Why are options so necessary now?

1. Nickelsville residents have been camping outside on City-owned property on West Marginal Way for two years now.   Highland Park residents have an increasing number of concerns.

2.  Food Lifeline is seeking to acquire the property for their operations.  Food Lifeline has property conveyance agreements with both Washington State and the adjoining private property owner.  Both of these agreements are contingent upon the City selling the parcel it owns.

3.  An adjacent property owner is preparing a lawsuit, citing decreased land value.

4.  Questions have been raised recently about Nickelsville’s ability to govern itself and protect the health and safety of its residents.

The current situation is not sustainable.  For the City to address the health and safety of current residents, address the concerns of neighbors, and support the Food Lifeline project we must work together to find a way to facilitate the relocation of the residents of the Nickelsville encampment.  Here are the options discussed in HHSHC last week:

OPTION 1 – Pass C.B. 117791; do not pass 117792 — Facilitate Nickelsville move/Food Lifeline property acquisition.

The proposed C.B. 117791 creates a regulatory framework for the legal permitting of transitional one-year encampments in order to guide the operation of safe and healthy transitional encampments that are not hosted by a religious entity.  Encampments hosted by religious entities do not require a permit.  This  action would implement the Comprehensive Plan goal passed by the Council last year to “Guide the operation of safe and healthy transitional encampments to allow tempo­rary shelter for those who are homeless.” 

This option will also include new funding to assist those Nickelsville residents who want an alternative to living in outdoor encampments. The Mayor intends to transmit a supplemental budget request to Council to provide additional housing options and services.

Encampments can be permitted already under an existing temporary use permit process.  I am not seeking change the existing temporary use permit process, only to offer another new permitting option.  In many ways, my proposed C.B. 117791 is similar to the existing temporary use permit process with 4 significant areas of difference:

1. Length of stay: A permit could be granted for a year, not 6 months as is currently allowed under the existing temporary permit process.
2. Location limitations: Encampments with these one year permits would be restricted to land in Industrial zones, downtown zones, except for Downtown zones defined as residential, Seattle Mixed (SM) zones, Commercial 2 (C2), Commercial 1 (C1), Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3) and Neighborhood Commercial 2 (NC2) zones.   The current temporary use permit process allows for 6 month encampments in all zones.
3. Operations: Under this legislation, a written encampment operations plan is required between property owner and encampment operator.  A code of conduct and health and specific safety standards will be required of the permit holder. The existing temporary use permit process does not make these requirements.
4. Review Process:  The current temporary use permit is a “Type II” Master Use Permit review, with appeal opportunities, while the proposed legislation would establish the transitional encampment interim use as a “Type I” process that is non-appealable.  Outreach requirements of the permit holder to the surrounding area would be established by DPD Director’s Rule upon passage of this bill.

 Other requirements of the proposed legislation are as follows:

• The permit holder must be the City or a private party with demonstrated experience managing shelters, low-income housing, or homeless encampments.                                      
• Maximum number of occupants is 100.
  
• The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet or larger and minimum of 100 square feet per encampment occupant.
• Encampment site lot line must be 25 feet from residentially-zoned lot or, less than 25 feet if encampment is at least 25 feet from residentially-zoned lot and screened

OPTION 2 – Pass CB 117792; do not pass 117791 – Explore use of current site for an on-going temporary encampment under existing temporary use permit/deny Food Lifeline property acquisition request.

This option would authorize the City to spend $150K to conduct an environmental assessment of the current Nickelsville site in order to inform decision-makers as to the site’s viability to house a City- sanctioned temporary homeless encampment and transitional services.  Under this option HSD would establish a relationship with a non-profit provider who can facilitate services on the site by contracting with a non-profit partner to oversee this encampment.  Council support of this option would mean that Food Lifeline would have to identify a new location for its expanded operations.

There were people at this meeting opposing option 1 – arguing that the Council would be “redlining the city,” by passing legislation that only allows these new special 1 year permits without potential for appeal in certain zones of the city.  This position ignores the fact that a. the existing temporary use permit process and b. the existing Religious Encampment Ordinance is available for use in every zone of the City, and will be continued to be available if CB 117791 passes .

A 3rd option was proposed in public comment, by individuals testifying on behalf of Nickelsville residents.   The option was to not pass either CB 117792; or CB 117791, but to instead facilitate Nickelsville move/Food Lifeline property acquisition under Seattle’s existing Religious Encampment Ordinance.  Again, under Seattle’s existing Religious Encampment Ordinance, no permit is required and Nickelsville would instead form a partnership with two different religious institutions, each of whom would rent 2 properties suitable for a Nickelsville Community of up to 100 participants, for a two year stay under Seattle’s existing Religious Encampment Ordinance.  Nickelsville would then sign a management agreement with the religious institution and property owner as well as a non-profit if necessary.

Before my next HHSHC Committee meeting, June 12, 2pm we will seek more info from Nickelsville and the other agencies proposing this option 3.  At this June 12, HHSHC committee meeting there will be no voting, but we will have a decision agenda that includes these 3 options and detail on what actions are necessary for each of the options as well as the likely outcomes and timeline for each option.  In order to fully develop Option 3, we need a full understanding of what the proposal from Nickelsville is – including expectations of City assistance and the timeline.

Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the launch of Family Housing Connection (FHC), a “coordinated entry” system created to make it easier for families to navigate the housing system in King County.  There are 3,210 homeless families currently on the placement roster waiting for a housing referral. 

Of the 3,210 families on the placement roster today:

• 7% are staying in a place not meant for habitation (215 families)
• 56% are couch surfing or doubled up with friends/family
• 14% are in shelter or using an emergency hotel voucher
• 10% are in a rental with no housing subsidy
• 4% are staying in a hotel without a voucher
• The remaining 9% are in transitional housing, substance abuse treatment, housing with a voucher, a home they own but are losing, hospital, incarcerated, or other.

Coordinated entry came out of recommendations of the Committee to End Homelessness, of which I am a Governing Board member.  FHC partners with more than 80 shelter and housing programs in King County and continues to reach out to programs who are not yet partnering.  Today, instead of calling 80+ programs individually, families needing housing now have a single access point to 80+shelter and housing programs.

FHC does not create additional housing resources and this new process does not shorten the months long waiting time it takes to get families into shelter or housing faster.

A year’s worth of work illustrates just how much there is yet to do.  Here is an excerpt from a recent report:

“As we all expected, year one presented many challenges.  No one has felt these challenges more than the 3,788 families who have accessed FHC. Long wait times for housing assessment appointments and much longer wait times for emergency housing produce anxiety and hopelessness for families awaiting our call.  The 215 families who are staying in a place not meant for human habitation are prioritized for emergency housing – but even with prioritization, they will wait months for a roof over their children’s heads.”  (my emphasis added)

Over this year period, FHC has referred 1,048 families to housing, 55% of them have either moved into housing or been accepted but not yet moved in; 19% of them were denied because background checks, credit checks, drug tests, etc. made them ineligible; 26% of referrals were refused by the family for various reasons.  After a family refuses a third referral, they are removed from the waiting list.

Improvements to the system over FHC’s first year include a change requested by the City Council under my leadership, specifically that the “first come first served” referral philosophy be shifted to prioritize families who are staying in a place not meant for human habitation. Future improvements planned, also requested by the City Council, include a. reducing barriers to referrals that currently lead families to be deemed ineligible as well as b. increasing placement assistance resources such as optional background checks and optional document scanning.

Tonight in King County, children in 215 families – while prioritized on top of this list – will sleep in a car, in a greenbelt, on the streets, in an encampment, or in abandoned building.  These children will wait months for their families to be placed in shelter or a hotel.  This is unacceptable for a region of our resources.  I intend to continue to advocate for additional funding to address the immediate housing needs for these children and their families and determine what it would cost to provide basic shelter services so that they do not have to sleep in places not fit for human habitation while they are working with an agency to become re-housed.

Next week the City Council will hold two meetings touching on the Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to reform policing in Seattle.

On Monday, March 11, the Council will host Merrick Bobb, the Court-appointed independent monitor, at the 9 a.m. Council Briefings meeting.

A federal judge is scheduled to hear the Monitoring Plan proposed by Bobb on Tuesday, March 12. The Monitoring Plan is designed to set expectations, timelines, and monitor progress to meeting the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It includes an Appendix A listing a schedule of priorities for the Settlement Agreement, and an Appendix B, a detailed matrix regarding the core requirements of policies, training and implementation submitted by the Seattle Police Department. Mayor McGinn issued a statement this afternoon re: the Monitoring Plan.

Secondly, the Public Safety Committee will meet at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday to consider the proposed membership of the Community Police Commission in a public hearing.  The creation of the Commission was included as part of the City’s settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to reform policing in Seattle.

The members appointed by the Mayor must be approved by the City Council. A news release by Councilmember Harrell, chair of the Public Safety Committee, provides further details.

The 15 proposed members are:

1) Claudia DAllegri, Sea Mar Community Health Centers, Vice President of Behavioral Health;

2) Lisa Daugaard, Co-chair, Defender Association, Deputy Director;

3) Kate Joncas, Downtown Seattle Association, President and CEO;

4) Bill Hobson, Downtown Emergency Services Center, Executive Director;

5) Jay Hollingsworth, John T. Williams Organizing Committee;

6) Joseph Kessler, Seattle Police Department, Captain;

7) Diane Narasaki, Co-chair, Asian Counseling & Referral Service, Executive Director;

8) John Page, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, Program Coordinator at the Defender Associations Racial Disparity Project;

9) Tina Podlodowski, former Seattle City Councilmember;

10) Marcel Purnell, Youth Undoing Institutional Racism;

11) Jennifer Shaw, ACLU of Washington, deputy director,

12) Kevin Stuckey, Seattle Police Department, Officer;

13) Kip Tokuda, former State Representative for the 37th Legislative District;

14) Rev. Harriet Walden, Co-founder of Mothers for Police Accountability; and

15) Rev. Aaron Williams, Mount Zion Baptist Church, Senior Pastor.

Passed today by the Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee, Council Bill 117730 will require all City departments to obtain Council approval prior to acquiring surveillance equipment of any type.  The respective department must also proactively conduct outreach in each community in which the department intends to use the equipment.  In addition, the legislation requires that operational protocols will be developed and passed by ordinance.   Separately, data management and retention protocols are required to be developed and presented to the City Council, but approval of that set of separate protocols by ordinance will be optional.

The legislation specifies the categories of information that departments will need to submit when a request to acquire surveillance equipment is made to Council.  It does not specify the actual protocols that departments must adopt.  Because protocols will very likely vary by purpose, type of equipment, and location, the Council will need to consider protocols on a case-by-case basis.

For those City departments acquiring or operating surveillance equipment prior to the effective date of this ordinance, they’ll also have to still propose written operational protocols no later than thirty days following the effective date of the ordinance for Council review and approval.

If you’d like to watch the committee discussion, you can do so here.  The legislation will be heard by the Full Council a week from next Monday, on March 18, at 2:00 PM.  I believe that this legislation goes a long way towards ensuring future, on-going open and transparent discussions on the use of surveillance cameras and weighing the public benefits of such technologies against the potential downsides, including impacts on privacy.

In today’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology (PSCRT) Committee there will be a discussion of the proposed Port Security Surveillance Camera Project.  I have a history of working on this issue, dating back to 2008 when the Council voted to authorize a pilot project of 12 cameras to be operated in four City Parks.  More on the history can be read below.

I, like many people, learned about the Port Security Surveillance Camera Project from the West Seattle Blog.  At a PSCRT committee hearing in May of 2012, SPD got the go ahead to accept funding from the Department of Homeland Security to implement a Port Security Surveillance Camera Project, including the use of cameras on waterways, port facilities, and facing the Puget Sound.  Since this time, the ACLU and several citizens have also contacted the Council with concerns about the implications of this program.

A LEGISLATIVE APPROACH

Last Friday, the Mayor promised in the Seattle Times that there would be a public vetting of the 30 cameras before they are turned on.  I welcome that step.  But, just like in 2008, for me the question is when should a free society allow personal activities that occur in public to come under 24/7 surveillance? We must always strive for a balance that provides for safety without compromising the principles of our democracy.  To try and best strike that balance, I am proposing legislation that requires departments seeking to acquire certain surveillance equipment to first obtain City Council approval as well as requiring that they develop protocols to be passed by the Council to guide their proper use, including retention, storage, and access of any data that the cameras capture.

I was not at the May 2012 PSCRT meeting, but I am told that installation of surveillance cameras in recreational and residential zones for general surveillance was not supported by the committee. Further, Councilmember Harrell has stated since then that he believes this kind of use will not be supported in the future either.  If the cameras that are part of the Port Security Surveillance Camera Project have the capacity to deliberately or inadvertently capture the activity of individuals on public or private property, under those circumstances, the legislation that I am working on would require that those cameras would first have to be approved by the Council and the Council would also have to approve protocols for their use.  If, on the other hand, they are aimed strictly on infrastructure and the immediate perimeter for security purposes, than my legislation would not apply.

HISTORY OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN SEATTLE

In 2008, I voted against legislation authorizing the installation of twelve surveillance cameras in four city parks because I felt at the time that there was little information available to prove that these cameras reduce crime or lead to more convictions.  On the other hand, active parks programming and police presence are proven effective public safety tools.  In 2008, when the Council approved these twelve cameras, the $45,000 cost of one of them was equivalent to 774 hours of overtime pay for police.

Even though the Council in 2008 approved installing the cameras, I still worked limit the cameras to a twenty-one month pilot program with tight controls that were legislated by ordinance to help protect citizens’ civil rights. Ordinance 122705 set these protocols for the use of the surveillance cameras in the parks and limited their use to Cal Anderson, Hing Hay, Occidental and Victor Steinbrueck Parks. The bill also mandated an evaluation by the City Auditor to determine, among other things, whether crime had actually been reduced in the parks and required that the City Council consider the Auditors’ report conclusions before authorizing continued operation of the cameras beyond the pilot program.

Later in 2010, the Council voted on Council Bill 116975, ending the pilot program and removing the cameras from Cal Anderson Park, Hing Hay Park, Occidental Park, and Victor Steinbrueck Park and further strengthening the protocols for future surveillance programs that would seek to put cameras in the city parks.  These changes resulted from nine recommendations from the City Auditor to improve the City’s ability to evaluate the Surveillance Camera Pilot Program, to increase the effectiveness of the cameras, and to improve departmental compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 122705.

CONCLUSION

In closing, I’m very pleased that it appears that the Council is ready to broaden the scope of the legislation already passed in 2008 and 2010.  I hope that they agree to support a bill like the one that I have been working on, so that prior authorization and protocols are required when any city department, not just the Department of Parks and Recreation, seeks to install surveillance cameras.

The report covered the following areas:

• Reducing Crime including: a. Responding to Crime Trends and b. Major Case Investigations
• Employee Performance, Misconduct & Discipline, including: a. Results of 9-1-1 Caller Surveys and b. an update on OPA Complaint Classification and Handling
• Leadership and Training
• Building Public Confidence

You can read the report at the link above for yourself, but I’m going to take a moment now to share a bit about one of the Seattle Police Department’s newer programs covered in the report under the topic of “Building Public Confidence.”  The program is called: Living Room Conversations.  These conversations bring local community members and police officers together with the goal of addressing neighborhood safety concerns in a more comfortable and informal way.

Since their inception, more than 70 Living Room Conversations have been held throughout the City, with about 1000 neighborhood residents participating.  In the 3^rd Quarter 2012 alone, SPD organized 18 Living Room Conversations in North, South, East and Southwest Precincts.  Here is a four minute video that will give you a sense of what this program is all about and what you can expect if you choose to host one.

A recent evaluation of the Living Room Conversations confirmed that, from the perspective of those hosting, they are a good way to get to know the officers who serve their neighborhoods, and to learn about SPD services and procedures.

The Community Outreach Section of the precinct. If you are interested, contact your community outreach officer to get more information:

NORTH AND WEST PRECINCTS
Officer James Manning 206-423-9952 | james.manning@seattle.gov

SOUTH PRECINCTS
Officer Jojo Cambronero 206-293-2749 | robert.cambronero@seattle.gov

EAST AND WEST PRECINCTS
Officer Sina Ebinger 206-941-8457 | sina.ebinger@seattle.gov

SOUTHWEST PRECINCT
Officer Alex Chapackdee 206-255-8302 | alex.chapackdee@seattle.gov

It is still an infraction to use marijuana in public.  The City encourages people who want to celebrate the passage of Initiative 502 to do so in the privacy of their homes.  Additionally, driving under the influence of marijuana remains a crime.

Over the next year, the Washington State Liquor Control Board will develop rules to regulate the sale of marijuana to adults over 21. Until these rules are finalized, it is still a felony to sell or give another person marijuana. Collective gardens and safe access points for qualifying patients are unaffected by I- 502.

The creation of the Commission was included as part of the City’s settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to reform policing in Seattle.

Applications are being taken to serve on the commission. The deadline to apply is November 1. Information on applying, and selection criteria, can be found here. You can view the meeting on the Seattle Channel website.

The commission will make recommendations to the City on implementation of the agreement, community engagement, accountability, investigatory stops and data collection, and other issues. The commission can make budgetary proposals and recommendations to the Council.

The legislation currently calls for 11 members, including one member from the Seattle Police Officers Guild and one from the Seattle Police Management Association, and nine members representative of Seattle’s diverse populations. The members are appointed by the Mayor, and confirmed by the Council. During the next week or Councilmembers will be continuing discussions about the best number of members for the committee.

The agreement with the DOJ stated, “ongoing community input into the development of reforms, the establishment of police priorities, and mechanisms to promote community confidence in SPD will strengthen SPD and facilitate police/community relationships necessary to promote public safety,” while noting that Police officers participation is an important element of this.

I want this committee to be successful, and meaningful. For that reason I prioritized including language in the legislation that can allow the Community Police Commission to have a role in enforcing the agreement, if the federal judge determines the Commission has standing, and meets federal requirements for such. This would allow the Commission to have a role in enforcement. Ultimately, it would rest on the federal judge’s decision, but including this is vital to maximizing public confidence in the process. I was successful in inserting language in the ordinance.

I also was able to include selection criteria for members to include experience in mental health issues, public health and harm reduction models, and program evaluation and outcomes measurement. In addition, I moved to amend the legislation in committee, to include posting the meeting minutes on the web, for ease of public access.

The Mayor earlier issued an Executive Order creating the Commission in line with the Agreement with the federal government, and began the application process.

Under the old approach, people could be administratively excluded for a violation of minor park rules and then arrested if they return – even if they return and break no rules .  With the exception of immediate public safety threats, now folks must be told what the rules are at the start and that these rules can be forced against them in the future.  If people commit an infraction one day but are using a park appropriately the next, there should be no issue with their presence in the park the next time.  Under this new approach, folks are given a trespass warning and then if they return and continue to violate rules they can be arrested for trespass.  They will not be banned unless they are found guilty of violating the park rules – not just for coming back to the park, as under the old approach.

As background, the Parks Exclusion Ordinance, Ordinance 118607 (see link) was passed in 1997. The Seattle Human Rights Coalition recently wrote to the Mayor to ask that the City stop banning individuals summarily from Seattle parks without providing due process, saying that that: “Exclusions in Seattle parks have been issued disproportionately against people of color.  The share of parks exclusions notices issued to black people (38.4 %) is nearly five times the black share of the Seattle population (8.4 %).  The share of parks exclusion notices issued to Native Americans (8.2%) is over ten times the share of the Seattle population that is Native American (0.8%).”

The year I took office, in 1998, I tried to amend the law with Council Bill 112320.  My amendments would have limited the reasons for summary exclusions without due process to only those violations that pose a public safety threat including felony drug activity, weapons or assault charges.  For more minor violations, the City would still be able to issue tickets.    My legislation in 1998 had the support of  Councilmembers McIver and Steinbrueck, but didn’t pass. I’m glad that the community members I worked with in 1998 have continued to monitor the issue and have found a way to negotiate a better approach while also not compromising on public safety and fair access to our parks for all.

Here’s the language for the new policy:

1.0       Purpose
This Rule augments and supersedes Department Policy & Procedure Number 060-P 7.15 regarding the issuance of Parks Exclusion Notices under SMC 18.12.278.
2.0       Authorization to Issue Trespass Warning
Seattle Park Rangers and any other designated department employee or Seattle Police department employee authorized by the Superintendent may issue a Trespass Warning to anyone within a City Park who violates:
•    Any provision of the Parks Code (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 18.12);
•    Any Parks Administrative Rule of Conduct;
•    Any other applicable laws under the Seattle Municipal Code or Revised Code of Washington, including but not limited to the following: No Camping; No Alcohol or Drug Possession; No Graffiti or
Vandalism; No Fighting/Assault; No Urinating/Defecating; No entering or remaining in an area that is not open to the public.
3.0       If the conduct that results in a Trespass Warning being issued threatens public safety, then the person may be removed and excluded from the park for the remainder of the day.
4.0       Trespass Warnings apply to all Parks properties.
5.0       Trespass Warnings do not expire.
6.0       If a person who has received a Trespass Warning remains on or returns to any Parks property and violates any of the applicable rules or laws, the person’s permission to be on the property is immediately revoked and the person may be arrested for the crime of Criminal Trespass.
7.0       If a felony crime or weapons violation occurs on Parks property, a one-year Parks Exclusion Notice shall be issued. SMC 18.12.278. For all other violations a Trespass Warning shall be issued.
8.0       The Trespass Warning is a pilot program and will be in effect until further notice.

The SEPA appeal period ends Monday, October 1.   Members of the public will have the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations when the Council discusses this ordinance this December, in my Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee.  Councilmember Sally Clark and I will be visiting Neighborhood Council meetings through December to gather feedback on the proposal.  Additional information on these meetings will be available as they are scheduled.

The  purpose of this proposed ordinance is to limit the off-site impact of larger-scale cannabis-related activity in zones where they may have increased impacts on neighborhood character or security, specifically those zones with a predominately residential or historic character:

• Single family and multifamily residential zones
• Neighborhood Commercial 1 zones
• Pioneer Square Mixed, International District Mixed and Residential, Pike Place Mixed, Harborfront neighborhoods

In these zones, the growing, processing, or dispensing of cannabis would be limited to:

• 45 cannabis plants;
• 72 ounces of useable cannabis; and
• An amount of cannabis product that could reasonably be produced with 72 ounces of useable cannabis.

We want to create standards now so that we don’t repeat what is happening in Los Angeles, where law enforcement raids shut down operations of good and bad businesses alike and eventually City Council banned dispensaries altogether because there were few standards in LA to hold operators accountable.  For this reason, I hope access point operators and neighborhood residents will agree that they each can benefit from the consistency and accountability that these regulations will provide.

More information can be found in the Department of Planning and Development’s Land Use Information Bulletin.