City Council Meeting 4/30/2024

Well, hello, everyone.

Good afternoon.

The April 30th, 2024 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.02.

I'm Sarah Nelson, president of the council.

Will the clerk please read the roll?

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Wu.

Present.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Here.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Nine present.

Thank you very much.

I am not aware of any presentation for today, so we'll move right along into public comment.

Colleagues, at this time, we'll open the hybrid public comment period.

Madam Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

We have approximately 25 remote speakers and 30 in-person speakers.

Okay, we will give folks one minute.

We'll start with the speakers in council chambers first.

Let's do 10, 10. Okay.

And please go ahead and read the instructions.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes and will be a little more than 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called on in the order in which they're registered.

We will alternate in between sets of in-person and remote speakers for approximately 10 each.

Please begin by stating your name and the item that you're addressing.

And speakers, you'll hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of your time, and that means your mics will be muted in 10 seconds.

So we're going to begin with the in-person speakers.

And we can also use both microphones if that helps move people along.

Our first speaker is Joe Cox, and Joe will be followed by Leah Martin.

Well, welcome.

The following one might be a little better because you have to get kind of close.

Try it again.

There you go.

Yep.

My wife and I have lived in the same house in West Seattle for the past 45 years.

We've raised our children and our grandchildren, still live a few blocks away.

I'm an avid baseball fan and I go to most Mariner games.

Every time I access the ballpark, I'm blasted with high volume messages generated by men with electronic megaphones.

When the bullhorns are not active, ambient noise levels at home plate entry are between 65 and 80 decibels.

Yesterday, I recorded sound levels between 95 and 106 when the loudspeakers are active at the same location.

This is well beyond the point at which permanent hearing loss can occur.

Families with children were walking between me and the bullhorns and were exposed to even higher levels of sound.

This is not fair.

It's not right.

It can't be legal.

I spoke with the police officers in the area was cold.

There was nothing they could do because it was a free speech issue.

That is not correct.

I have no problem with their message.

It's just the volume in which it is played out to me.

Please see if there's something you can do to help with that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Leah Martin, and Leah will be followed by Justin Taylor.

Hi, my name is Leah Martin, and I'm here in support of the Connected Communities pilot.

I've been practicing architecture in Seattle for 30 years, and I've been working within the bounds of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan that entire time.

I want city councils to know that our housing crisis is far outpacing the trajectory of the forthcoming comp plan and zoning code updates, even taking into consideration the most aggressive alternate.

By passing the Connected Communities pilot, it helps us course correct and give city planners, architects, and community organizations the chance to innovate, just like the DADU pilot, the Living Building Challenge pilot, the Residential Small Lot pilot.

The point of this pilot is it's a pilot.

It's a way to test how we can do better as a city.

By not passing this pilot, city council should know that affordable black homeownership projects will die in this room today.

You will be voting down 60 community land trust condominium units in the central area, 10 affordable co-op units in Brighton, 30 affordable co-op units in Rainier Valley, all serving households earning less than 80% AMI.

Please vote for this pilot.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Justin Taylor, and Justin will be followed by Nathan Beckwith.

Go ahead, Justin.

Hi, my name is Justin and I'm speaking against the proposed changes to the app worker pay and labor standards.

And the issues that I want to bring forward aren't the 24% reduction in the pay rate that's proposed or the over 53% reduction in mileage reimbursement.

It's really, today it's the reduction in the time that we have to accept an offer.

Currently it's 120 seconds.

It's proposed to be reduced to 45 seconds.

So a 63% reduction in the time that we have to find a safe place to pull over to the road or get off our bicycles and actually review an offer and accept it.

That's one of the 20 proposed changes before the governance committee.

So I would just ask you to consider how does that reduce fees?

How does that make this safer?

How does that make it better for app workers, for restaurants, for customers?

Thank you, our next speaker is Nathan Beckwith, and Nathan will be followed by Ethan Robinson.

Go ahead, Nathan.

Hello, my name is Nathan.

I do Instacart and DoorDash.

I'm here to speak against Sarah Nelson's proposal to cut our pay.

Before pay up, I was running from nine in the morning till three in the morning the next morning, five or six days a week, and I was still just barely able to pay my rent, car insurance, car note, phone bill, and put food in my refrigerator.

You gave us minimum wage.

You take away that and replace it with a paltry 19-hour engaged time, which doesn't take our real work time and costs into account.

It means putting a sub-minimum wage into law.

Measuring business from January through April is short-sighted at best and more likely disingenuous, especially while apps are intentionally driving down demand in our area.

Finally, getting paid minimum wage has given me the freedom to engage in personal health goals and higher education.

Sarah Nelson, you said this decision has national implications.

And you're right.

If you do what DoorDash asks and pass a sub minimum wage for gig workers, these corporations and other cities will do the same.

This is dangerous.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ethan Robinson and Ethan will be followed by Susan Boyd.

Go ahead, Ethan.

Good afternoon, President, Council President Nelson, council members.

I'm Ethan Robinson.

I'm the advocacy organizer at Habitat for Humanity, Seattle King, and Kittitas counties.

I'm here to voice our support for the proposed Connected Communities pilot program.

For nearly 40 years, our affiliate has diligently served this region, striving to construct homes and build communities.

This program aims to empower community organizations to function as developers, addressing the housing crisis, enhancing community amenities, and collaborating with groups like ours to create both affordable rental and home ownership units.

The homeownership solutions fostered by this pilot program will unlock the dream of homeownership for many who have been previously excluded from this opportunity.

The City of Seattle has already taken commendable steps towards addressing the housing crisis, and this pilot program builds on the Office of Housing's exemplary work.

By providing more individuals with safe, decent, and affordable homes, this initiative will significantly contribute to building stronger, more inclusive communities.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Susan Boyd, and Susan will be followed by Lillian Rambos.

Hold on a second.

I appreciate people's engagement in fellow commenters' comments, but I would like you to please not make audible sounds of appreciation while people are getting ready to speak again, because it does marginally slow things down, as does me having to say this.

So thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you, Council.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I just want to support the Connected Communities pilot program.

I was very excited to see this opportunity to incentivize and support the creation of affordable housing at virtually no cost to the city.

Density is what we need in this city to create more affordability.

It's a great opportunity for my organization, Bellwether Housing, the largest nonprofit organization in the city.

to be able to expand development on a redevelopment site that we have.

It would make it much more financially feasible.

And I know this is true for projects around the city.

So thank you for the time and please support the connected communities legislation.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lillian Rambus will be followed by John Sternstadt.

Lillian?

Hi, my name is Lillian Rambis, and I am the owner of Simply Soulful, and also an aspiring developer in the city of Seattle.

Through my organization, Legacy Restored, we're hoping to help our community, one, gain entrepreneurial skills, but also, two, to help them have a place in the development of affordable housing in Seattle.

We feel like this pilot program will help to take down some of the barriers that small developers and people trying to get into the development of housing units in Seattle face.

I know OED had a pilot program for businesses during COVID that really helped streamline and give access and priority to smaller businesses.

businesses and things like that.

So I just want to say that we're here to, I'm here to support the connected community.

And I hope that you guys would help to support us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John Sternstadt and John will be followed by Gary Larda Zabel.

The pay-up bill promised a guaranteed minimum wage, but I am making only $2.18 more per delivery than before the bill, and my deliveries are down 65%.

Money comes only from orders.

There's no way to spend that positively.

Workers are making way less now than before the bill.

Only Instacart and shopping orders are paying better, but those are only about 10% to 15% of the market, despite being almost 100% of the pro-pay-up speakers here at Council.

This weekend, I was attacked online and falsely accused of being a wealthy, paid lobbyist for this issue.

This is a desperate attempt to attack us personally and an attempt to intimidate us instead of arguing facts and data because they can't argue the data.

It's an admission of failure.

Attacking gig workers who are fighting for gig workers is deplorable.

You are all telling on yourselves.

Restaurants are down 30% to 70%.

If the restaurants are making money, then gig workers make money.

The pay it bill is not some magic money tree.

We only get paid for orders that we deliver.

It's really that simple.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gary Larda Zabel, and then we'll finish with our last in-person speaker for now, Jason Okelnik.

Good afternoon, counsel.

I'd just like to say that vilification, no matter what form, is the lowest form of argument.

It has no place in this.

And I'd like to talk about math, and I'd like to talk about personal stories of restaurants.

The math is calculus was not done.

was not done in 2022. $5.44, 44, whatever, those fees.

But whatever the good companies do, If they raise the rates, that's up to them?

Are you kidding me?

Andy Lewis went to Berkeley and he doesn't know calculus?

Is that vilification?

No, it's not.

He didn't do calculus.

He didn't solve for X.

$5, 44 cents, 44 cents a minute, and X is the quote.

They could raise the rates.

They didn't solve for X.

They didn't see the $35 tornado coming.

The math is simple.

Sarah Nelson, you have done the calculus.

The prices will be lower.

Lower prices mean more orders.

Higher prices mean less orders.

Thank you.

Our next, our last in-person speaker for this section will be Jason Oglenick, and then we'll move on to remote speakers.

My average pay for the previous seven days is $10.56 per hour.

That's half of the city's minimum wage.

My 50% drop in income directly correlates with the loss of revenue Seattle's restaurants are facing from third-party apps.

97% of restaurants have told you they're hurting.

They need a change.

A revised law needs to be implemented.

It's urgent.

Thank you.

We'll now move to remote speakers.

I need to find them on my computer.

Megan, do you have a list of the remote speakers?

I don't have them up anymore.

Yes.

Our first remote speaker is Tiffany McCoy.

Tiffany will be followed by Richard Dorish.

Tiffany, go ahead.

Thank you.

My name is Tiffany McCoy.

I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for How's Our Neighbors.

I'm calling in support of Council Member Morales' Connected Communities pilot.

While it doesn't seem that this important piece of legislation is going to pass, I want to thank Council Member Morales and her office for working with community groups for the past two years on this legislation.

It is incredibly unfortunate that this land use bonus legislation will die today.

We strongly support this legislation and commend its inclusion of the Seattle social housing developer.

I can't comprehend why, in the middle of a housing crisis, we have to wait for the comprehensive plan update which some council members mentioned for why they voted against it, to fix regulatory issues that pose problems right now.

With the remainder of my time, I want to remind the council of the organizations who support this who will not be able to benefit from this with your number.

The Complete Communities Coalition, Chief Seattle Club, Master Builders, Uplift Northwest, Beacon Business Alliance, Dominican Association of Washington, the Crescent Collaborative, the Cultural

Thank you, our next speaker is Richard Doonish, and Richard will, Dorish, excuse me.

Richard will be followed by Joe Kunzler.

And remember to press star six when you hear the message if you have been unmuted.

Go ahead, Richard.

Richard, have you pressed star six?

Okay, we'll move on for now to Joe Kuntzler, and then we'll try back with Richard.

Go ahead, Joe, please.

Okay, thanks.

Joe Kuntzler here.

A few things very briefly, Seattle Council.

Number one, on your parks plan, I think it's absolutely ridiculous you're talking about doing anything about your parks until you clear out these invaders at Powell Barnet Park, Jonathan Cho just reported on.

He's also been stalked and harassed by Rosario Lopez Hernandez, who also disrupted one of your meetings.

So you may want to send your smog friends down there to give her a hard time.

Intent.

Speaking of giving a hard time, our dear enemy, That racist pig, Alex Zimmerman, do you know how you can stop him completely?

Just ban greetings.

That's what the King Kelly Council is certain to do.

And I think you should expel him for at least six months at a time.

He's just a horrible person and you deserve so much better than to be treated the way he treats you.

It's abominable.

It's disgusting.

And you should ban him for as long as you can with his disgusting so-called greeting.

You are all great

I think our next remote speaker will be Nick Haight and Nick will be followed by Jordan Sullivan.

Hi, my name is Nick and I have been a gig worker for seven years with well over 16,000 orders across all major apps, Instacart, DoorDash, Uber Eats.

I am opposed to Sarah Nelson's proposal that would lead to sub minimum wage pay and strip contractors of crucial transparency necessary for us to be successful.

This is the only industry I know of where the longer you've worked for them, the less you get paid.

They have changed that, and for the first time in years, I have had a raise.

I've been able to meet financial targets in a five-day work week.

Last week, I averaged $47 per hour over 43 hours.

The proposed cuts are far too severe and do nothing to address the fundamental issue of why the gig companies have added outrageous fees and punished workers by obfuscating tipping options.

Minimum wage doesn't apply to contractors because we don't work per hour.

We work per order.

We pay our own expenses.

We are taxed much higher.

None of the benefits.

California implemented a 120% minimum wage to compensate.

If nothing else, the transparency options are the most egregious and hinder us so much that it will make delivery work untenable for drivers and customers alike.

I implore City Council to take a deeper look at the issue as

Thank you.

The next speaker will be Jordan Sullivan and Jordan will be followed by Alice Lockhart.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Hey, yeah, I'm calling in today to really kind of ask for the city to open community centers and basically places available for shelter for the 430 asylum seekers that are about to lose their shelter over the next week.

These are folks who are 300 of which are currently forced to camp around the city of Seattle because the city has not provided them adequate housing.

These people are here under law to ask for asylum in our country, but they are being forced to sleep on the streets right now.

So I'm asking the city to work with King County to expedite state funding and provide shelter, especially for the over 80 children who are now sheltering outside That's all I've got.

Happy to yield my time.

Good afternoon, Council.

I'm Alice Lockhart with 350 Seattle, and we wholeheartedly support the Connected Communities pilot.

At a moment when the city faces a fiscal cliff, Seattle desperately needs to create more affordable housing as economically as possible.

Fortunately for the new council, this well-researched pilot does exactly that.

This model Green New Deal policy is backed by two years of community engagement.

It would ensure that at least one in three units are affordable and that housing is within walking distance of essential services.

It creates pathways for low-income homeowners to build generational wealth and community-led development.

When we invest in affordable housing and the displacement strategies, our communities can live where we work, study and play and pray.

We drive less, meaning less climate pollution.

We are more connected, meeting more climate resilience we can build a future for ourselves and for our families by investing in underserved communities who are hit first and worst by climate chaos and least resource to respond the connected communities pilot is a pathway to climate justice vote yes for this program and thank you our next speaker excuse me our next speaker is daniel hepner and daniel will be followed by jade weiss weiss go ahead

Go ahead, Dan.

Hello.

I'm a Capitol Hill resident calling with Tech for Housing in support of Council Member Morales' Connected Community Pilot Bill.

I see this bill as an easy win for affordable housing, providing more affordable housing with no cost to the city.

This bill shouldn't be controversial.

There's no way to align a stated position supporting affordable housing with a vote against this thoughtful, balanced, and cost-free pilot program.

which, by the way, is supported by low-income housing providers and other community groups that are concerned with housing, such as ourselves, Tech for Housing.

Everyone, I think, agrees that we are in a crisis situation with housing in the city, and so it seems like it would make sense to vote for a non-controversial bill such as this one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jade Weiss, and Jade will be followed by Lois Martin.

My name is Jade, and I'm a human rights advocate.

Council, I challenge you to drop the neoliberal theatrics and instead focus on solutions like Housing First to address the government-induced human rights crises in Seattle, including, number one, hundreds of asylum-seeking people, including families with elders, are now in Seattle with zero housing options.

They've been left behind by King County, who is actively fumbling millions of dollars into the pockets of predatory nonprofits.

This is a sanctuary city, yet you actively make a mockery of that title.

Number two, sweeps are inhumane and exacerbate houselessness.

Stop wasting money on these deadly clues.

Number three, the Low Income Housing Institute is a bad actor that violates both human and constitutional rights.

This cannot be ignored simply because Lehigh is a powerful developer.

Much of the housing that Lehigh provides is uninhabitable.

while their emergency shelter intake includes predatory language that infringes upon First Amendment rights.

Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on unauthorized camps, you need to direct your attention to providers.

Lehigh contracts, starting with the city, need to be investigated.

Housing is a human right.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker for this group will be Lois Martin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm a legacy resident of Seattle District 3. I'm asking that you not pass the connected community legislation using the language of justice to add density disproportionately in zip codes that are furthest away from environmental equity.

It's problematic.

Our neighborhoods can be negatively impacted by pilot development.

Once built, these buildings cannot be taken back.

Blanket legislation similar to this has increased taxes for many of us whose homes were up to no cost, impacting anti-displaced efforts to treat redlined communities.

The initial intent is commendable, but with removing the path to home ownership and makes the legislation no different than current nonprofit housing funding models.

At least the ownership piece is novel, even if there were no guardrails in place to protect the purchaser.

Please vote no on all versions of this law legislation.

Thank you.

We'll now move back to in-person speakers.

Our first speaker will be Steve Rubitello, and Steve will be followed by Kimberly Wolfe.

Well, I came to speak about the proposal out of the Land Use Committee for your 35 pilot projects, but first I'd like to say, do you really believe in a minimum wage?

We have a housing crisis.

People can't afford housing.

Let's lower their wages.

That's really going to help.

Now let's go to what I really came with.

Connective housing.

We have been on this track for a very long time.

We have given developers and all sorts of people subsidies.

And you know what?

It's getting worse.

If you're gonna give subsidies, it ought to be to the people, because if you give your subsidies to developers, they only put it in their pockets.

It's added.

They still sell at market rate.

I've been in Fremont for quite a while, and we used to have a lot of housing that was supposed to be artists.

You don't see much of it anymore.

They got nice permits and stuff for it.

This is the same line.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kimberly Wolf, and Kimberly will be followed by Jasara Schroeder.

Use the shorter one if you'd like.

Oh, that one.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Kimberly Wolf, gig worker.

THE COMMITTEE FOR PAYUP AND THE REVISIONS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH, I THINK THEIR JOB SHOULD BE TO THOROUGHLY VET IT AND HAVE A FULL STAKEHOLDERING PROCESS, AND THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

IT'S BEEN GIVEN THE BUM'S RUSH, AND WHEN IT COMES TO YOU, I'M HOPING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEND IT RIGHT BACK AND TELL THEM TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK, BECAUSE THE WORK HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

The data is not there.

I hear a lot of companies saying a lot of things and throwing out millions of dollars of numbers, but no one's actually giving the data.

And that's what we need.

OLS is supposed to be getting this.

They have six months to do it, but it's...

This is such a push to completely reverse this, including lowering the data before they have to give it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jasara Schroeder, and following Jasara will be Chetty McAfee.

So, hello.

I'm here, my name is Jasara Schroeder, and I'm here today as the representative of SHARE.

SHARE is a group of formerly homeless and homeless men and women.

And we're here today to declare our support for the Connected Community Pilot Program.

I am currently homeless.

Homelessness is not a choice.

It's a sign of a failure of our system.

And we know what the cure is.

The cure is affordable housing.

We know that locations that have affordable housing have lower rates of homelessness.

The homeless people you see on the street right now are refugees of this affordable housing crisis.

Every step we take towards affordable housing is a step towards ending homelessness.

Please do the right thing today.

Please vote for this project.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chetty McAfee and following Chetty will be JJ Wellaker.

Good afternoon, council.

I'm the Executive Director of Central Area Youth Association.

We've been around for over 60 years in the heart of the Central District.

We were awarded $2.5 million for the Connected Communities pilot, and that contract was signed, and we were expecting to build 60 units for black families, home ownership, and it was taken.

We were dismayed about that and still are.

A lot of work was put into that.

And so I am disheartened.

We are disheartened as an organization that's been around for so long and have had so many generations of families come through our doors.

So we urge you to reconsider what has happened.

This is about home ownership.

Not just Seattle, but all over.

It's just difficult to build a home.

So again, I ask you to reconsider.

Homeownership is very important, especially for black families.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is JJ Wellaker, followed by Sharon Kosla.

JJ Wilkerson here.

I have been with CAY for about 22 years, the longest board member and volunteer there.

Along with the housing situation, we have served families and the majority of them do not own homes and don't think they can ever own a home.

They don't even think it's a possibility.

And the project that we have going is probably the largest project event for us in our history.

We've been around for over 62 years.

And if you check with your families, you will find out that somebody in your family went through the doors of CAY for athletics or something.

Right now, we have a very powerful afterschool program.

And if you don't know, we're an ELO provider through the Seattle Public School District.

And our summer camp is off the chain.

Kids who go through our summer camp, they soar in school in the fall, and they're on the honor roll, and we have talent shows.

My daughter's a professional actor and producer, and so they're ready for the world.

So Snapchat right now, wrong thing to do.

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sharon Koslat, and following Sharon will be Michael Wolff.

Hi, there.

My name is Sharon Kosla.

I'm an architect and community advocate.

I work with many community organizations in around the south end and central area, and all of them are black-led.

I can't tell you how many times this pilot has been discussed in my conversations over the past year.

There are so many organizations out there that are working tirelessly to understand what is really needed in their communities.

These organizations are very often leaning towards affordable home ownership because this is the way to bring people back who are displaced or prevent people from being displaced.

Our land use code and permit process is overly onerous, and the pilot program allows us to explore what might happen if we allow community organizations a path to develop their own solutions.

This is called a pilot project for a reason, so you can try and see what works.

A bold move like this is needed to move these black-led projects along.

If it fails, then these black-led projects will continue the trajectory of the 20-year path that they usually take.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Wolff, and following Michael will be, I believe it's Madison Zachner.

Good afternoon, Council.

Michael Wolff, Executive Director of Drive Forward.

This revision on pay-up is needed.

We are talking about hundreds of thousands already of lost orders, and as the commenter earlier, workers earning $10 an hour.

That is half of minimum wage.

this is not working and when the people who oppose the revisions talk about we need data in the original stakeholder process there was no data they proposed this without any data so i don't know what you are going to do with that but it's not something that is really germane if the law can get adopted as they wanted it without data and then fail here we are with a failed law Leadership is fixing what's broken and admitting that there was a mistake.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is, I believe it's Madison Zachner, followed by Katherine Ingenson.

My name is Madison.

I'm a former gig worker, customer, and support pay-up.

Last week, Sarah Nelson tried to deflect responsibility for rolling back the pay-up policy.

Quote, yes, I did advance this legislation, but that was an agreement that was forged between Drive Forward and the network companies, unquote.

Well, Uber's own reports show that they fund Drive Forward.

In fact, all five of DriveForward's board members are Uber or Door-ex.

DriveForward's board president is the P&W general manager of Uber.

Also DriveForward's board secretary is the P&W policy manager at Uber.

And while she's actively lobbying city council to cut worker pay, she's sitting on DriveForward's board.

Actual gig workers fought to keep these corporate positions out of the original pay up policy.

No real driver advocacy group would agree to a policy that removes driver's right to enforcement and limits transparency.

Now, I guess we could have just appointed Uber to fill your council seat to save some time, but the decision to accept and introduce the bill is all yours, so own that.

Side note, please pass connected communities.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Katherine Ingenson, and Katherine will be followed by our last speaker in this in-person group of Alex Zimmerman.

Go ahead, Katherine.

My name is Kat Munson.

I'm the Policy and Campaigns Associate for Real Change in strong support of Councilmember Morales' Connected Communities legislation.

As this Council knows all too well, our city's affordable housing crisis requires a portfolio of evidence-based policy solutions.

For seven years now, the Equitable Development Initiative has been a key part of that portfolio.

bringing lower income housing developments coupled with access to ground floor resources to life, including the Alal Chief Seattle Club just blocks from the Real Change Office.

These intentional developments are transforming lives and have the potential to transform our housing landscape to create thriving housing communities with crucial third places.

Council Member Morales' Connected Communities legislation will allow more of these developments into more neighborhoods under a pilot program to ensure they're working as designed.

Seattle cannot waste any more time failing to provide more affordable housing.

Please add council member Morales' connected communities legislation to the urgently needed portfolio of policy solution.

Thank you.

We'll now move back to our remote speakers for an additional amount of time.

Our first, oh, excuse me, Alex Zimmerman, and then the remote speakers.

Sorry about that.

Yes, please.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi, hi.

Hi.

My name Alex Zimmerman, and I want to speak about something, President of Student of America.

First time for many years, maybe more than 20, I hear in council chamber something about civilized professional conversation.

It's very unique because we don't have this for many years.

Everything what is you doing, from my understanding, when I speak here for 20 years approximately, it's a masturbation.

It's very sick, but you do it.

So I think right now, maybe right now, the next step can be circumcision, city, skin to the bones.

You know what it means?

And we come back to Seattle, what is I see for...

40, 30 years ago.

It's exactly what I want to speak about.

A couple words about Bellevue Police Department.

I lived for 40 years in Bellevue Police Department.

It's more Nazi, Gestapo department what I have.

So somebody here who's talking about Bellevue,

Thank you.

Our next speakers will be remote.

And remember to please press star six when you hear a message if you've been unmuted on the remote call.

Our first remote speaker is Julia Buck, and Julia will be followed by Sandy Shetler.

Go ahead, Julia.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Julia Buck, and I'm a resident of District 6. I'm calling in to express my support for Councilmember Morales' Connected Communities pilot program.

I've really been impressed by the extensive stakeholder feedback that she sought from not only the mayor's office, but outside of City Hall and civic organizations, the Urban League of Mexico, .

I believe that allowing development that is not controlled by for-profit developers will make a difference in terms of adding more affordable housing that is actually affordable as opposed to $100 short of market rate, which requires an income of over $75,000 a year in order to actually be affordable within the parameters of 30% of income.

Thank you so much and I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sandy Shetler and following Sandy will be Leonard Jerome.

Go ahead Sandy.

Thank you council members.

Yes this is Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle.

Please vote no on connected communities.

Nationwide there is a straight line correlation between But people shouldn't have to choose between housing and living near trees, which protect human health.

The developments envisioned by this bill have no room for trees.

Why are we targeting frontline communities with high hardscape housing?

These are communities where we should be adding trees right where people live, not just in parks.

Tree equity means everyone deserves access to trees.

In contrast, this bill tells marginalized neighborhoods that if they want housing they have to give up trees and the health benefits they provide.

Please vote no on this bill.

Thank you.

DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Thank you.

Our next speaker is Leonard Jerome and following Leonard will be Arianna Riley.

DIRECTOR RILEY Hi Rudy.

Hi, my name is Len Jerome.

I'm a renter, and I live in the Ravenna neighborhood, and I'm a member of Tech for Housing.

I'm here in support of the Connected Communities Bill.

In a time of severe housing shortage, we must put an end to the arbitrary housing rules born out of a legacy of racism that restricts new housing to only single families.

Every council member ran on guaranteed, affordable, green, community-driven, gently dense housing.

Well, here's the bill.

In fact, it's not even a citywide rule change.

It is a cost-free experiment, and I'm disappointed that the majority of this council doesn't even want to do a pilot that does exactly what you promised on the campaign trail.

The reason people say members on this council don't support affordable housing is not because it's a personal attack.

It's because when a smart program like this is presented to you, your yes vote is completely off the table.

With this no vote today, we continue to careen down the path of San Francisco, a city where not in my back and children born there can never hope to afford to live there.

All of you ran on affordable housing.

So please put your vote where your mouth is and vote yes.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Arianna Riley.

And following Arianna will be Emma H. Arianna, you may need to.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Arianna Riley and I drive with Uber Eats, DoorDash, and Amphone Flex.

I drive a small car that gets better miles per gallon than almost anything else on the road.

And before this law was passed, I spent 20% of my daily income on gas.

The more you're on the road, the more you're at risk for accidents, nails and tires, rocks in your windshield, and more frequent maintenance.

My total monthly expenditures just keeping my car running, including insurance and maintenance, amount to $1,450, which is around one-third of my gross income.

These costs are not personal costs.

The IRS considers them business costs for us.

Most of us with little cars expend $8 per delivery hour just on keeping our cars operating.

$26.50 minus $8 equals $18.50, while $19.97 minus $8 equals $11.97, which would put us earning below even the state minimum wage.

$0.79 is a fair reimbursement for all the business costs.

$0.35 barely covers my gas.

Keep the bill in place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Emma H. And following Emma will be Matt Hutchins.

Go ahead, Emma.

Paying delivery couriers per order under pay up is critical for the minimum wage to operate as a true minimum wage rather than a maximum.

Looking through the receipts from one dinner shift on my bike this weekend, I was full of busy restaurants and stacked orders.

I saw that DoorDash actually chose to pay me slightly above the required amount on some of my orders.

I earned $26 an hour before tips, even with wait times.

In my downtime, I frequently watch bikers in New York City and California on YouTube as they record their deliveries.

They share what they are paid per shift with screenshots, and in contrast to Seattle, their hourly wages are typically just below the respective minimum wages, often inclusive of tips.

Switching to the top-up model proposed in the revision allows the corporations to follow the same practices they use in New York and California where the supposed minimum wage is instead used as the maximum.

And because the lower minimum fails to account for all the necessary expenses for cars, drivers will once again be working for a base pay well below minimum wage.

There may be a revision out there that can improve the system for all stakeholders, but the Nielsen revision is not.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Matt Hutchins.

And following Matt Hutchins is BJ Last.

Go ahead, Matt.

Hi, my name is Matt Hutchins and I'm an architect working on affordable housing and infill development.

Too many Seattleites struggle with housing, homelessness, high rent, housing stability or housing instability.

Programs like the Connected Communities Pilot give us the flexibility around zoning to unlock a generational opportunity to rethink how we make our neighborhoods better, more inclusive, healthy, equitable, sustainable.

and will be empowering local Seattle folks and local institutions to build affordable housing for themselves now in the neighborhoods that need it most now.

Housing prices have doubled statewide in the last decade, and these problems aren't going away despite our efforts to avoid them.

To tackle affordable housing, we need as many tools in our toolbox now.

Please support Connected Communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is BJ Last, and following BJ will be Ruby Holland.

Go ahead, BJ.

My name is B.J.

Lass.

I'm a Ballard homeowner, and I support Councilmember Morales' Connected Communities bill without Councilmember Strauss' amendment watering it down.

Seattle and King County have been in a homelessness state of emergency since 2015. What's the point of the state of emergency if Council is going to reject legislation that would make it easier to build affordable housing?

Every non-council campaigned on addressing homelessness.

Connected Communities is a chance to do that.

Also, council talks a whole lot about public safety.

Some of them can't go two sentences without saying public safety.

Well, guess what?

Increasing affordable housing is proven to improve public safety.

One study of this by Matthew Friedman and Emily Owen in the Journal of Urban Economics found that building affordable housing, quote, brings a significant reduction in violent crime.

So voting for connected communities is voting for improved public safety.

Also, I oppose the repeal of pay-ups.

Yesterday, Council President Nelson admitted she doesn't know why the legislation doesn't cap the fees delivery companies are charging instead of lowering worker pay.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ruby Holland, and following Ruby will be Dave Gloger.

Ruby, you may need to press star six.

Okay, we will move on to Dave Glocher and following Dave will be David Haynes.

Go ahead, Dave Glocher.

You may also need to press, there you go.

My name is Dave Glocher and I live in District 5 and I urge you to vote no on the Connected Communities legislation.

There are many reasons that this was suddenly rejected by the land use community.

We all know that we need more housing, but bad legislation to this end is still bad legislation.

Connected community has way too many exemptions to existing city regulations, popping out with the affordable housing guidelines, which this does not follow.

People keep talking about how this will create affordable housing.

Look in the details.

It creates very little housing, affordable housing.

And even during a meeting, Council Member Morales said this is not about low-income housing.

Council Member Morales is still pushing for this legislation with misleading statements like it won't cost the city.

Bad legislation costs us all, even if it is in upfront dollars.

It's lasting communities will have costs for years to come, not just during the five years of the pilot.

Again, please vote no on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Haynes, and following David will be Alberto Alvarez.

Go ahead, David Haynes.

Thank you.

David Haynes, it doesn't matter how much money you offer people to be a cop if you're ignoring the fact that the police chief is following George Soros' police reforms and racist woke policies that still exempt low-level drug pushers from jail under 3.5 grams while policies are prioritizing repeat offenders for housing and services first without ever questioning them to find out where they got the drugs while allowing discrimination of innocent homeless as the chief blames the poor for an easier payday.

And it's not fair that the cops are getting rich on overtime, not fighting crime.

Maybe we need cops paid overtime to sweep up all these junkie thieves, to send them into treatment, to like question and they'll find it where they got it that goes shut down the drugs.

Because policies have exacerbated public safety and the homeless crisis, and the nexus is the low-level drug pusher.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alberto Alvarez, and then we will try again with Richard Dorish.

Go ahead, Alberto.

Oh, hello.

My name is Alberto.

I'm a driver here in Seattle.

What we need is living wages, affordable housing, and a police force that is accountable to the people of this city.

What we don't need is Sarah Nelson towing the company line and overseeing a form of ethnic cleansing and economic warfare.

Sarah Nelson is ensuring that black and brown people and people with few financial options are allowed the privilege of working for sub-minimum pay with most rights and protections removed.

She said that 500 workers were pulled by drive forward, which is funded by Uber.

500 out of thousands, literal thousands of drivers.

500 is not enough for a poll.

Last meeting with central staff analysts, they got bogged and lost in the sauce talking about amendments, revisions, and reductions.

This is a repeal.

No repeal.

Thank you.

Our last two remote speakers will be Richard Dorish, followed by Ruby Holland.

Go ahead, Richard, and please press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

Okay, his phone is not working.

We will, our last speaker, remote speaker, is Ruby Holland.

Hello?

Hello?

Hi, my name is Richard Dorish.

I'm resident of lake city.

I've been a door dash driver for six years and 12,000 trips.

First of all, the current law was designed by all the parties involved.

Your new play plan is, is out of the door dash Ubers playbook.

Um, why are you trying to fix anything?

You don't, we don't have enough data.

You have not given it enough time.

uh to to prove itself the app companies wanted to make a big stink if you claw back now there is no guarantee that any app company is going to drop the fees the fee should have been in there five years ago none of them sarah nelson thinks the orders will come back if they're they really won't come back it's like boeing saying their airplanes are too expensive uh so focus on why DoorDash charges 30% to the restaurants, and they're doing it in the public arena.

What respectful company would do this?

They're a slimy middleman company.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker is Ruby Holland, and then we'll move back to in-person speakers.

Ruby, please press star six.

Okay, we are having technical difficulties.

Sorry, Ruby.

We're moving on to in-person speakers.

Our next two in-person speakers are James Fackler followed by Adriana Taguera.

Hi, James Fackler.

Greetings, Council.

I came here to stand and support gig workers and to talk about not rolling those protections back.

But then I saw there were other things on the agenda too that really strike home for me.

And I think that what we're currently facing in this city is a crisis of affordability.

And what's before you isn't really, how do we keep Seattle affordable?

Because Seattle is no longer affordable.

How do we make Seattle affordable?

We make Seattle affordable by holding the line on living wages, and working conditions and not diminishing those, certainly for the folks at the bottom.

And we also do that by supporting innovating housing policies that support communities and embrace diversity and support people staying in their communities.

And so I urge you to not roll back the gig worker.

And I encourage you to pass the council.

Your mic is off, it looks like.

My mic is off?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Adriana Taguera, followed by Jonathan.

She'll have interpretation.

Can we have two minutes to include interpretation?

Hello.

Good afternoon.

It's been a long time since I saw you.

How are you?

I am talking to you.

To explain you what situation we are in right now.

I know that we come always for the same reason.

And I know that you told us that we have to go to the county.

Yeah, for that.

There were two organizations that were beneficiaries for housing.

But we have to wait two months for those resources to come.

While now, 330 people, adults, kids, and teenagers, we're camping close to Garfield Park.

Desde el día de ayer.

Since yesterday.

Estamos solicitando.

We're asking you.

Nuevamente.

Again.

El apoyo de ustedes.

Your support.

Gracias.

Thank you.

I keep happening.

Excuse me.

Our next speaker is Jonathan Lentamba, followed by Marcus Nantondick.

Hi, and I just want to let everyone know that we do have a Spanish and Portuguese interpreter available, so.

Jonathan and Marcos aren't here, so you could go to the next person.

Okay, thank you.

Our next speaker will be Samuel Kenyonga, followed by Jessica Regis.

Samuel here.

And go ahead and move that microwave right up to your...

I think these two migrants would like to take the two spots if possible.

Oh, no, they want to sign up.

Oh, okay.

I can speak.

I'm Jessica.

I can go to one minute.

Great, hi, I'm Jessica.

I've been here before.

I'm a resident here in Seattle, and I'm with the International Migrants Alliance.

I just wanna echo what Adriana is saying.

I know that the migrants have been here, the asylum seekers have been here many, many times asking for support.

And unfortunately, the funding that came from King County, the two million, is only gonna be 60 hotel rooms, for only immediate families, which has resulted in over 300 people sleeping outside last night.

It was freezing.

There wasn't enough blankets.

There was barely enough tents.

There's children that are missing school today.

Literally, this is now on City of Seattle property because there's nowhere else for the migrants to go, nowhere else for the asylum seekers to go.

So what I demand is that the City of Seattle actually do something and come up with a solution that actually solves the problem long-term because the migrants, Children having to sleep outside who are sick is an unacceptable response.

And we'll be here.

You can come to the park and see it yourself.

But we demand...

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Roslyn Palera, followed by Curtis Brown.

Are you still here?

Curtis Brown?

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Looks like we'll need two minutes, Megan, for interpreter for Roslyn.

We're sad to be here again with the same concerns that we had four months ago.

I know that it's hard for you, but it's also hard for us, for the families that we are camping in that park.

We can't handle this sadness anymore for our kids.

Every time that you help us with some days and couples of weeks, it's better.

So I also thank all the orgs that have been supported with, like Communidades Sin Fronteras, and to all of the Venezuelan people.

But kids are the ones that are suffering.

Yesterday it was cold and rainy, and we have a lot of kids with fever, and they are sick right now.

As Adriana said, in two months the resources will come, but right now it's really hard for us.

We are all asking just for a little bit of your help for us, for everyone in the camp, like people that are kids, adults, and even disabled people.

So we thank you, everyone.

You know what we are going through, and we expect an answer from you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Curtis Brown, and following Curtis will be Slacksman Apato.

I slay Manapato, but go ahead, Curtis.

Okay, Curtis Brown, Brighton Communities.

1995, 2709 3rd Avenue, long time ago, bought the, for a homeless agency, brought the community together, $1.2 million.

Jump forward to 2021 in Southeast Seattle, bought the Arches Apartments $6.4 million, no money, brought the community together, negotiated successfully with Amazon to make this happen.

I'm here in support of connected communities because it offers the ability of people like me and all my comrades out here who are innovators to make a difference for our city.

I am asking that we pass this.

Innovation is the very tools that we need, and this is what offers us that opportunity.

So I encourage you to know what a pilot project is.

It's an opportunity to make a difference.

We should not be afraid of what might happen.

We should be excited of what can happen.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sleiman Apato, and following Sleiman is Lynn Reed.

Hi, I'm Sleiman Apodolo.

I'm here in support of the Connected Communities pilot legislation.

We all know that there's a housing crisis that we're trying to address, affordable rental and home ownership, and this pilot is an attempt.

We know that we can't address it with just one one plan that's gonna, one effort that's gonna eliminate this crisis.

But rather we have to take it one step at a time, just chip at it, chip away at it, one effort at a time, one legislation at a time.

And connect the communities legislation is one of those efforts.

It allows the flexibility to help a project pencil.

Cause sometimes it's not always about going higher.

Sometimes it's about spreading out the homes so that the project might pencil out.

Cause going higher has additional costs that comes with it.

A lot of concerns about exempting, being exempt from design review, but we see that ordinance 126854 already allows that exemption when you allow, when you have meet onsite affordability requirements and disconnected communities actually

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lynn Reed.

And following Lynn is, I believe it's Fanzoso.

Lynn Reed and then Fanzoso.

Could you please wait one moment?

I just want to note that public comment has been extended twice.

It went from about 2.03 to...

20 minutes and then another 20 minutes and it's now been an hour.

We do have some pretty weighty bills and amendments on the agenda.

However, several other people have signed up to speak since we began the meeting.

And if there is no objection, I will just extend the public comments so that everybody can speak.

I just wanted to make sure with the bills and the amendment sponsors here, that's okay.

Seeing no objection, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, my name is Lynn Reed and I'm here to comment today on behalf of our members of Drive Forward.

Drivers need and want the protections of a minimum earning standard.

We know this because 550 of our members completed a survey in February and said exactly that.

Unfortunately, two years ago when pay up was pushed through, with no data considered, by the way, it was far overreaching.

The ramifications of that include unintended consequences of longer wait times, lower pay, and fewer orders.

Restaurants are hurting.

They're down 30 to 50%.

Drivers are down 50% in offers.

Our members are calling us looking for resources, emergency resources.

We need to reform this legislation now.

It cannot wait.

Please consider this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Fanzoso, followed by, it's number 34, I'm not sure this name, Fausto Boslu.

I am going to move on to Angelica Alberto.

He's going to speak in French and then I'll translate.

Thank you very much.

My name is Famoso.

I come from Angola.

We're very disappointed with what we're seeing in this country.

We've been in King County since before they gave the money to help us.

And when they awarded the money, we were told that they would help us, but since they've awarded the money, nothing has happened and no one's come to our aid.

All of the organizations that were given money haven't come to us to give us any aid or solutions.

We're living in conditions that are not humane or livable.

All of the different conditions in camps, et cetera.

And so we're coming again to you to ask for help because you have the ability to help us, but somehow something is keeping that from happening.

We're very disappointed with how this has gone so far.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, our next speaker is Farstad Basalua, followed by Frederico Miguel.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

It's a pleasure to be here with you because we are here fighting for the human rights and for the rights of people to have a house.

We received information that King County released already $2 million to help us, the homeless.

So this money is going to be shared between some organizations that are helping us.

Unfortunately, the organizations are no helping the immigrants.

Well, most of the people, they have to sleep outside under the stars or under the rain.

And sometimes they have to leave the place where they are before 11 AM.

So there are some organizations that are capable to help, but they are not helping, but we don't know why.

We don't know why there is the money, but they cannot help us.

We are the immigrants.

So this is a shame for the country, like the United States.

Thank you.

We are done.

We're just down to a few more speakers.

Frederic Miguel followed by Angelica Alberto.

Do we have a Frederic Miguel?

Good afternoon to all.

We are here only to say a few things that are bothering everybody.

So the first thing is what Brother Cristobal just said.

So we see that the government opened up its heart

gave some money to help the immigrants.

So we thank you very much for this help.

But the problem is, the problem is the amount of money that the government released to help the immigrants.

So the organizations that were elected, those organizations are using the money the way they want.

But they are not using the money, attending the rules by which the government released that money.

We have 45 people that today is the last day.

Tomorrow, 11 AM, they're not going to have a place to live.

While the government released the money to help the people.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Angelica Alberto, followed by Kate Rubin.

Angelica?

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Well, what I'm going to say is what everybody already said.

I'm just going to compliment a few things.

We are here crying, begging for a place for the immigrants to leave.

The county promised to help the immigrants with some funds so we could have a place to live.

The fund was released, but where is the place so the immigrants can live in?

All the organizations, they don't have any concrete answer while all the kids, the children, and the pregnant women are needing help.

The only thing I ask is for you to help these people that is going through this struggle.

Because the organizations that were designed to do this, they are not fulfilling their duties.

We just want them to start working and do their job so the immigrants, they have a place, a safe place to live.

Either they pay for the immigrants to have a place to live, or the county should find another solution.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kate Rubin, and following Kate is David Malimpunluna.

Excuse me.

Go ahead, Kate.

Hi, I'm Kate Rubin.

I'm the organizing director at Bee Seattle, and I am a renter living in Beacon Hill.

I'm here today to urge you to support Council Member Morales' Connected Communities pilot.

This program is a step, a tiny step, in addressing our massively growing housing and homelessness crisis, which we are seeing today in real time.

Building more affordable housing in areas with high displacement will help to keep Seattleites rooted in our communities and help to welcome the people who are going to become part of our communities.

Enabling small community groups to partner with developers will bring resources and cultural preservation together.

This makes services more accessible, which means a stronger community with less impact on our environment.

The proposed amendments kind of miss the point about how this is going to impact everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your time is up.

I'm sorry.

Our last two speakers are David Bulambanula, followed by Lucianda Molando.

Good evening, everyone.

I'd like for you to understand something.

Tout de suite là, c'est vrai, nous sommes d'accord avec ça.

Well, everyone, all our loved ones have already said it's true, we're in agreement with them.

Écoutez, je prends mon exemple personnel.

I'm going to take my personal example.

Je viens de la République démocratique du Congo.

I come from the DRC, the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Tout le monde connaît tout ce qui se passe là-bas.

And everyone knows what's happening there.

Il y a une guerre qui a duré depuis longtemps.

There's a war that's been happening for a long time.

And we had better conditions there.

But because of the war, we lost everything.

And we chose to come here to the United States And we chose to come here to the United States because it's a powerful country and it has the capacity to protect us.

But when we arrived here, we fell into conditions that are very difficult and complicated.

First of all, to work, it takes a lot of time.

It takes six months.

And if we could work, we would pay for our own housing.

So you're not letting people work on time.

And you're also letting us live in conditions that are very difficult.

Like me.

My daughter's at the hospital.

Because we spent the night outside.

Thank you.

And our last speaker is Luciana Molando.

Luciana Molando.

Thank you.

My name is Luciana, and I'm here to represent my people from Angola.

I am from Angola.

I'm here representing my people, and we left our country because of the crisis over there.

Because we came here, because the United States is a welcoming country.

But since we got here, we have more than 50 people sleeping on the streets.

Pregnant women, sick people, children that are sick.

For more than two months, we are moving around.

We were at the church in Taquila, but they kick us out over there, so we are now on the streets.

We are here.

We are here begging for help.

We need a place to sleep.

That's what we need.

In name of all the Angolans, we are here begging for your attention and asking for

This is all we need, a place to stay, for God's sake.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And that concludes our public commenters.

Council President.

Thank you very much.

We've reached the end of our list of registered speakers, so the public comment period is closed.

Thank you all very much for your comments today.

We'll move on with our agenda.

Please feel free to also send your comments to City Council by email.

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

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

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

And seeing none, the agenda is adopted.

We'll now consider the proposed consent calendar.

Items on the consent calendar include the minutes of April 23rd, 2024, Council Bill 120776, which is the payment of bills, 11 appointments from the Housing and Human Services Committee, and that's it.

Are there any items council members would like to remove from today's consent calendar?

All right, seeing none, will the clerk please call?

No, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Thank you very much.

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

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?

Council Member Moore?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saca?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed, one absent.

Thank you.

The consent calendar items are adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes in legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf?

All right.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

The report of the Land Use Committee, Agenda Item 1, Council Bill 120750, an ordinance relating to the land use and zoning, establishing the Connected Community Development Partnership Bonus Pilot Program, and adding new sections 23.40.090 through 23.40.170.

090 to the Seattle Municipal Code, the committee recommends that City Council do not pass the Council Bill with three in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you very much.

Okay, folks, the committee recommended that the bill not pass and includes a divided report.

The question is, is on if the bill should pass.

We'll first hear presentations on the divided report and then open the floor to comments on the bill.

The report will be presented in the following order.

The majority position, minority position, and then the one abstention.

So, Councilmember Rivera, you are recognized to present the majority position.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

In response to the divided report for the proposed Connected Communities pilot, Council Members Moore, Wu and I outlined our concerns with the bill and the reasons why we ultimately voted against its passage.

There is no question that we need and should support housing of all types across Seattle from affordable to market rate.

Our efforts, however, must be part of a cohesive plan that leverages all of the city's investments and strategies.

This is best accomplished through the 20-year comprehensive plan that the city and we are all currently engaged in, which is due later this year.

This plan will help guide changes to land use and zoning laws to accomplish our housing goals across the city.

The proposed Connected Communities pilot bypasses this process and creates a divided system.

After the comp plan process is finalized, we can determine if additional legislation is needed to achieve our housing goals.

Council Members Woolmore and I also support generational wealth-building opportunities for the communities still suffering the impacts of redlining.

Families are best served when they can keep their property to pass down to future generations.

This bill does not encourage families to maintain ownership of their property.

In addition, the city just passed a nearly $1 billion housing levy, and we do not yet know how these funds will be implemented.

Any land use legislation to address housing should consider how these funds will be invested.

Finally, given our housing shortage and the slowing down of recent development, we need to consider how to incentivize all development across this city, rather than singling out some investments over others.

For these reasons, we do not recommend passage of Council Bill 120750 by the full Council.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you very much.

We will now hear the minority position.

Council Member Morales, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I want to start with just a summary of the bill, and then I will go through the divided report itself.

So, sorry, let me get to my place on my notes.

So this legislation is supported by housing policy experts, by housing providers, by major nonprofit housing developers across the city, including the Housing Development Consortium, Habitat for Humanity, Bellwether, the Chief Seattle Club, Interim Community Development Association, SEED, Brighton Development Group, Filipino Community Center, the CHOM Refugee Community, Puget Sound Sage, El Centro de la Raza, and many more.

On top of that, this legislation is supported by architects, by the Master Builders Association, who've acknowledged that though this bill will not directly impact their members, it's a step in the right direction.

And we all received over 1,200 emails in support of this legislation.

I will say we also did receive, just this afternoon, An update from the city attorney's office who indicated that since this memo, the original legal memo was drafted in 2023, many changes have been made to the connected communities bill that would try to address the legal concerns raised in that original legal memo.

So we now think the chances of a successful legal challenge to the legislation are low.

Changes that were made to the bill will partially mitigate legal risks.

Neighbors who oppose a project permitted under the legislation would face significant procedural hurdles, and it's unlikely that somebody who's actually applying to participate would challenge the legislation.

So I did want to make sure folks know that the city attorney's office has weighed in, that this bill does no longer pose the kind of legal challenge that was originally considered.

As far as the divided report itself goes, I do want to respond to some of the issues that were raised and that Councilmember Rivera just addressed.

So one of the claims is that the bill will not accomplish its intended goal of creating generational wealth building opportunities.

The base bill did have an incentive that allowed the owner to sell the property and get an owner unit built on the new property but remain on site for a minimum of 10 years.

That was included in the original legislation.

That incentive was removed from the substitute bill because after meeting with community organizations and hearing concerns about that particular element from my colleagues on the Land Use Committee, we realized that that would be difficult to legislate, so we removed that section of the bill.

That being said, the bill would create generational wealth opportunities.

It does allow for creation of home ownership units at 100% AMI and does also require at least 33% of onsite performance for affordable units itself.

A second claim is that the bill would not accomplish the intended goal of preventing displacement.

Amendment 1 that I hope to discuss today does require, again, at least 33% of rental units that are affordable to folks at 60% of area median income if they are in studios or one bedrooms.

and sets it at 80% area median income for two bedroom apartments or for family size units.

This is how we address displacement in the city.

We don't have nearly enough housing, so we need more options for people.

And this allows us to start, provides as many folks have said, one tool for increasing the amount of affordable housing.

That's how we prevent displacement by giving residents more affordable housing options.

A third claim is that we should wait until the comprehensive plan to address the lack of housing.

The comprehensive plan is a policy guideline.

It is not itself legislation.

It is the way we implement legislation.

We also are currently operating under a comprehensive plan already, and that plan does acknowledge that we have an affordable housing crisis in the city.

It doesn't do nearly enough to address it.

nor does it do nearly enough to stem the displacement that has been caused by the policies that have long existed in our comprehensive plan, but we are operating under a comprehensive plan that acknowledges the need for more affordable housing.

In addition, we're not expected to get the new comprehensive plan update until the end of the year at the earliest.

We won't be able to vote on it until next year, and this is a development opportunity that exists now.

It is also a tool to build the missing middle housing that we are required to start addressing under House Bill 1110. This is just another tool to help us meet our housing shortage, which we all acknowledge we have.

A fourth claim is that eligibility is based on some future criteria developed and implemented by city departments.

There is nothing unusual about this.

This is part of the legislation making process.

Once legislation is passed, there is often rulemaking work that happens at the city department level.

Director's rules are a normal part of legislation.

This allows departments to clarify criteria and to provide a way to implement the legislation that city council passes.

I'm not sure why this is seen as a negative when it's a normal part of the legislative process.

A fifth claim is that a more effective approach would be to make additional development capacity available citywide.

This bill is focused on helping community-based organizations develop and create cultural services, housing, affordable commercial space in neighborhoods that currently that previously had restrictive covenants.

And unfortunately those kinds of covenants were in fact spread across the city.

So again, I can't stress enough that this is a pilot project that would be intended to test out how best to allow this kind of development in parts of the city that did not use to allow multifamily housing.

And we can still see that pattern of exclusion today.

So this is what we are trying to, part of what we're trying to address.

And then finally, the comment that we have to consider that voters recently passed a billion-dollar housing levy, we have yet to determine how this investment will create more housing.

That is simply not true.

The housing levy, we know, will create about 3,100 units of affordable housing, almost 3,000 rental, and almost 300 home ownership units.

We have a housing deficit in the city.

We know that already.

And this pilot doesn't seek to use funds from the housing levy, so there's no issue around competition for those funds.

In addition, the housing levy and my legislation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

They're both tools that can increase our need, that can address our need for affordable housing in the city.

So, you know, I don't know why we wouldn't contemplate expanding the number of tools that we have to increase our housing stock across the city.

And I hope that my colleagues will consider supporting this legislation so that we can address the needs of our neighbors.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from Council Member Strauss, who abstained from voting on the committee recommendation.

Council Member Strauss, you are recognized.

Thank you, Council President, colleagues.

At committee last time, I said everything on the record that I'm about to say to you now, which is I intended to propose amendments to the bill in committee.

However, I, as a council member, did not provide central staff the correct direction to fully write out my amendment.

And this is why I asked Chair Morales for additional time in committee so that we could have this discussion in committee.

I today have the amendment fully written.

It's before us.

I've passed it out to all of you.

It's attached to Legistar.

I believed and I still believe this bill could have used more time in committee.

And that is why I did not second the bill while we were in committee.

because I thought we needed more time.

Clearly from the discussion, I think that there's a lot of interest in the nuance because after four years of chairing the land use committee, I can tell you it is a very dense set of chapters in our land use code.

And it takes a minute to understand what's before us.

Thank you chair for bringing this forward.

All right.

Now we will actually consider Council Bill 120750. And my staff went to each office and explained how this procedure will go.

The committee recommended that the bill not pass.

The question now is if the bill should pass.

So we have the committee recommendation, which you've just heard the sides representing.

And now we will talk about the bill itself.

So are there any comments on the actual bill?

And I believe this is when that would be the good.

Yes.

I move we pass Council Bill 120750. Second.

It is moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Council Member Morales, would you like to provide any opening remarks or comments at this point?

Well, I will actually like to move the Amendment A. I don't know.

We've had the discussion, so I'm ready to move Amendment A. All right.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment A. Council Member Morales, you are recognized in order to address Amendment A. Thank you, Council President.

I want to start by saying that I appreciate everybody who's been involved in this process.

I want to thank Lish Whitson and Ketel Freeman on Central staff who've spent a couple of years now working on this legislation, not just with my office, but with all of the community members who have shown up to express their support.

Um, I want to also say that, uh, to council member Strauss's point about not having enough time, this legislation, this particular piece of legislation is not that complicated, but I understand that in the land use committee things can get pretty technical and dense, which is why we had five committee meetings, uh, about this piece of legislation.

Typically, uh, in city council committees, we hear something twice and then we vote on it and it's done.

So, um, we did talk about this bill for an extended period of time.

I also want to say that I heard the concerns that were raised by my council colleagues throughout these discussions.

There were concerns about the affordability threshold for renters being set at 80 percent.

So Amendment A changes that to 60 percent AMI for studios and ones and retains the 80 percent for family-sized apartments and 100 percent AMI for homeownership.

units that would be created by development.

There was a concern about the legislation aligning with the goals set out in the comprehensive plan.

This legislation not only meets the goals listed in the current comprehensive plan, but also the HB 1110 goals for commercial space and for workforce housing needed in our neighborhoods.

There was also a concern from community organizations on the complexity of the homeownership piece, which we've talked about a little bit.

This amendment does remove residential homeownership units.

I heard the call from individual property owners that they want to be able to develop their land and stay on it in order to stem the displacement, and I support that.

I also believe that incentive zoning tools are available for them.

But we need to figure that element out differently because city council is not in a position of structuring the deals between those individual homeowners and developers.

And so it was complicating the legislation.

So we pulled it out and that we will work on that as a separate initiative.

That is also in response to the concerns that were raised by my colleagues on the Land Use Committee.

So I, as I said, would like to convene a work group in the next year to work on that particular issue.

Finally, this amendment simplifies the criteria for determining whether a project is a qualifying development.

The qualifying community development organization either has to own 51% of the property or have a controlling and active management role in the property.

And that is sort of a term of art that is used in deal making and real estate deals.

So that phrase, controlling an active management role is just the way that these partnership deals are, the language that is used in those deals.

And I will say that in the last few months of deliberations, I've worked in good faith to hear the concerns of my colleagues.

I've incorporated changes to address those concerns in this amendment.

And I will say that I do believe we have a better bill because of those conversations and because of the changes that were made as a result of those deliberations.

And I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

At this point, I will ask if there are any comments on Amendment A. Uh, Council President, I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 120750 as presented in Amendment B, which is a substitute amendment to Amendment A. Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend Amendment A as presented in Amendment B. Councilmember Strauss, you're recognized in order to address Amendment B. Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Chair Morales, for bringing this bill forward.

I am one of the people that you've brought along, because when you originally proposed this bill, I said, we had just passed the religious institution bonus bill.

Why did we need another?

I have come to understand the importance of having community development organizations have access to those same bonuses.

I'll speak about religious institution bonus bill first, because the framework of my amendment brings this bill in line with the content of the religious institution bonus bill.

It's a pilot, the Religious Institution Bonus Bill, in a sense that in Ballard, we've got the St. Luke's Redevelopment Program going on, where we have affordable housing in one tower, and market rate and MFTE units in the other tower.

Having the ability to see firsthand, granted the buildings aren't built, they're coming soon, but having the ability to see the difference in density bonus in real life gives us as policymakers the ability to understand if these are changes that we want to make citywide because they're on a limited scale.

They're limited in their scope where they can be built.

The Connected Communities Bill mirrored the Religious Institution Bonus Bill in intent and expanded to qualifying community organizations.

My amendment for us right now brings the content of connected communities in line with the content of the Religious Institution Bonus Bill.

The Religious Institution Bonus Bill has already demonstrated success across our city.

And I did incorporate the affordability levels Council Member Morales just mentioned that are in the underlying bill within my amendment rather than using the religious bonus bill level of 80% AMI.

We've seen the religious bonus bill work for Seattleites.

I do believe that we should extend this opportunity to qualifying community partners.

I've already shared my example about St. Luke's and I ask for your support on this amendment.

Thank you, colleagues.

Are there any comments on Amendment B?

I don't know whose hand was raised yet.

I see Councilmember Wu and...

Go ahead, Councilmember Wu.

Thank you.

So just first off, I want to say that I do still have serious concerns about the legality of this bill.

With my own risk tolerance, I'm uncomfortable with the legality of it all.

And yes, I saw the memo that was sent two hours and 43 minutes ago.

But neither one of us can discuss the gullibility of it, but my comment still stands.

I also do not want to repeat what I said in committee, but I will just kind of sum it up.

I still think we need to get the AMI down and roll this out to the entire city.

We need to build more housing.

This bill is not ready yet.

So I think you all know I am an affordable housing developer.

The AMIs in my housing development is as low as 40%.

Yet our development cost was three times more because we were historic building, and that's why it's three times more than built new.

And we were able to get the needed affordability, and I believe Seattle can do it too.

We dedicated two and a half months looking at this legislation, yet it changed days before the vote.

We pivoted from 30% of the entire development being at 80% AMI to 60% and 80% AMI blend.

like days before the committee vote.

We are pushing this amendment forward without the thoughtful, meaningful dialogue necessary to ensure our legislation strikes the delicate balance between deliver incentives and community benefits.

So for one, consider it a multifamily tax exemption program.

Sales Office of Housing employs a formula ensuring that development starting at 40% AMI units are able to remain financially viable.

So numerous developers actively engage this program, testing to its efficiency.

I've talked with developers prepared to file permits for 80% AMI homeownership units.

We have evidence here that 40% and 80% AMI homeownership models work.

So why are we fixated on 80% 60% and 100% AMI, and we know 40 and 80 pencil out and work.

So these AMI numbers are just like all over the place for this legislation, changes so fast.

And so I want to see, you know, where are the performance?

I've asked for them.

Where's the data that we arrive at 60, 80 and 100 AMIs?

Are we just throwing numbers out there?

So I want to see the evidence.

And as a member of this council, I take pride in our commitment to refrain from hastily pushing through legislation.

I do not want to experiment on and in marginalized and vulnerable communities lacking resources, risking unintended consequences.

So I like the intent and goal of Council Member Morales and Council Member Strauss's idea.

I believe it's almost there, but not there yet.

And I would have liked more time.

I contemplated a walk-on amendment, but ended up believing that and hearing from others that it's not fair, it's too late.

So what if we took MFTE's affordable 40% development incentive formula from the Office of Housing and apply it to this, but instead of a tax exemption, turn it into a density bonus.

Make this available to entire cities so we can truly build more affordable housing.

And I would be very interested in pursuing that.

And as an affordable housing developer, I believe the devil resides in the details.

I urge everyone to read the legislation firsthand and also seek insights from those entrenched in the battle against gentrification displacement, which I have spent my whole life fighting.

Seems like some people are also confused about the home ownership portion that has been removed from this bill.

So, for many of us who also manage affordable housing, you know the challenges of marketing market rate units compared to the demand of the 40 to 60 percent AMI units.

While, you know, market rate units are kind of hard to move, we have waiting lists for the 40 to 60 percent units.

In two years, when we measure the success of this legislation, and we are building units at 80% to 100% AMI, and housing only allows for first come, first serve, and we see only people who make $90,000 to $120,000 a year moving in, when the average black family makes only $45,000 a year, will we have succeeded in averting gentrification displacement or exasperated it?

So there are two ways looking at combating gentrification.

Some community members say that this will help gentrification and displacement.

Others say that this makes it worse.

And so I think it's important to consider a huge range of strategies that mitigate its negative effects.

And most of all, we need to empower communities and people by helping them retain and develop their own land.

So I would wish, I really hope that we can focus on affordability.

I know we can make 40% AMI work, I've done it.

We can really have housing for those who make 40K.

which we really need.

And I think we need to work harder to make sure that we pass legislation that do that.

And so I really would prefer not to gamble with the fate of our communities.

Let's deliberate, analyze, ensure our actions truly serve the needs of all of our citizens.

All right.

Next up is Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for your amendment.

I will say the Religious Institutions Bill is an appropriate tool for religious institutions and the Connected Communities Bill is appropriate for community-based organizations to get engaged.

As I've said, the reason for my amendment is that I want to acknowledge the issues raised by the Land Use Committee about creating housing for folks at 60% or below.

I've heard from affordable housing developers that this is an important segment of the market that needs to be served, which is why I adjusted it.

While I appreciate Councilmember Strauss, what he's trying to do in aligning this legislation with what we've already passed, the Religious Institutions Bill, there are different needs that other community organizations are trying to accomplish.

So the Connected Communities pilot is intended to study what mix of incentives might better facilitate the partnership between traditional developers and community-based organizations who want to learn about the development process to serve their constituencies.

This bill requires performance at 33%, which is greater than the MHA required performance.

and requiring community organizations to develop on site and also pay into MHA seems like a disincentive that would really maybe not allow projects to pencil.

Amendment B removes or reduces other incentives and is not responsive to community stakeholders.

And again, I'll remind colleagues that this is a pilot that sunsets by 2029 or after 35 projects, whichever comes first.

So I will not be supporting this amendment.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you very much.

Remember, we are talking about Amendment B, please, here, and Council Member Saka.

Right.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

And first off, I want to state that I believe and actually know that everyone sitting at this dais understands the urgent need for more affordable housing, more anti-displacement strategies.

especially in the areas of our city at greatest need and highest risk of displacement.

Shared goal, shared understanding there.

And personally, every day I see young families struggling, seniors, working folks who are just squeaking by.

And I happen to live in Delridge in West Seattle, a neighborhood that is on the list of high-risk displacement and one of the highest concentrations of people of color in all of West Seattle.

I know that we elected officials understand that we are We're here for a reason.

We're elected to make hard decisions.

Rarely will a policy or proposed policy or proposed bill or piece of legislation come before us that has every conceivable question answered and addressed and every corner uncovered.

A true no-brainer, if you will.

Yet, that is why there will be tough decisions like this one today, and many more surely to come before us, no doubt.

For me today, I have a host of big picture concerns about this legislation, ranging from its basic feasibility, how it actually builds generational wealth and ownership for our low-income neighbors, or how it can address environmental justice with tree canopy, air quality balancing with the increased density where black and brown and other residents of color and low-income folks already get concentrated in the highest traffic areas and the highest population areas as well.

So those are just...

a few of my initial concerns.

As a matter of fact, as a brand new council member and as someone who was not on the, did not sit on the land use committee, I was not privy to the, obviously not privy to the prior two years of the process that went on here and nor did I sit on the committee this year.

And if allowed more time, I probably, would have had my own host of amendments to improve this to make it better and hopefully better actually achieve the intended goals here.

In short, I am not confident that the proposed legislation will work as specifically designed in practice.

To be honest, it probably won't.

I am far from sanguine about the likely impact and long-term efficacy of this bill if passed.

But I'm also curiously intrigued as well.

What if, what if it actually does work?

I don't know.

That's why today I'm prepared to vote yes on this bill.

Consider this a grumbling acceptance, if you will.

As between the two versions of the underlying Connected Communities legislation, I generally favor Councilmember Strauss' version of the bill, which is modeled on an existing ordinance, as you sort of described, that seems to be yielding some initial developmental results.

We need to see more to be seen there.

But our city desperately needs more housing and more affordable housing.

We're at a point where trying new things makes some sense, especially if the cost to the city is de minimis.

These two bills are currently the only legislative mechanism that I see that have the potential to directly advance the imperative to build more affordable housing.

So I think it is worthwhile to explore no cost or virtually no cost pilot project like this that uses an innovative approach to test which specific incentives tend to create more affordable housing.

Thus we can gather some, hopefully we can gather some learnings within this short term five year duration of this pilot and to better test and explore if it might be an effective way to build more affordable housing that reduces displacement without creating a complicated new incentive structure.

Again, might work, might not.

But for me, the most alluring and compelling feature of this specific bill is its purported zero and no cost nature of the pilot program as further describes in our central staff's summary and fiscal note memo.

That is why I personally don't want to see organizations or developers coming back to the city during the budget season to seek any new funding for any of these projects from the council.

They believe that partial fiat funding at the city level is desirable for a specific project down the road.

That is something that they'll need to specifically seek out and pursue directly through existing funding channels and programs at the city level and OH.

Along the same lines, it is my full expectation that developers participating in this program will not look to the City Council for additional funding for projects built pursuant to this pilot program.

These projects should be privately funded, except when they qualify for existing office of housing programs.

So, colleagues, I would hope that my questions and concerns, definitely shared by many of you all, you know, would get addressed on a going-forward basis, but I think we need to do something now, and that is why I personally support it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

You know, I was aware of the Connected Communities Legislation Committee meeting.

I heard about it as it was happening on the floor of the offices, and I watched it later on Seattle Channel.

Interestingly, the reporting that I heard and read afterwards was focused seemingly solely on the goal not asked at all was why four committee members couldn't get to yes, which I consider a major point to think about and to consider, particularly when one committee member is the former land use chair.

Another has direct affordable housing development experience.

One is a committed public servant with years of experience in the city departments on the executive side, and one is the housing committee chair and a judge who looks at the details, trust me, and make sure that T's are crossed and I's are dotted.

Yet given the background of the committee, the question of why four committee members couldn't get to yes was not looked at apparently and not accounted for.

That's troubling in its own sense.

I support the goals and aspirations related to affordable housing, but I'm mindful of the efforts in public safety over the years that had good goals, but the path from A to B was based on a hope or wish strategy, not reality.

The lack of a committee majority yes vote indicates another example maybe before us.

And so particularly today, as this council meeting has turned into a committee meeting, I believe that it should be sent back to committee both B and A for reflection.

One last point, and since it came up earlier, there was a reference to attorney-client privileged communication.

Council President, I'd just like to note that A, I don't think it's in good practice to refer to attorney-client privileged communications, and my sense of this was related to the pilot itself.

The underlying concerns previously, if a pilot was to turn into an ongoing legislation and program, that that could come back.

And so, you know, unless we're doing pilot for pilot's sake, we should not really consider the quote unquote attorney client privilege communication that came from the city attorney's office.

So with that, that's my position on B with my considerations to my representative colleague from D6 and also to D2.

And I say, hey, send us back.

Let's get a committee, yes, that takes into account all the experience that I referred to and gets an answer that we can move forward on.

Thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yeah, I was just wanting a point of clarity.

We are commenting on the amendment put forth by Councilmember Strauss.

That is correct.

Not the overall bill.

Right.

Which we will have time to comment on.

Right.

Understood.

Okay.

So I just wanted to clarify.

I was kind of...

I WAS A LITTLE LOST.

I APOLOGIZE.

FOR THE AMENDMENT, I REALLY WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS FOR PUTTING FORTH THE AMENDMENT.

AND LAST MINUTE, I HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT.

MY CONCERNS WITH THE AMENDMENT IS THAT IT MAKES HOUSING SMALLER AND A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE WITH ALL OF THE ADDED ADDITIONS.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO ON THE AMENDMENT, BUT I REALLY WANT TO APPRECIATE Appreciate your time and energy into putting forth the amendment for this bill.

So, thank you.

Are there any other comments on Amendment B?

All right, so here's how this is going to go.

Before I call for the vote, actually, I just want to make sure that people are clear.

The question is on whether or not Amendment A should be amended as presented in the substitute language in Amendment B. So, therefore, if Amendment B is adopted, Amendment A language will be substituted or replaced with the language in Amendment B. And if Amendment B is not adopted, then Council will consider Amendment A as presented moments ago.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment B. Council Member Moore.

No.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Rivera.

No.

Council Member Saka.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Wu.

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

No.

And Council President Nelson.

Nay.

Would be two in favor of Amendment B and seven opposed.

Okay, the motion, so Amendment D fails, and now we will go on to consider or comment more on Amendment A, correct?

That's correct.

And that has already been moved, so we don't have to do that again.

Correct.

Okay, so are there any further comments on Amendment A?

And this is not the vote on the final bill.

This is on Amendment A. So if this fails, it goes back to the original legislation.

Everybody clear?

Okay.

Please call the roll on Amendment A. Council Member Moore?

No.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Council Member Saca?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Wu?

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

No.

Council President Nelson?

Nay.

One, two, three.

That would be four in favor and five opposed.

Amendment B fails.

Now we will go on.

That was Amendment A. That was Amendment A. That was Amendment, excuse me, yes, Amendment A. Now it's the original council bill before us.

Yes.

Okay.

Now, because that motion failed, now we have the original bill before us.

Are there any other comments on the original bill?

Please go ahead, Councilmember Strauss.

Council President, colleagues, I said earlier that I think this bill needed more time and committee.

Councilmember Morales, I hear you about the timeline, but the timeline is not what drives decision-making.

It is digestion, understanding, and to Councilmember Kettle's point of Plus getting into the weeds, understanding it, and coming to agreement or disagreement in committee.

Colleagues, I don't think that bringing amendments to full council is the right move.

And I apologize to you yesterday during council briefing for doing so.

And I apologize to you again.

I think this bill needed more time in committee.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you, I'll just go ahead and make my final comments on the bill.

Again, the original bill continues to provide workforce affordable housing, cultural spaces, commercial spaces in neighborhoods with racially restrictive covenants.

This is an anti-displacement tool.

It removes design review, parking permits, requires 33% onsite performance, and a floor area ratio that can help community-based organizations develop on their property and partner with developers.

It does not cost the city money.

It's an opportunity to develop housing that does not require housing levy or other subsidized funding.

We have all acknowledged that Seattle is in a housing crisis.

The fact is that as a city and as a legislative body, we have a stated goal to address our housing shortage.

It is also a fact that we have a stated goal to stop the displacement that's happening, particularly for communities of color.

I'm the first to acknowledge the fact that this bill is not a panacea.

It will take much more than a pilot program to address the housing shortage and the need for generational wealth building opportunities and the need for more commercial affordability to support small businesses and cultural spaces.

And this pilot program would do all of those things in some neighborhoods for some projects, which is an important step in the right direction.

So I am not impugning anyone's motives for how you vote.

I'm pointing out that we can't just say that these things are important.

As policymakers, our actions speak louder than words.

I encourage my colleagues to vote yes for more housing, more commercial affordability, and more anti-displacement measures.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you very much.

And I do see that Council Member Hollingsworth has a hand up.

Yes, thank you.

I want to appreciate my colleague's work.

To listen to other members make the bill better.

That's why I voted yes on the amendments.

And I know the amount of time it takes, probably took a lot of hours and community time and connection.

I sincerely believe the intent of the bill is I've lived in the Central District 40 years and I've seen how different well-intended bills come in, but there have been consequences to those.

I think one of my biggest concerns is that the bill concentrates and encourages growth in neighborhoods that are already diverse, in neighborhoods that are historically 70%, excuse me, The bill concentrates growth in neighborhoods.

It gives them bonuses in neighborhoods that were redlined.

70% are market rate, therefore those are expensive.

This will likely have an effect on making existing diverse neighborhoods wider and wealthier.

As I look at the bill, I support housing upzoning in principle.

Unfortunately, I'm voting no today.

There were two black...

businesses that came to speak today.

One of them, Lillian, lives in the Central District with Simply Soulful and CAYA as well.

Ms. JJ used to be my babysitter in support.

They came in support of the bill.

And I talked to them over the weekend and told them my position and that I will work directly with them to ensure that we are truly underlining issues of redlining generational wealth and Black legacy home ownership, and for them to be able to develop their properties within the Central District, particularly Black legacy ones.

I can't wait to work with you.

That was one of my talking points to get elected.

But I truly want to make sure that the outcomes are what they want and they deserve in the neighborhood, in the community.

So I appreciate that this bill was aimed to increasing Seattle's housing stock and incentives, denser development, which I fully support, and I would invite that my colleagues, a land use committee, that we all work really hard on addressing those and work on an alternative to this legislation to get the same amount of housing but address the concerns that I have and that I've heard from other people as well.

I will be voting no on the bill.

Okay.

If there are no further questions, will the clerk please call the roll on...

Madam Council President.

Go ahead.

Quickly, yeah, I just want to make clear, because, you know, it was confusing, I think, to me and probably a lot of people, potentially some watching, but, yeah, now that both of those amendments, both the competing versions of the bill are off the table, I certainly do not support the underlying, you know, legislation, which I think we're voting on now.

So...

Just for the record.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing anybody else who wishes to speak.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Moore?

No.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Council Member Saka?

No.

Council Member Strauss?

Sure.

Excuse me?

Yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Wu?

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

No.

Council Member Kettle?

No.

Council President Nelson?

No.

Two in favor, seven opposed.

Doesn't pass.

Yeah, I'm just gathering my thoughts.

Okay, the committee recommends that the bill not pass.

And so...

I was really...

going back and forth there for a while.

So anyway, the motion fails and the bill does not pass.

Thank you very much for bringing this forward.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

The report of the Housing and Human Services Committee, agenda item two, Council Bill 120772, an ordinance relating to the multifamily housing property tax exemption program amending section 5.73.090 and section 5.73.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

to allow extension of tax exemptions scheduled to expire on December 31st, 2024. The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Moore is chair of the committee, recognized to provide the committee report.

Is this the time that I would move to adopt or should I speak to the bill first?

Go ahead.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Council President.

So I move to adopt the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120722. Second.

Thank you.

So thank you.

Colleagues, Council Bill 120722 extends the multifamily tax exemption for about a dozen projects that would otherwise expire at the end of the year.

From the Office of Housing memo attached to the Council Bill, it notes that FTE provides a 12-year tax exemption on the residential portion of a building in return for the property owner income and rent restricting 20% to 25% of the units built.

So basically it caps the rent at those rates.

Since 1998, the city council has reauthorized the MFTE program six times, usually every four to five years.

Their program in its current iteration sunsets on December 31st, 2024. In 2021, a state law was updated to allow jurisdictions to offer owners of properties with expiring exemptions the opportunity to extend those for an additional 12 years.

Seattle City Council has previously approved legislation to approve an extension option for properties with MFTE agreements expiring in 2021, 2022, and 2023. The committee, after briefing both from central staff and also the Office of Housing, and with many questions asked by colleagues, the committee unanimously recommended passage of the council bill.

Thank you.

May I confirm it's Council Bill 120772?

Sorry.

120772.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Colleagues, are there any comments on the bill?

All right, seeing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Wu.

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Nine 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.

All right, we're now on item three.

Will the clerk please read the title of item three into the record?

The report of the Parks, Public Utilities and Technology Committee, agenda item three, resolution 32135, a resolution adopting the Seattle Parks and Recreation 2024 Parks Development Plan, authorizing the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation to submit the plan to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office and superseding the 2017 .

The committee recommends the council adopt the resolution.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Hollingsworth is chair of the committee.

You're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you.

My apologies.

So we passed this legislation, the open space plan, out of our last committee.

It was for, in favor, and unopposed, if I remember correctly.

And I know the clerk will remind me if I'm not correct.

But this was specifically, colleagues, a resolution for our Seattle Parks Department to go ahead and identify, be able to apply for funding from our state.

And so, every six years, they prepare a plan, they identify different projects.

I just wanna...

make sure everyone knows this is not the final plan this is just for them simply to be able to apply for grant funding and then they will come back to our committee and present the projects that they have chosen for capital budget enhancements for different projects around the city so that is pretty simple and straightforward and thank you council president nelson all right thank you for that are there any comments on the resolution

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saca?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

All right, the resolution is adopted.

The chair will sign it.

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

There were no items removed from the consent calendar.

There is not a resolution for introduction and adoption today.

And now I'll ask if there's any further business to come before Council.

Council President.

Yes.

Go ahead.

Requesting to be excused on Monday, May 20th.

No, Tuesday, May 21st.

Thank you.

All right.

Noted.

I don't believe anybody has any objection.

So with that, thank you very much.

I will...

I don't believe we grant the excuse, but thank you very much for letting us know.

We've reached the end of today's agenda.

Our next regularly scheduled City Council meeting will be held on May 7th at 2 p.m.

It is now 4.15, and hearing no further business, we are adjourned.

We'll be right back.