♪♪
-Welcome to "City Inside/Out: Council Edition."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
A newly approved plan to build affordable housing
in Seattle's SoDo neighborhood
has drawn praise from housing advocates
and small businesses and harsh criticism from longshoremen
and the Port of Seattle.
What impact will this measure have on the city
and our regional economy?
Plus, how will a newly expanded crisis response system affect
public safety in Seattle?
Council President Sara Nelson joins me to discuss these issues
and the questions you're sending in too,
next on "Council Edition."
-We are a welcoming city
and we are very concerned about preparing ourselves
for whatever could come forward.
-All that and more, coming up next on
"City Inside/Out: Council Edition."
♪♪
Welcome to "City Inside/Out: Council Edition,"
once again, here on the Seattle Channel.
I'm Brian Callanan,
and with me I have Council President Sara Nelson
from the Citywide Position 9 seat.
Thank you very much for joining me.
-Well, thank you for having me again.
-And let me jump into it here.
You've been busy.
You sponsored some legislation here
to build affordable housing in a Makers' District
in a two-block stretch just south of T-Mobile Park.
This was the source of some very heated debate.
The Port of Seattle
says this project will negatively impact their ability
to do business, but the city needs housing too.
So you had a coalition of people supporting you.
The Council passed this with a 6-3 vote.
Why was this project important to you?
Why did you want to do this?
-Well, first I want to acknowledge
that there were strong emotions on each side.
So I do not discount the Port's concern or Longshore's concern.
But the fact of the matter is
this was about Seattle's affordability crisis,
the fact that people, working people,
can no longer afford to live in Seattle,
the fact that our small manufacturing businesses
are leaving town at a rate of about two to three a month
because they can't find affordable workspace.
And many of those businesses
are disproportionately owned by women and people of color.
And so the affordability issue, the crisis,
is so urgent that we had to do something.
And we had a perfect opportunity with the underlying zoning
in this two-block stretch that would allow for -- not allow --
require that any housing that's built there,
50 percent has to be affordable at a rate
that would allow our workers to live there
and also provide for subsidized space
for our small industrial businesses.
And so it was a win-win for those two very important reasons
but also for our unionized labor force.
This creates brand-new union jobs to build
and operate the structures once they're already completed.
And so the benefits far outweighed the costs.
And I just felt that the time was right to move forward
because of the strength of the coalition behind it.
-Got it. I want to touch on another issue with this project,
the idea that bringing more people to live in SoDo
could make the neighborhood safer and more vibrant.
There was one take on this from Chris Marr with
the Washington State Ballpark Public Facilities District,
who supports the project.
Here's what he had to say.
-Here in Seattle, where we find ourselves facing
an affordable housing and public safety challenge,
we should be taking advantage of the Stadium District
to do the same as places like Denver, San Diego,
and Washington, D.C.
-So not a lot of people live in SoDo,
but the public safety and traffic safety problems
there are definitely well-documented.
It's one of the busiest freight routes in the state.
I'll tack on here a little bit.
We had a viewer write in, saying...
I want to make sure I understand this piece.
How does bringing more housing to this area
make it safer, do you think?
-It makes it safer because we're talking
about 24/7 activation of a two-block stretch
that, if you walk it right now, is underutilized,
and the location of some very, very serious safety concerns.
A couple shootings last year, a stabbing, and so on.
And so that is why
the Pioneer Square community neighborhood groups
and also the Chinatown International District
community groups came out in such strong force in support.
-To support this, yeah. Yeah.
-Yeah, and that was one of the things
that caught my attention when this came forward in 2023,
which is if you have two adjacent neighborhoods
that are calling for it so vociferously,
it's because they want their neighborhoods to be safer
and more vibrant as well.
-I wanted to make sure I kept on going down this path here.
Colin had a question.
He wrote in this.
How do you turn this area into a livable neighborhood?
I think that's a piece of this.
I know people were raising concerns about noise
and heavy pollution in this area, too.
-Yes, and the underlying legislation
that was passed in 2023 has a whole list of conditions
that must be met in -- let's see -- the zone --
I'm forgetting the name right now --
that include noise mediation. -I see, right.
-And so those are -- and also requiring covenants for people
so that the residents cannot then raise
legal problems or concerns about all the noise, et cetera.
-Right.
-People know what neighborhood they're moving into
when they move into a neighborhood.
And there are -- there's the Nolo apartments,
the Gridiron, the Florentine.
There's already a lot of residential use
right there just to the north in Pioneer Square.
So I trust that people,
when they are looking at places to live,
are looking at price, location, amenities, et cetera,
and they're making the right decision for themselves.
-What do you think about that pedestrian safety piece?
I know that was brought up a few times, too.
Let's not put people too close to a major freight route,
one of the biggest ones in the state.
-Right. And if you look at the renderings --
they are laid out in one of the presentations
that's attached to the agenda online --
the vision is to have the front of these housing...
-These units, yeah. Yeah. -...projects face Occidental,
which is a narrow street.
And we're not talking about closing Occidental
solely for pedestrian.
We're talking about a quieter street
where the lobbies of these housing buildings
will be facing --
-Facing to the east, essentially.
Is that right?
-Right. Well, facing the inside of --
-Inside of Occidental, right. -Correct.
And just imagine how Occidental looks
a few blocks north of the stadiums.
And you've got shops on the bottom
and then you've got the, you know, uses on top.
-Right. -So that is what is envisioned,
a quieter street for pedestrians.
And then people can enter garages,
if they so choose, from First Avenue,
where there are already, by the code,
three curb cuts to lead
into whatever underground structures per block.
-Okay. Okay.
I want to make sure I touched on this pushback
from the Port of Seattle.
I know this was a very contentious piece of this.
They had a statement after the measure --
after this measure passed, and it was this.
Aaron Pritchard, the chief of staff for the Port Commission,
put it this way during a public comment.
-Is the port not a governing body
that deserves the opportunity for collaboration?
The Port and the City
should be able to negotiate a shared future.
Let us sit down and discuss the future of maritime in our city.
Councilmembers, if you even have a shadow of doubt,
delay this legislation.
The Port will come to the table willingly
to develop a plan for a future that we can all support.
-So the Port says they had a deal with the City two years ago
that said housing will not be built in this area.
And that was after years of work on a maritime agreement there.
Then this bill went through the Council
in about two months' time.
I guess my bottom line question is here,
do you think the process you went through to pass this bill
was fair to the Port of Seattle?
Because they clearly don't think so.
-Well, the deal was the preferred alternative
that accompanied the environmental impact statement,
at the end of about 18 months of negotiation
between the City, the Port, labor unions,
and many other stakeholders.
And so, when we talk about, you know, we had a deal,
yes, the deal was the preferred alternative.
And at the last minute, after conversations
that were not public,
the housing in one of the urban industrial zones,
in the Stadium District,
was removed from the legislation.
And so the members of the coalition felt disappointed
that the deal that was published,
the public preferred alternative --
that's the document that says what the City wants there --
was changed at the last minute to remove housing
where it is precisely, you know, appropriate
because it's in a downtown neighborhood,
the Stadium District.
And so it all depends on which deal you're talking about.
-Right. -I'm going on the deal
and the facts that were presented in the EIS
and the preferred alternative.
-Yeah, I guess what the Port has said about this,
and you know this as well as I, they said,
"Well, we had this deal,
so we didn't formally oppose that EIS
because we thought we had this understanding
that housing wasn't going to be built there."
Do you have a response to that piece of it?
-What I hear from the people
that were participating at that point
is that the deal was in the preferred alternative.
It was agreed that -- you know, the Mayor put it forward.
It was a published document.
And then there were some conversations
that occurred in private with different stakeholders,
probably the Port and Longshore, and the housing was taken out.
Those were not public. I was not part of them.
All I can say is that the facts
that I was going on in presenting this legislation
is that the additional cars,
the traffic from up to 990 apartments
would not adversely impact
port operations or freight mobility.
And when you really think about it -- you know,
I should pause because,
when you think about what's going on right there now,
you've got two stadiums
that attract five million people a year.
There will be a hotel built, which the Port agreed to.
That's a lot of additional traffic.
And the Port is actually seeking a cruise operator
for Terminal 46 across the street.
We're talking a lot of cars right now
and additional vehicles on the street.
So everything is relative, I recognize,
but the cars associated with perhaps 1,000 units,
up to that, it stretches credulity to think
that that is going to result in a decline in Port activity
and a loss of Longshore jobs.
-I hear what you're saying.
And I know you heard the pushback from the Port as well.
And we had a viewer write in about this
and ask this about the Port.
Andy wrote this in.
He's concerned about legal threats from the Port
over this action by the Council
and the threat of maybe more Port business moving to Tacoma
or other places outside of Seattle.
You heard the Port.
A number of commissioners actually came up and said,
"You're not listening to us" and things of this nature.
Are you concerned about those things and, I guess,
the relationship between the City and the Port right now?
-So, first of all, we do have the Northwest Seaport Alliance.
And so I don't know how decisions are made,
which ships go to Tacoma and which come into the Puget Sound.
-Right. -What I do know
is that the vast majority of cargo
enters and leaves Terminal 5 in West Seattle.
So it's not even going down First Avenue.
It bypasses completely the area where there will be housing.
And there is a lot of extra capacity at Terminal 5,
and they have upgraded infrastructure.
So that will generate more Longshore jobs
and more containers.
And so, when you really think about where are
the agricultural products from Eastern Washington going,
they're going to Terminal 5. -Yeah.
-They take a route down Spokane Street,
or they're going to the granary,
so they go up I-5 to Mercer Island.
I mean to Mercer Avenue. -Okay.
-So again, it's about what are the uses right now?
What is the current zoning allowing for?
Lots of cars, lots of office, et cetera.
-Yeah. -So I believe that,
if our priority is affordable housing or housing in general,
more housing, then we have to take advantage
of this opportunity with a project
where we will have workforce housing guaranteed,
as well as subsidized spaces for our small industrial businesses.
-Got it. Last piece on this.
It's another challenging part of the situation,
how dissenting members of the Council reacted.
I'm thinking of Councilmember Strauss in particular here.
He was the chair of the Land Use Committee,
as you know, that worked on that prior agreement
with the Port back in 2023.
He was really questioning why, back in January,
this bill ran through your governance committee.
He spoke at length, as you know and I know,
during the five-hour meeting
where the Council approved the SoDo housing bill,
and he talked about what he called a divisive process.
-This has not been a process that has encouraged
collaboration or consensus building.
This is a process that, in my opinion,
has created more division than it has needed to.
-This bill turned into a big fight.
As Council President,
how do you keep the City Council working together effectively
after a battle like this?
How can you repair some of the harm
that some Councilmembers are feeling here?
-Well I understand Councilmember Strauss' opposition,
because this is a change to the legislation
that he was able to get passed in 2023.
But what I will say is that policy differences are
part and parcel of legislating, and it can be expected
that there will be strong policy differences
in any legislative body. And so --
-This one has felt a little more acrimonious
to me in watching it. I --
-Well, I am not going to speak to the nature
or the validity of the emotions on either side.
-Okay. All right.
-I just recognize that that was the case.
And a 6-3 vote shows that there is, I believe,
enough desire on the part of enough councilmembers
to move on to the next issue that comes before us.
And we've got a lot on our plate.
-You do. And I want to move on to a much calmer topic,
if I could, which would be
dealing with the federal government.
-[ Laughs ] -You're working -- yeah. Good.
You're a little slow on that, but we're getting there.
You're working with Councilmember Rinck
on this Federal Administration and Policy Committee.
You recently held a meeting,
hosted some people from Seattle's immigrant community,
the LGBTQ community to hear their concerns.
What did you hear?
What do you want Seattleites to know about how this --
how this committee is going to work
and what you're going to do?
-What I want Seattleites to hear
is that everybody is safe in Seattle,
that we are a welcoming city for everyone.
And we have people's back regardless of,
you know, the messaging and some of the tactics
that are coming down from the other Washington.
Our responsibility is to protect
our vulnerable communities and our resources that, you know,
for infrastructure, et cetera.
And so the purpose of this committee
is to understand what could be coming forward
and then be prepared for how to respond.
I will say -- so that's really important,
because also the public wants to know
that we are engaged and responding.
And so that is important for us to be able to communicate
that we are a welcoming city,
and we are very concerned about preparing ourselves
for whatever could come forward.
And that is why I organized a weekly call
with councilmember chiefs of staff
and our federal lobbyists in D.C.,
because that is up to date, weekly information
about what could be happening right now.
And it is very important that we be informed to the last minute
and ready to respond as well.
So, we're trying different methods
to make sure that we are prepared to act
on the behalf of the people of Seattle
and the resources that make government run.
-Yeah. You could probably take that call every 24 hours,
at this point.
There's been a lot that's going on.
I wanted to touch on a new public safety development
for the city, the expansion of the CARE team,
the Community Assisted Response and Engagement crew.
So CARE, as we know, is the third arm
of public safety in Seattle, along with police and fire.
And there are specialized CARE teams,
these crisis responders going to low intensity situations
like a person down on the sidewalk, for example.
Now CARE is expanded citywide this month,
moving to the South and Southwest Precincts.
How is this going to help improve
public safety in Seattle?
-Well, there are people that are suffering all over our city
that need support,
that need mental health care, et cetera.
And so, it's very important that the CARE responders
are able to respond everywhere in our city.
That is absolutely important.
And so I fully support the expansion of the CARE,
because across the board,
I have never heard any opposition to the idea
that officers sometimes are not the right people
to be responding to people suffering mental health issues.
-Don't always need a badge and a gun, right?
-Exactly. And so what I heard talked about by the Chief
at the last meeting
is that what will make the CARE responders even more effective
is if they are able to respond single dispatch.
-Yeah. Right now, cops go with them.
That's the case, yes.
-And sometimes that is important.
I mean, one never knows what we'll encounter
when we get there.
But there are ways of improving the dispatch
so that it's not always required
that a gun and a badge go or show up with the people
that are trained in these mental health crises
and how to respond.
And so that requires some negotiation
with our police, you know.
-The Police Officers Guild, yeah.
Yeah. -And so it's ongoing.
But I do believe that there is agreement
that it would serve our officers better
if they can respond to the very clear
priority one, two, three calls and allow the professionals
that can be better able to respond to the folks in crisis
and are suffering on our streets.
-Got it. Thank you.
I wanted to switch gears with you,
if I could, and talk about a recent meeting
to talk about the comprehensive plan,
this road map for growth in Seattle.
It's been a lot of work here.
I know you're still waiting on some legislation,
actually, to come from the Mayor's Office here.
This conversation gets in the weeds very quickly,
but I'm going to try to break this down.
The City has to pass some legislation before June,
as I understand it,
to deal with some new state requirements
that would add density.
This is that House Bill 1110,
the Missing Middle Bill, as it's called.
-Yes. -But then the City's
overall comprehensive plan has to be approved
later on this year.
Can you help us explain what's going on here as best you can?
And really, how is this going to impact neighborhoods?
What should people expect?
-Well, here's what's going on.
The one Seattle plan was sent down by the Mayor.
It did generate some opposition amongst our constituents.
-Yeah. -So there are now six live challenges
before the hearing examiner.
-Legal challenges, right. -Legal challenges.
And so Council is prohibited from acting
on the actual land use -- the actual One Seattle plan
until those challenges are resolved.
-I see.
-So that will be on hold a little bit.
So in the meantime, we still have to comply with HB 1110.
So, we will be receiving, hopefully very soon,
the interim controls,
which are the -- what we can do right now
without running afoul of the legal process.
What we have to do to comply with that bill,
that statewide bill. And so --
-It adds density to neighborhoods, essentially.
-Right. Right.
We're talking about missing middle housing, which --
-Quadplexes, duplexes.
-Exactly, right. So that will be coming forward.
We had our first informational briefing this week.
And I believe that the next meeting on the 28th,
we will actually have the interim controls before us.
-Okay. We will keep an eye on that, too.
I do want to talk about what's going on with social housing.
It's been about a month since 63 percent of voters
said yes to a funding measure for social housing,
which involves a tax on businesses
with employees making over a million dollars.
I'm trying to figure out what now.
And one concern I've heard from the social housing developers
that they need to start hiring staff.
They just have a CEO, and that's it right now.
The tax goes into effect
retroactive to January of this year is my understanding.
But it won't be collected until next year.
So there's this gap here.
Is the city going to help the developer get started
with some money now so they can get geared up,
or what is the plan right now with this?
-I would not be opposed to that.
I'm not abreast of the actual material needs
of the organization to start its work.
But I do believe that they need to be set up for success.
The voters have spoken, and so I want to make sure that
that money is well spent by ensuring that the board
and the staff are well set up to start doing their jobs.
It is a lot of money, and so we need to make sure
that they can build the projects.
-Okay. Okay. Thank you for that.
It's time to hit the mailbag once again,
if I could, with you here.
Steven asks this.
Thank you for that, Steven.
Highway 99 is the State's job.
But I know the City is very focused on this with graffiti.
Anything you might be able to tell Steven here?
-I agree.
-Okay, noted.
-Frankly, I agree.
And it's something that I hear from so many constituents.
And so, yes, we're not going to --
the State and the City can't point the finger
and say, "You do it."
It is State property.
I don't know if there's anything that the City of Seattle can do
to facilitate the State dealing with that graffiti
on a regular basis.
I think that there is a bill in Olympia that could get at that.
I don't have enough information about it,
but I would fully support it.
-Okay, got it.
I'm going to start wrapping up with you here
and ask about the Statement of Legislative Intent Process
that the City went through.
I know it sounds like a boring name,
but this is basically laying out
councilmembers' plans for the year ahead.
Can you talk to me about this?
Because I'm looking ahead, and I know you are, too,
at a budget that's going to have some deficit issues here.
Spending is an issue. We talk about federal cuts.
I don't know how that's going to work in here.
Can you talk about your plans for the year ahead,
and maybe base it off this SLI,
Statement of Legislative Intent, piece?
-Well, the Statement of Legislative Intent --
maybe a better name would be
a Statement of Legislative Question,
because so many of those SLIs, those SLIs,
were requests for information from departments
about how they're already spending money
in existing programs.
So, for example, I have a SLI to have --
I would like to know...
why are there underspends every year in the city budget?
Target for responsible budgeting
is about five percent underspend.
That means we have money left over at the end of the year,
which is better than having less money.
But the point is we exceed that every year.
What does that mean?
And we're either allocating too much to the departments,
or they're not getting work done.
-Yeah. -My point is that
all of those questions that councilmembers have asked
and requested information for,
that will put us in a better position
to make better informed decisions
this coming fall season.
And that's exactly what we need to be doing
when faced with potential increased deficit.
-Okay. I know you're working with a lot there.
Just to wrap up, your concerns about the budget ahead?
I know that work is starting to happen in the City Council.
It's been happening earlier under Councilmember Strauss,
I know, but your concerns about what's ahead this year?
-Yeah, I'm always concerned about what's ahead this year,
because we can't count on the revenue
that is projected to roll in.
-Yeah. -So we'll see what happens.
I know there's going to be a budget -- a forecast update.
And I think that we should have some contingencies,
or actually the Mayor should be thinking about contingencies
in the budget that is sent down to Council this fall.
-Okay. I know there's a lot still ahead with that.
But Council President Nelson,
thank you very much for joining me.
-Thank you very much for your questions.
-All right. Appreciate that.
And we will see you next time
on "City Inside/Out: Council Edition."
♪♪