coalition for Environmental Justice.

Thomas Madrigal is a board member of the Duwamish River Community Coalition.

And Cyrus Valentine is the Eco-Innovation and Real Estate Project Manager for Africatown Community Land Trust.

Last but not least, Dennis Comer is being appointed to a position reserved for a representative of environmental justice organizations, and he is the program manager of the Central Area Collaborative.

The Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee unanimously recommends that the city council confirm these appointments.

Thank you so much, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any additional comments on the appointments?

Council Member Peterson, please.

Thank you, Council President.

I know I said this at committee, but I wanted to commend Chair Sawant for this really strong group of individuals who came forward and also the city staff.

But it's really an amazing, each person has such a deep resume and it's gonna bring a lot to this panel.

So I wanna thank everybody involved, including Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Any additional comments?

Anything else you'd like to add, Council Member Sawant?

No, thank you.

Okay, great, thank you so much.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of appointments 1957 through 1963?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales.

Aye.

All in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Other business.

Is there any further business to come before the council?

I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Councilor Strauss, please.

Council President requesting to be excused on July 6th.

Okay.

Council briefing in full council.

Thank you so much, colleagues.

If there is no objection, Council Member Strauss will be excused from the July 6th, 2021 council meetings.

Hearing no objection, Council Member Strauss will be excused from July 6th, 2021 council meetings.

Is there any other further business to come before the council?

All right, I don't see any more hands.

This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda.

Our next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 2 o'clock p.m.

Again, I want to encourage everyone to stay cool.

You can visit Seattle.gov to look for cooling centers if you need those.

And I hope that everyone fares this very, very, very, very hot weather.

this afternoon and evening and I hope that you all have a wonderful and safe afternoon.

We're adjourned.

Take care everyone.

Thank you.