>>> WE ARE RECORDING.
>> THANK YOU, I.D., THANK YOU,
MADAM CLERK. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYBODY. TODAY IS TODAY,
JANUARY 10th. WELCOME TO THE
MEETING OF THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL. WILL THE MEETING
PLEASE COME TO ORDER? MY NAME
IS DEBORA WAR AS , PLEASE CALL
THE ROLE?
>> ACCOUNT NUMBER SAWANT?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT WARRANTS?
>> PRESENT.
>>
>> I'M SURE OTHER COLLEAGUES
WILL JOIN US. WITH THAT, GOING
TO PRESENTATIONS, THERE ARE NO
PRESENTATIONS TODAY. WE WILL
GET ONTO PUBLIC COMMENT. MY
UNDERSTANDING, MADAM CLERK, IS
THAT WE HAVE 14 PEOPLE IN
CHAMBERS AND 14 ON THE LINE,
CORRECT?
>> WE'LL HAVE 19 IN CHAMBERS
AND 17 ONLINE.
>> SO, WE HAVE GOT 19 IN
CHAMBERS , AND HOW MANY REMOTE?
>> 17.
>> WE WILL GIVE EACH SPEAKER
ONE MINUTE, AND WE WILL START
WITH THE IN PERSON FOLKS FIRST.
BEFORE WE BEGIN , MADAM CLERK,
I KNOW I WILL HEAD OVER TO YOU
TO DO OUR RECORDING. I WILL ASK
THAT PEOPLE PLEASE BE
RESPECTFUL, THAT WE WANT TO
HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY TODAY
, THAT YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE
THEIR OPINION AND THEIR VOICE ,
THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY
DISRUPTIONS. IF ANYONE IS
DISRUPTIVE, THEY WILL BE
REMOVED. WITH THAT, MADAM
CLERK, COULD YOU START THE
RECORDING?
>> HELLO, SEATTLE. WE ARE THE
EMERALD CITY, CITY OF FLOWERS
AND OF GOODWILL, BUILT ON
INDIGENOUS LAND, THE
TRADITIONAL TERRITORY OF THE
COAST SALISH PEOPLES. THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL WELCOMES
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT AND IS
EAGER TO HEAR FROM RESIDENTS OF
OUR CITY. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
BE A SPEAKER AND PROVIDE A
VERBAL PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU MAY
REGISTER TWO HOURS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING VIA THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL WEBSITE. HERE IS SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PROCEEDINGS. SPEAKERS
ARE CALLED UPON IN THE ORDER IN
WHICH THEY REGISTERED ON THE
COUNCIL WEBSITE. EACH SPEAKER
MUST CALL IN FROM THE PHONE
NUMBER PROVIDED WHEN THEY
REGISTER ONLINE, AND USE THE
MEETING I.D. AND PASSCODE THAT
WAS EMAILED UPON CONFIRMATION.
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE AN
EMAIL CONFIRMATION, PLEASE
CHECK YOUR SPAM OR JUNK MAIL
FOLDER. A REMINDER, THE
SPEAKER MEETING I.D. IS
DIFFERENT FROM THE GENERAL
LISTEN LINE MEETING I.D.
PROVIDED ON THE AGENDA. ONCE A
SPEAKER 'S NAME IS CALLED, THE
SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE WILL BE
UNMUTED AND AN AUTOMATIC PROMPT
WILL SAY "THE HOST WOULD LIKE
YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE
." THAT IS YOUR CUE THAT IT IS
YOUR TURN TO SPEAK. AT THAT
TIME, YOU MUST PRESS STAR SIX.
YOU WILL THEN HEAR A PROMPT
"YOU ARE UNMUTED." MAKE SURE
YOUR PHONE IS UNMUTED ON YOUR
END, SO YOU WILL BE HEARD. AS A
SPEAKER, YOU SHOULD BEGIN BY
STATING YOUR NAME AND THE ITEM
YOU ARE ADDRESSING. A CHIME
WILL SOUND WHEN 10 SECONDS ARE
LEFT OF YOUR ALLOTTED TIME. AS
A GENTLE REMINDER TO WRAP UP
YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. AT THE END
OF THE ALLOTTED TIME, YOUR
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED, AND
THE NEXT SPEAKER REGISTERED
WILL BE CALLED. ONCE SPEAKERS
HAVE COMPLETED PROVIDING PUBLIC
COMMENT, PLEASE DISCONNECT FROM
THE PUBLIC COMMENT LINE, AND
JOIN US BY FOLLOWING THE
MEETING VIA SEATTLE CHANNEL
BROADCAST OR THROUGH THE
LISTENING LINE OPTION LISTED ON
THE AGENDA. THE COUNCIL
RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ELIMINATE
PUBLIC COMMENT IF THE SYSTEM
IS ABUSED , OR IF THE PROCESS
IMPEDES THE COUNCIL'S ABILITY
TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS ON
BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE
CITY. ANY OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE
THAT IS DISRUPTIVE TO THESE
PROCEEDINGS OR THAT IS NOT
FOCUSED ON AN APPROPRIATE TOPIC
AS SPECIFIED IN COUNCIL RULES
MAY LEAD TO THE SPEAKER BEING
NEUTERED BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICER. OUR HOPE IS TO PROVIDE
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE
DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL ASSIST
OUR ORDERLY CONSIDERATION OF
ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW
OPEN. WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE
FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRESS STAR
SIX AFTER YOU HEAR THE PROMPT "
YOU HAVE BEEN ON MUTED." THANK
YOU, SEATTLE.
>> MADAM CLERK, BEFORE YOU
BEGIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS HAS JOINED
US , HE HAS SAT ON THE DAIS,
CORRECT?
>> YES, MADAM PRESIDENT. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS. FOR THE FOLKS WHO ARE
ACTUALLY IN CHAMBERS, AND WHO
HAVE CALLED IN, PLEASE LISTEN
FOR THAT CHIME, WHEN YOU HAVE
10 SECONDS. I DO NOT LIKE TO
CUT PEOPLE OFF, BUT THE BURDEN
IS ON YOU TO LISTEN FOR THE
CHIME AT 10 SECONDS.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO
CHECK IN FOR ROLL CALL, EITHER,
JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW I AM
HERE.
>> THANK YOU, SO WE HAVE
COUNCILMEMBERS LEWIS AND
MOSQUEDA HERE. WITH THAT, MADAM
CLERK, CAN WE START WITH THE
FIRST NAME?
>> OUR FIRST NAME IS GOING TO
BE ALEX TSIMERMAN.
>> GOOD MORNING, DEMOCRACY
FACET FASCIST AND PSYCHOPATHIC
MY NAME IS ALEX TSIMERMAN. I
WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE GROUP
OF IRANIANS HERE WHO DEFEND --
CONSTITUTION. THIS IS EXACTLY
WHY -- BECAUSE YOU ARE BY
DEFINITION [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
1000 TIMES, YOU ARE NOT SEES,
YOU CUT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS FOR
SPEAK. TWO MINUTES IS NOT SO
MUCH. ARE YOU SO BUSY? WHO IS
BUSY, HERE, FOR $150,000? YOU
ALWAYS CUT US FROM TWO MINUTES
TO ONE MINUTE. YOU NEVER SHOW
OUR FACES. YOU MAKE RIGHT NOW
US LOOK LIKE A SLAVE. 750,000
SEATTLE SLAVES! WHY DON'T SHOW
US FACES? SO NOBODY RECOGNIZES
, GOOD FOR YOUR RE-ELECTION IN
2023. SO, THIS EXACTLY IS WHAT
I SPEAK AGAIN. DO NOT ASK THESE
ALL IRANIANS WHO SUPPORT
CONSTITUTION, YOU KNOW THIS
MEANS, IRANIAN CONSTITUTION,
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. STAND UP,
AMERICA, CLEANSE THIS --
>> THANK YOU, OUR NEXT SPEAKER
WILL BE SO HARD I MEAN. YES,
YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TWO
MINUTES. THANK YOU.
>> I WANT TO ADD, MS. AMINI,
WE WILL ACCOMMODATE SO YOU CAN
HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. COUNCIL
PRESIDENT JUAREZ AND
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, , THANK
YOU FOR HEARING YOUR
CONSTITUENTS AND SPONSORING
THE RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF
THE IRANIAN PEOPLE, BOTH ABROAD
AND HERE, IN SEATTLE. CHANGE
DOES NOT HAPPEN , JUSTICE DOES
NOT HAPPEN , IF WE ONLY DO THE
THINGS THAT ARE COMFORTABLE AND
CONVENIENT. ALTHOUGH THIS MAY
SEEM LIKE AN INTERNATIONAL
MATTER, IT IS NOT.
UNFORTUNATELY, IRANIANS ARE NOT
ONLY FIGHTING INSIDE IRAN,
BECAUSE THOSE OF US HERE ARE
FIGHTING AGAINST LITIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS WITH POLITICAL
POWER AND INFLUENCE ON BOTH
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL U.S.
POLICY. THEIR EFFORTS ARE
OFTEN SPREADING MISINFORMATION
AND DISINFORMATION TO THE
PUBLIC AND TO LEADERS THAT MAY
NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE
NUANCES OF OUR CULTURE AND
HISTORY. THEY NORMALIZE
INHUMANE ACTIONS OF THE ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC OF IRAN. WE WILL NO
LONGER ALLOW THEM. FOR
EDUCATING OUR COMMUNITY AND
LEADERS, WE HOPE TO SHOW WHO
THE REAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE IRANIANS ARE, HERE IN
AMERICA. WINNING A WAR IS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN WINNING A BATTLE
IN LIFE. AND YES, WE MUST
CHOOSE OUR BATTLES. REGARDLESS
OF THE NEXT STEPS ON THIS
RESOLUTION, I BELIEVE WE HAVE
REACHED OUR GOAL OF GETTING THE
ATTENTION OF NECESSARY
STAKEHOLDERS BY JUST HAVING
THAT FIRST DRAFT ON THE AGENDA.
A PETITION CREATED IN SUPPORT
OF THIS RESOLUTION -- THE
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION -- HAS
RECEIVED OVER 36,335
SIGNATURES IN FIVE SHORT DAYS,
WHICH ONLY GOES TO SHOW THAT
BY SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION,
YOU WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE,
ON THE PEOPLE SIDE , STANDING
UP AND STANDING BY YOUR
CONSTITUENTS RIGHT HERE, IN
SEATTLE. THANK YOU TO THIS
COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERING THIS
RESOLUTION, AND THANK YOU FOR
STANDING UP FOR US.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS NADINE CAM CAR .
>> THANK YOU , COUNCIL
PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL. I AM AN
IRANIAN AMERICAN AND A SEATTLE
RESIDENT. I SUPPORT FINAL
PASSAGE OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT
OF RESOLUTION 32078, IN SUPPORT
OF THE IRAN REVOLUTION AND
WOMEN OF IRAN LEADING THIS
FIGHT FOR REGIME CHANGE. THE
PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS
TO TAKE A PUBLIC STANCE WITH
THE PEOPLE OF IRAN AND TO SEND
A MESSAGE TO NATIONAL LEADERS
THAT THE U.S. MUST STEP IN. THE
U.S. HISTORICALLY PLAYS A
STRONG ROLE IN THE
GEOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF
MIDDLE EAST POLITICS, BUT FOR
SOME REASON RIGHT NOW REMAINS
DANGEROUSLY SILENT. HOWEVER,
HERE IN SEATTLE, IRANIANS ARE
NOT SILENT . PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN
TO THE STREETS SINCE SEPTEMBER
HIM 1000S HAVE SHOWED UP
ACROSS THE PUGET SOUND REGION
IN SUPPORT OF REGIME CHANGE AND
JUSTICE. I AM HERE WITH THE
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION, BUT MY OWN
RELATIVES DO NOT , THAT IS WHY
I AM HERE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. I URGE
FINAL PASSAGE.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS NASEEM -- THE SCENE?
>> JODI, IS IT POSSIBLE TO TURN
THE VOLUME UP ON THE
MICROPHONES?
>> MY VOLUME?
>> OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTERS.
>> WHEN THERE IS CLAPPING, YOU
CANNOT HEAR ME.
>> OH.
>> MY NAME IS NASEEM, AND I AM
HERE TO SAY NIAC IS NOT MY
VOICE. I AM HERE TO URGE THE
COUNCILMEMBERS TO PASS 32078
WITHOUT REMOVING NIAC'S
INVESTIGATION PART. NIAC HAS
TRIED TO AFFECT THE VOTES OF
THESE COUNCILMEMBERS BY SENDING
INTIMIDATING EMAILS TO MEMBERS
LAST WEEK. THEY HAVE CALLED US
"FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS." WE ARE
HERE TO SAY ABOUT WHAT NIAC
SAID IN A METHOD WE ARE NOT
EXTREMISTS. I AM A PHYSICIAN.
WE ARE RIGHT HERE TO SAY WE ARE
REAL HUMAN BEINGS AND ACTIVE
MEMBERS OF YOUR SOCIETY. WE
ARE YOUR NEIGHBOR, YOUR DOCTOR,
YOUR LAWYER, YOUR TEACHER, YOUR
STUDENT, YOUR COWORKER. NIAC
IS NOT OUR VOICE. I WANT TO
URGE THE COUNCILMEMBERS NOT TO
BE SCARED OF NIAC, BECAUSE WE
ARE NOT. AND WE ARE NOT PUBLIC
OFFICIALS. THEY SHOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO INTIMIDATE YOU. THEY
HAVE BEEN INTIMIDATING US FOR
YEARS. THEY HAVE BEEN ATTACKING
US ON SOCIAL MEDIA. WE ARE THE
VOICE OF IRAN. DON'T BE SCARED,
PASS THE RESOLUTION.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS --
HELLO, MY NAME IS -- I AM HERE,
LAST TUESDAY, I WAS HERE AND I
SAID ALL MY WORDS I WANTED, I
HAD MY TEXT READY, I PRACTICED
IT. TODAY, I AM NOT GOING TO
TAKE THE FULL MINUTE. I AM JUST
GOING TO SAY PLEASE PASS THE
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION TO SHOW
THAT YOU ARE REALLY ACTUALLY
WILLING TO STAND UP FOR
IRANIANS, FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
FOR WOMEN, AND FREEDOM. NIAC
DO NOT REPRESENT US. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS -- SHEIKH .
>> HI, MY NAME IS -- SHEIKH,
AND I WANTED TO WRITE SOMETHING
AND BE A LITTLE MORE
PRACTICED. BUT I JUST WANT TO
SAY AS A SEATTLE RESIDENT AND
AN IRANIAN-AMERICAN , I AM HERE
TODAY BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO
GET THIS RESOLUTION PASSED.
WHEN I CAME LAST WEEK, I WAS
EXCITED THAT OUR COMMUNITY AND
THE PEOPLE OF SEATTLE BROUGHT
THIS RESOLUTION. IT REALLY
MEANT A LOT TO ME. BUT I AM
STANDING HERE BECAUSE I AM VERY
UPSET THAT NIAC CAME AND WROTE
AN EMAIL TELLING US -- WANTING
TO SILENCE OUR VOICES. I DO
NOT WANT TO BE SILENCED. NIAC
IS NOT MY VOICE. I FEEL THAT
IT IS MY RIGHT TO SPEAK WHAT I
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND BELIEVE
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE.
I WILL ALWAYS STAND FOR
JUSTICE, AND I BELIEVE THAT
PASSING THIS RESOLUTION WILL DO
JUST THAT.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS TYRA --
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL
MEMBERS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
NIAC IS NOT MY VOICE. NIAC
PORTRAYS ITSELF AS A NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT PRIDES
ITSELF ON TRANSPARENCY. THEY
ARE DEFINED AS A 501(C) THREE
AND 501(C) FOUR, HOWEVER, THE
POWER TO THREATEN AND HARASS
IRANIAN-AMERICANS IS NOTHING
NEW AND IS EXPECTED. THE TRUTH
IS, HOW COME WE ARE LETTING A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY AND
SILENCE IRANIAN CONSTITUENTS
FORCIBLY PRACTICING THEIR
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN SOLIDARITY
WITH THEIR IRANIAN BROTHERS
AND SISTERS? AND WHO HAVE BEEN
FIGHTING AND ENDLESSLY
ADVOCATING FOR THEIR LOVED
ONES. I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT
THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION
923078. THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
SEATTLE COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS KAYLA BHARATI. TIA, THANK
YOU, KIA BHARATI.
>> I GOT THE SURGERY RECENTLY,
SO I AM A BIT SLOW TO MOVE.
WHEN SHOULD I START? OKAY. HI,
EVERYBODY. HOW IS IT GOING? I
AM HERE FOR THE SAME REASON ALL
OF YOU ARE, THAT I GIVE EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF YOU CREDIT, SARA,
ANDREW, LISA, DANIEL, AND
EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS STREAMING
THIS. I THINK ONE OF THE
REASONS WE ARE ALL HERE IS THAT
WE BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE
TRANSPARENT WITH THE PEOPLE
AROUND US, AND WE SHOULD HAVE
ACCOUNTABILITY. I THINK THAT IS
PART OF THE REASON ALL OF YOU
ARE IN POLITICS, REGARDLESS OF
YOUR VARIOUS POINTS OF VIEW.
SO, WE ARE HERE TO PUSH THAT
WITH THE ORIGINAL IRAN
RESOLUTION. BECAUSE WE WANT
THERE TO BE TRANSPARENCY. IF
YOU NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG,
YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO
HIDE, YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO
TAKE OUT SECTIONS OF
RESOLUTIONS. THERE IS A
GENOCIDE UNDERWAY IN IRAN RIGHT
NOW. THIS ISSUE IS CONNECTED TO
THAT 20,000 PROTESTERS
ARRESTED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN
SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WITH
IMPUNITY, AND A WHOLE LOT OF
OTHER THINGS. WOMAN, LIFE,
FREEDOM.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS
MICHAEL HIRSCH AND SOME .
MICHAEL?
>> THANK YOU, I AM MICHAEL
HISCHENSON, WITH THE QUEEN AND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY. I AM HERE
TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE QUEEN
AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. I URGE
YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF COUNCIL
BUILT 120312, AMENDMENT B.
THE SOUL OF A CITY LIES IN THE
PRESERVATION OF THOSE LANDMARKS
THAT TELL IT'S HISTORY.
PURSUED CONSCIENTIOUSLY, IT
CAN SHARE SPACE WITH URBAN
DENSITY THAT ADDRESSES HOUSING
NEEDS AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
REMOVING CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES FROM THE PARKING LOT
OF THE SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL
BANK REFLECT SUCH CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS, WHILE RESPECTING THE
TIME-TESTED LANDMARKS ORDINANCE
AND PROCESS. WE THANK THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERING THIS
AMENDMENT, AND STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE THEM TO SUPPORT IT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS EUGENIO WU .
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM EUGENIA
WU, FROM HISTORIC SEATTLE. I
AM JOINED BY MY COLLEAGUES,
TAYLOR RODEN, EVAN PUGH, AND
JEFF MURDOCH. OUR MESSAGE TODAY
IS SIMPLE. PLEASE ADOPT
AMENDMENT B FOR COUNCIL BUILT
120312, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD YESTERDAY. WE
WOULD LIKE TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD FOR HER
CREATIVITY IN COMING UP WITH A
SOLUTION THAT SUPPORTS BOTH
PRESERVATION AND HOUSING FOR
THE SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL BANK
BUILDING IN UPTOWN. I WATCHED
THE COUNCIL BRIEFING YESTERDAY,
AND WAS PLEASED TO HEAR THAT
BOTH COUNCIL MEMBERS MORALES
AND LEWIS SUPPORT AMENDMENT B,
WISCONSIN MEMBER MORALES REFERS
TO AS A FRIENDLY SUBSTITUTE.
WE HOPE THE SUPPORT HAS NOT
CHANGED, AND THAT THE ENTIRE
COUNCIL JOINS THEM IN VOTING
FOR THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. I
KNOW A LOT CAN CHANGE IN 24
HOURS. CENTRAL STAFF'S
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PARKING LOT
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BOILS
DOWN TO THIS: WE GET MORE
HOUSING WITH THE LANDMARK
INTACT. PRESERVATION IS NOT
ANTI-DEVELOP, IT CAN BE A TOOL
AGAINST DISPLACEMENT. AS A
DEVELOPER, HISTORIC SEATTLE HAS
PROVIDED REHABILITATED AND LOW
INCOME HOUSING FOR MANY IN THE
CITY. THANK YOU. BACK THANK
YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ALI
MESSIER-SAYYID . SELECTIVE
AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. I AM IN
SUPPORT OF 3207 -- CAN WE --
OKAY. NIAC CLAIMS THAT WE
HAVE SPREAD DISINFORMATION.
THEY HAVE CALLED US A BUNCH OF
"RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS." I AM
GOING TO ASK MY FELLOW
SEATTLEITES THAT ARE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION ,
THAT HAVE VOTED DEMOCRAT ,
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. WE ARE
NOT A BUNCH OF RIGHT-WING
EXTREMISTS. WE ARE JUST
UNHAPPY AND DISAPPOINTED AT
THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS
ORGANIZATION SPREADING
MISINFORMATION . THE PROOF OF
THAT IS IN THE LETTER THEY SENT
YOU AS I JUST DEMONSTRATED.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT
SPEAKER IS TOM RASMUSSEN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM TOM
RASMUSSEN, HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT B TO
COUNCIL BUILT 120312. A
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITYFOR
HOUSING AT THIS SITE WILL BE
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED IF THE
COUNCIL BILL IS PASSED WITH THE
AMENDMENTS. FOR USE OF
BUILDING BOTH HOUSING AND
CLIMATE ACTION WHILE A FEW
SIMILAR BUILDINGS STILL EXIST,
THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS
LANDMARK. THE BUILDING MEETS AN
EXTRAORDINARY FOUR OF SIX
CRITERIA TO QUALIFY AS A
LANDMARK. BESIDES PREPARING MY
REMARKS TO YOU, I THOUGHT TODAY
OF JOINING MITCHELL'S SONG, BIG
YELLOW TAXI. DO YOU KNOW WHAT?
IT HAS A REFRAIN THAT SAYS
"DON'T IT ALWAYS SEEMED TO GO
THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU
GOT TILL IT'S GONE?" BECAUSE OF
CONCERNS, REVISE CONTROL AND
INCENTIVES AS AMENDED WILL BE
MORE LIKELY TO HELP THE UPTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY
ACHIEVE ITS GOALS FOR MORE
HOUSING, MORE DENSITY, AND
EVEN SCHOOLS, ARTS, AND
CULTURAL FACILITIES. I
SINCERELY HOPE YOU APPROVE THE
AMENDMENTS. I KNOW THEY WILL
MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAPPY,
AND POSSIBLY EVEN JONI
MITCHELL.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS DEB BARKER. DEB?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
DEB BARKER. I AM A FORMER
MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE LANDMARKS
PRESERVATION BOARD. I URGE THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE
AMENDMENT B TO COUNCIL BILL
120312. THAT REMOVES THE
PARKING LOT FROM THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES PROGRAM, WHILE
MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF
THE LANDMARK SEATTLE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK BUILDING WITH
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES. THIS
ALLOWS HOUSING FOR OTHER
DEVELOPMENT THAT THE OWNER
SHOULD CHOOSE ON THE PARKING
LOT, WITH A SUPPORTING LANDMARK
TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. IT HAS
BEEN DONE BEFORE AND IT
CERTAINLY CAN BE DONE AGAIN.
YESTERDAY, COUNCIL, YOU
RECEIVED A THOUGHTFUL LETTER
FROM THE SITTING MEMBERS OF THE
SEATTLE LANDMARKS RESERVATION
BOARD. DID YOU KNOW THIS BOARD
IS ACTUALLY ABLE TO REMOVE
ELEMENTS SUCH AS THE PARKING
LOT FROM THE LANDMARK
DESIGNATION? AS THE
APPLICANT'S COUNCIL IS VERY
WELL AWARE, I URGE YOU TO PASS
AMENDMENT B. AND IF NOT, SEND
IT BACK TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD
WHERE IT BELONGS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS PATRICK BENITEZ. PATRICK?
>> HI, MY NAME IS PATRICK
BENITEZ. I AM A RENTER IN
CAPITOL HILL. I AM HERE TO
COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
2C, THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO
PRESERVATION CONTROLS ON THE
WALGREENS AT SIXTH AND DENNING.
FOR THIS WALGREENS, I
RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS COUNCIL
TO ENACT A FULL NO-CONTROLS
ORDINANCE AND REMOVE
PRESERVATION CONTROLS FROM THE
ENTIRE SITE, INCLUDING THE
FORMER BANK STRUCTURE.
FURTHERMORE AND RESPECTFULLY,
IT IS FALSE THAT THIS COUNCIL
WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE NEW
HOUSING BY SELECTIVELY
DE-CONTROLLING THE WALGREENS
PARKING LOT. FIRST OF ALL, THE
PARKING LOT IS ALREADY TOO
SMALL TO SUPPORT COST-EFFECTIVE
CONSTRUCTION. SECOND, IT IS
LIKELY ALSO TOO SMALL FOR THE
KINDS OF BUILDINGS THAT WOULD
QUALIFY FOR THE REGULATORY
RELIEF THAT SOME HAVE ASSERTED.
THAT QUALIFICATION, MOREOVER,
WOULD IMPOSE AS YET
UNQUANTIFIED COSTS ON WHAT IS
MUCH-NEEDED NEW DEVELOPMENT. IN
CLOSING, I HOPE THIS COUNCIL
CAN FACILITATE NEW DEVELOPMENT
HERE AS IF YOU BELIEVED THAT
HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS CARLA --
>> THANK YOU, I AM CARLA --,
AND I AM HERE ONCE AGAIN TO
SUPPORT RESOLUTION 32078. I
WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS WHAT FEELS LIKE A
BULLYING TACTIC, AS I HAVE
NOTED THAT NIAC BRAGGED ON
SOCIAL MEDIA THAT THEY STOP
THE RESOLUTION, SAYING THE
RESOLUTION URGES THE FBI TO
TARGET THEM ON ALLEGATIONS THAT
ARE WHOLLY FALSE. I HAVE HEARD
OF A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT WHERE
THEY WERE FORCED TO PAY THE
BLOGGER, BECAUSE THE JUDGES SAY
A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE
DOCUMENTS WERE MODIFIED SHORTLY
BEFORE PRODUCTION , AND FOUR
OF THE COMPUTERS WERE HIDDEN.
SO, THESE FALSE CLAIMS? LET ME
TELL YOU SOMETHING. I WAS A
GIRL SCOUT LEADER FOR 12 YEARS.
EVERY TWO YEARS, I WAS
FINGERPRINTED AND INVESTIGATED.
I NEVER STOOD UP AND SAID "I
DON'T WANT TO BE INVESTIATED."
IF SOMEBODY WERE TO SAY I WAS
PART OF A REGIME THAT MURDERED
CHILDREN, I WOULD IMMEDIATELY
SAY "NO, INVESTIGATE ME,
PLEASE. I HAVE NOTHING TO
HIDE." SO, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
YOU, I WOULD BEG THEM. WOULDN'T
YOU STAND UP FOR THAT?
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS KATHY MARELLI
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS KAT THE
MARELLI. I AM AN
IRANIAN-AMERICAN BORN AND
RAISED IN SEATTLE, AND I AM
HERE TO SUPPORT RESOLUTION
32078 IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.
IRANIANS ARE AN OVERLOOKED
MINORITY IN THE U.S. THAT HAS
NOT BEEN GIVEN A VOICE. THAT IS
WHY IT IS SO EASY FOR GROUPS
WITH MONEY, INFLUENCE, AND
SUPPORTS TO STEP OVER US AND
SPEAK FOR US. NIAC IS NOT OUR
VOICE. SOME OF US HAVE STAYED
SILENT FOR YEARS OUT OF FEAR
FOR OUR FAMILIES, OURSELVES,
AND OUR COMMUNITIES. THIS
REVOLUTION IS OUR FIRST
TANGIBLE HOPE OF CHANGE, AND WE
HAVE RISEN TOGETHER DESPITE
THREATS AND FEAR USED AGAINST
US. WE NEED YOU TO STAND WITH
US. EACH OF US WAKE UP EVERY
DAY TO A NEW ATROCITY, FROM
CHILDREN'S MURDERED IN THE
STREET TO INNOCENT TORTURED
AND SEXUALLY ASSAULTED TO
PUBLIC HANGINGS. THESE ARE REAL
PEOPLE. THESE ARE OUR FRIENDS
AND OUR FAMILY. THERE IS NO
REFORM FOR SADISTS WHO WOULD
NOT CONDEMN THESE CRIMES. THE
REGIME MUST FALL. IT IS TIME
FOR SEATTLE TO TAKE A STAND.
PASS RESOLUTION 32078. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS -- IT
IS GOAL BOND? GOLBAN? THANK
YOU.
>> MY NAME IS -- MARANDA'S, I
AM AN IRANIAN- AMERICAN. WE
MAY NOT LIVE IN IRAN, BUT WE
ALL LIVE AND BREATHE THIS
REVOLUTION. NIAC IS NOT MY
VOICE , NOR THE VOICE OF ANY
IRANIAN HERE OR THERE. NIAC'S
SILENCING TACTICS ARE SIMILAR
TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC 'S
NIAC NOT ONLY TRIED TO
INTIMIDATE COUNCILMEMBERS
BEFORE LAST TUESDAY'S MEETING,
BUT TOOK TO TWITTER TO CALL
SEATTLE IRANIAN ACTIVISTS
DIVISIVE. A DIRECT STEP WE CAN
TAKE IN THE STATE AGAINST THE
REGIME IS INVESTIGATING THE
LOBBYISTS THAT WORK FOR THEM.
PLEASE PASS RESOLUTION 32078 AS
IS, IN SUPPORT OF THE IRANIAN
REVOLUTION, YOUR CONSTITUENTS,
AND CALL FOR THE FBI
INVESTIGATION OF NIAC. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS AHMED -- . AMEN?
>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY TO YOU
GUYS, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
TO US. IT IS SHAMEFUL, VERY
SHAMEFUL THAT WITH THIS
HISTORY OF THIS GOVERNMENT OF
IRAN, AFTER 32 YEARS, KILLING
AND TORTURING PEOPLE , AND THE
LAST FOUR MONTHS, PUBLICLY
HANGING INNOCENT KIDS. WE HAVE
TO COME HERE AND REMIND
EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS NOT A
LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS
A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT THAT IS
TERRORIZING THEIR OWN PEOPLE,
AND WHO EVER AIDS THEM, LIKE
NIAC OR OTHER LOBBYISTS
SHOULD BE STOPPED. WE SHOULD
LET THE IRANIAN PEOPLE SPEAK
WITH THEIR VOICE. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THAT
CONCLUDES OUR IN PERSON SIGN-UP
SHEET. WE ARE NOW DOWN TO 14
PRESENT REMOTE SPEAKERS. WE
MAY WANT TO EXTEND THE TIME A
LITTLE.
>> WE ARE AT 14 REMOTE? BACK
YES, WE ARE READY TO MOVE TO
REMOTE SPEAKERS, IT LOOKS LIKE
THERE ARE 14 SIGNED UP AND
PRESENT.
>> GOOD, LET'S DO THAT. THANK
YOU, MADAM CLERK.
>> HOW LONG WOULD YOU LIKE TO
EXTEND THE PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> LET'S SEE. IF WE HAVE 14,
AND THEY GET ONE MINUTE EACH,
LET'S GO UNTIL 2:50? JUST TO BE
SAFE?
>> OKAY. OUR FIRST REMOTE
SPEAKER IS COLLEEN THE CLEAR.
COLLEEN? PLEASE REMEMBER TO
PRESS STAR SIX IF YOU ARE
CALLING IN REMOTELY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY
COUNCIL, THIS IS COLLEEN MACK
LEAR ON BEHALF OF [
INDISCERNIBLE ] AND WE ASK
TODAY THAT THE COUNCIL
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL 120312 ,
AND ADOPT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBALS AMENDMENT B, TOGETHER
THEY WILL PRESERVE THE HISTORIC
LANDMARK BUILDING AND ITS
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES, WHICH
ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR
THE OWNER, AND IN ADDITION ALSO
ALLOWS THE WALGREENS OWNER THE
RIGHT TO BUILD MORE HOUSING
UNITS ON THE ADJACENT PARKING
LOT. THIS CREATIVE PACKAGE IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT
NEIGHBORHOODS AND CITY COUNCILS
UNIQUE APPROACH TO BALANCING
MANY INTEREST IN THE CITY
LANDMARK PROCESS, AND ALSO TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL
STANDARD FOR PRESERVATION
IMPLEMENTED 56 YEARS AGO.
SEATTLE HAS MISSED SOME
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PAST LIKE
TO PRESERVE AFRICA TOWN, IT IS
GONE, AND THE HISTORICAL 45th
THEATER IS HANGING ON BY A
THREAD, OWNED BY BILLIONAIRE
MARK CUBAN. IT IS GREAT THE
COUNCIL HAS STEPPED UP TODAY.
WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PASS CB
120312 WITH ITS CONTROL
INCENTIVES AND ADOPT THE
AMENDMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD. THANKS SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS -- SHOW BODY . GO AHEAD.
>> HIGH . I AM A LONGTIME
SEATTLE RESIDENT , AND A PROUD
IRANIAN IMMIGRANT. I AM HERE
TODAY TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
THE SEATTLE COUNCIL TO PASS THE
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 32078 ,
IN SUPPORT OF A FREE IRAN AND
TO START THE HUMANITARIAN
DISASTER IN IRAN. THANK YOU,
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL FOR YOUR
ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. I
HOPE YOU SUPPORT THIS
RESOLUTION AND TAKE IMMEDIATE
ACTION. WOMEN, LIFE, FREEDOM.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT REMOTE
SPEAKER IS AUSTIN JOHNSON.
AUSTIN JOHNSON?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU.
THIS COMMENT IS RELATED TO THE
FIRST NATIONAL BANK ORDINANCE.
I FOLLOW ALL THE EMERGENCY
CALLS FOR TRAFFIC RELATED
INCIDENTS IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. I NOTICED THAT MANY
PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS HIT BY
CARS ARE IN AREAS OF POOR
URBAN DESIGN. HISTORIC
PRESERVATION CONTROLS CAN
DEEPLY SETBACK BUILDINGS,
POORLY LOCATED DRIVEWAYS OR
POORLY SITUATED SIDEWALKS.
BECAUSE NUMBERS ARE ESSENTIALLY
ENTERING A DANGEROUS, HOSTILE
URBAN ENVIRONMENTS FOR
CITIZENS WHO NEED A HIGH
QUALITY AND SAFE ENVIRONMENT
FOR THIS INCLUDES FAMILIES WITH
KIDS, PEOPLE WHO USE MOBILITY
AIDS LIKE WALKERS OR CHAIRS,
THE ELDERLY, MULTIGENERATIONA L
HOUSEHOLDS, PEOPLE WHO ARE
BLIND OR DEAF, PEOPLE WITH
LOWER INCOMES, THE LIST GOES
ON. IF YOU ARE ONLY CONSIDERED
PROPERTY OWNERS [
INDISCERNIBLE ] RIGHT NOW, WE
HAVE A SURPLUS OF PUBLIC
SPACES DEDICATED TO CARS. CARS
CONTRIBUTE MASSIVELY TO CLIMATE
CHANGE AND RACIAL INEQUALITY IN
OUR CITY. WE CAN LET THIS
BUILDING GO. NOBODY WANTS TO
PRESERVE IT EXCEPT THE FOLKS
DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THE CITY'S
HISTORIC PRESERVATION STATUS
BOARD. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
PRESERVATION CONTROLS ON HIS
PROPERTY AND ALLOW ITS FUTURE
INVESTMENTS TO BE DECIDED BY
THE OPEN MARKET. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
I'M SORRY, I MISSED ONE IN
PERSON SPEAKER, I AM GOING TO
CALL HIM NOW, THOMAS BEGLEY,
PLEASE? I APOLOGIZE.
>> THAT IS OKAY, THANK YOU
THANK YOU, MY NAME IS THOMAS
DAGLEY, I CAME TO YESTERDAY'S
COUNCIL AGENDA BRIEF TO GET
INFORMATION ABOUT THIS YEAR'S
COUNCIL SESSIONS. I WANTED TO
GIVE SOME INPUT ON THE
PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORICAL
MONUMENT, BUT IT SEEMS A LOT OF
PEOPLE ARE DISCUSSING THAT.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF HEATED
OPINIONS , ABOUT THE HISTORY,
AND WHETHER WE CAN USE THE
SPACE IN A GOOD MANNER. TO BE
HONEST, WE HAVE TIME. WE HAVE
PLENTY OF TIME TO DISCUSS THAT.
IT WAS STUPID OF ME TO THINK
ABOUT COMING IN AND TALKING
ABOUT A BUILDING THAT A BOARD
IS OVERSEEING . THEY CAN MAKE
THAT DETERMINATION LATER, YOU
CAN KICK IT BACK TO THEM IF
YOU DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE
ENTIRE STORY. WHAT A
RESOLUTION ON PEOPLE BEING
MURDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT?
THERE IS NO TIME FOR THAT. YOU
HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW! THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT REMOTE
SPEAKER , WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO DOUG FROM, OUR NEXT REMOTE
SPEAKER, DOUG, PLEASE.
>> HI, I AM DOUG TRUMP,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WITH THE
URBANIST. I AM URGING YOU TO
REJECT THE AMENDMENT FOR
WALGREENS, TO FILL --
DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT SOMETHING WE
SHOULD BE PRESERVING,
ESPECIALLY NOT IN RAPID
TRANSIT. THERE ARE GOING TO BE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF LIGHT
RAIL INVESTMENT GOING RIGHT TO
THIS PROJECT. IT IS SILLY WE
WOULD KEEP A DRIVE THROUGH
THERE. THERE HAS BEEN SOME
REALLY INTERESTING
MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS
POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS
RESULTS IN MORE HOUSING FOR
MORE PEOPLE, IF IT IS ONLY
TAKING HALF THE LOT. IT SEEMS
LIKE THE PEOPLE CLAIMING THAT
ARE ASSUMING A SWITCH TO MICRO
UNITS, WHICH WOULD NOT HOUSE
MORE PEOPLE, BECAUSE IT WOULD
ONLY BE SINGLES. THE MIX OF
UNITS IN THE LARGER BUILDING
CAT HOUSE COUPLES AND FAMILIES.
[ INDISCERNIBLE ] 3.5 MILLION
IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, IT
WOULD BE CUT IN HALF IN THE
ALTERNATIVE. JUST GO WITH THE
ORIGINAL, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS ALICE LOCKHART. IS ALICE
LOCKHART HERE? SORRY, NOT
HERE, REMOTE SPEAKER. ALICE
LOCKHART?
>> WE LOST THE CALLER.
>> WE DID? WE WILL GO BACK IF
SHE COMES BACK ON. OUR NEXT
BEAKER IS JED YOU HONEY. GO
AHEAD, JED.
>> HI, I AM JED I SUPPORT
RESOLUTION 32078 IN ITS
ORIGINAL FORM. THE ORGANIZERS
KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL
IRANIAN-AMERICAN COUNCIL, NIAC
, LOBBIES FOR THE ISLAMIC
REGIME [ INDISCERNIBLE ] KNEW
THE DAUGHTER OF [
INDISCERNIBLE ] IN SEATTLE WHO
ORGANIZED EVENTS AT MICROSOFT
AND AMAZON TO HELP NIAC OF
REPRESENTATION. PRESIDENT OBAMA
RECENTLY ADMITTED A MISTAKE
WHEN HE INVITED [
INDISCERNIBLE ] DRIVEN BY
NIAC, AND IT HAS COST THE
IRANIAN PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF [
INDISCERNIBLE ] AS WELL AS THE
CONTINUED LOSS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
[ INDISCERNIBLE ] NIAC [
INDISCERNIBLE ] ANY ACT THAT
LEGITIMIZES THE ISLAMIC REGIME
SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE
PEOPLE OF IRAN [ INDISCERNIBLE
] HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE PEOPLE
OF IRAN [ INDISCERNIBLE ] WITH
THEM. THANKS. FREEDOM FOR
IRAN.
>> THANK YOU, OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS JESSE SIMPSON. JESSE?
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.
>> HI, I AM JESSE SIMPSON,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND POLICY
MANAGER FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
[ INDISCERNIBLE ] SPEAKING
TODAY ABOUT COUNCIL BILL
120312, CONCERNING PRESERVATION
OF THE WALGREENS AT SIXTH AND
DENNING. I URGE YOU TO REMOVE
LANDMARKS CONTROL FROM THE
BUILDING, AND REJECT AMENDMENT
B. SEATTLE FACES A HOUSING AND
CLIMATE CRISIS. FUNDAMENTALLY,
IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO
LANDMARK A ONE-STORY DRIVE
THROUGH WALGREENS IN THE CENTER
OF SEATTLE. THE PROPOSAL TO
ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT OF ONLY THE
PARKING LOT MAY THEORETICALLY
ALLOW NEW HOUSING TO BE BUILT
ON THE SITE. HOWEVER, IN
PRACTICE, SUCH A SMALL AND
CONSTRAINED SITE WILL BE
INITIALLY DIFFICULT TO BUILD
ON, WITH ELEVATORS, STAIRS,
AND HALLWAYS TAKING UP MUCH OF
THE DEVELOPABLE SPACE. EVEN IF
SOMEONE CAN FIND A WAY TO FIT A
TOWER ON THE PARKING LOT,
RESERVING HALF THE LOT WILL
RESERVE REDUCE BUILDABLE SQUARE
FOOTAGE BY ABOUT HALF,
COSTING US MORE THAN $1.5
MILLION IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FUNDS. FROM A HOUSING AND
CLIMATE PERSPECTIVE, THESE
BENEFITS FAR OUTWEIGH ANY
BENEFITS OF PRESERVING THE
AUTO-CENTRIC RELIC OF THE
1950s. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS -- YOU MAY HAVE TO PRESS
STAR SIX.
>> LOOKING FOR HIS TILE, UP
HERE.
>> OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO SKIP
THAT ONE. OUR NEXT REMOTE
SPEAKER IS IAN MacLEOD . IAN?
AGAIN, YOU MAY NEED TO PRESS
STAR SIX.
>> OUR LAST TWO PEOPLE NEEDS TO
PRESS STAR SIX.
>> RIGHT.
>> LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN GET
THAT DONE.
>> WHILE WE ARE WAITING, WE
CAN MOVE ON TO SANDERS -- OH,
IAN MacLEOD, I SEE YOU ARE
AVAILABLE NOW.
>> WE SEE YOU, IAN.
>> I WILL TAKE IT AWAY, THEN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KESSEL, NAME IS
IN THE CLOUD, AND I AM A PROUD
MEMBER OF THE LANDMARKS
RESERVATION BOARD POINT I AM
GOING TO REITERATE MY WRITTEN
SUPPORT OF COUNCIL BILL
120312, THAT PRESERVES CONTROLS
ON LANDMARKS. SIDESTEPPING
THE ESTABLISHED LANDMARK
PROCESS AND REMOVING CONTROLS,
I FEEL, JEOPARDIZES THE
INDEPENDENCE AND AUTHORITY
GRANTED TO THE BOARD , AND THE
FUTURE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
IN THE CITY. LATE LAST NIGHT, I
LEARNED AMENDMENT E OF THIS
BILL WAS DRAFTED TO PRESERVE
THOSE CONTROLS ON THE
BUILDING, NOT THE PARKING LOT,
AND I WANT TO ADD MY SUPPORT TO
THIS AMENDMENT AS A COMPROMISE.
AS A 10 YEAR RESIDENCE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I
APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL SUPPORT
OF THIS ISSUE. IT IS A BOTH
AND, NOT AN EITHER OR
PROPOSITION. I APPLAUD THE
COUNCIL FOR WORKING TO COVER
MICE. I ASKED THE COUNCIL
RESPECT THE INTEGRITY AND VOTE
OF THE LANDMARK BOARD AND VOTE
IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS SANDERS LOUD TO HER
>> HI, MY NAME IS SANDERS --
SPEAKING ABOUT COUNCIL BILL
120312 , THE BUILDING
CURRENTLY LOCATED NEXT TO --
APARTMENT BUILDING AND THE BUSY
TRANSIT CORRIDORS OF [
INDISCERNIBLE ] . THIS
ONE-STORY BUILDING SHOULD HAVE
THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TAXES
APPLIED TO IT SO THE MOST
AMOUNT CAN BE BUILT ON THE LOT.
HOUSING POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF
PEOPLE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THIS SINGLE-STORY BUILDING. I
DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A CITY
WHERE A PHARMACY NEXT TO CITY
HALL BECOMES A LANDMARK JUST
BECAUSE IT IS OLD. THANK YOU.
>> WE WILL TRY ONE MORE TIME
FOR --? NOPE, LOOKS LIKE WE
LOST THEM , POSSIBLY. CAN YOU
PRESS STAR SIX?
>> I DON'T -- I AM LOOKING FOR
HIS TILE, UP HERE.
>> I SEE IT AT THE TOP OF MY
LIST, BUT IT IS STILL RED. SO,
WE WILL MOVE ON TO CHRIS MOORE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRIS
MOORE.
>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT TODAY
ON COUNCIL BILL 120312 ,
RELATING TO CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES ON THE SEATTLE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK BUILDING. I AM
CHRIS MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE WASHINGTON TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION, A
STATEWIDE ADVOCACY GROUP
SUPPORTING PRESERVATION OF
CULTURAL RESOURCES. FAILING TO
ADOPT CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES ,
OR ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT THAT
PLACES NO CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES ON THE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK BUILDING WILL
RESULT IN DEMOLITION OF THIS
LANDMARK STRUCTURE. THE NOTED
COUNCIL OPPOSITION TO CONTROLS
AND INCENTIVES IS BASED ON THE
PERCEIVED POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP
HOUSING AT THE SITE. BUT
UNLESS SOME DEAL HAS BEEN
REACHED THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT
AWARE OF, THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT FOR THE CURRENT
OWNER TO BUILD HOUSING. THIS IS
A RISK THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT
TAKE, ESPECIALLY AT SUCH A VOTE
WOULD GO AGAINST DECADES OF
RESIDENT AND POLICY. WE SUPPORT
AMENDMENT B IS OFFERED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD, AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR
INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ON THE
SITE WHILE MAINTAINING AND
PRESERVING THE LANDMARK
BUILDING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS DAVID PEDERSEN. DAVID?
>> HI, THIS IS DAVID PEDERSEN.
I AM CALLING TO SUPPORT
AMENDMENT B FOR AGENDA ITEM
120312. SEVERAL CALLERS, AND
I'M AFRAID THE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS, MAY MISUNDERSTAND THE
REALLY COOL TDR PROGRAM,
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL. IF YOU IMAGINE A
VOLUME OF SPACE ABOVE THE
ONE-STORY BUILDING, THAT IS THE
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTAL AREA
-- VOLUME, RATHER -- THAT CAN
BE USED OR SOLD TO SOMEONE
ELSE, AND MUST BE USED WITHIN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, IT IS A
ONE-STORY BUILDING, BUT BY
LANDMARK IN THE PROPERTY, YOU
ALLOW THE OWNER TO SELL THAT
VOLUME TO BE DEVELOPED NEXT
DOOR OR TWO BLOCKS AWAY , OR
WHEREVER THE MARKET WILL TAKE
IT. SO, THIS WAY WE GET
LANDMARK PROTECTIONS AND
ADDITIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
SO, PLEASE SUPPORT AMENDMENT
B. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. LOOKS LIKE OUR
CONNECTION WITH ALICE
LOCKHART'S BACK. ALICE, GO
AHEAD, PLEASE. PRESS STAR SIX
IF YOU NEED.
>> GO AHEAD, ALICE. STAR SIX.
>> OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO
RUTH DANNER. AFTER RUTH, WE
WILL TRY ALICE ONE MORE TIME,
THEN WE WILL BE COMPLETE.
>> OKAY.
>> GO AHEAD, RUTH.
>> RUTH?
>> HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> WE SURE CAN.
>> THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS RUTH DANNER, I AM
PRESIDENT OF SAVE THE MARKET
ENTRANCE, A COMMUNITY ADVOCACY
GROUP. I AM CALLING TO TALK
ABOUT COUNCIL BILL 120312.
LANDMARKS GIVE SEATTLE A
UNIQUE SENSE OF PLACE. THEY
HELP US FIND OUR WAY, AND
REMEMBER HOW WE GOT HERE.
PRESERVING LANDMARKS ALSO
PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR
INCENTIVIZING CONSTRUCTION OF
HOUSING THAT WILL BE LESS
AFFORDABLE WITHOUT THOSE
INCENTIVES. PLEASE APPROVE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES FOR THE
SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL BANK
BUILDING ON SIXTH AND DENNING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT
TO OUR COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW TRY
OUR LAST SPEAKER, ALICE
LOCKHART, WHO IS REMOTE. PLEASE
PRESS STAR SIX IF YOU ARE ON
THE LINE.
>> ALICE?
>> OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC
COMMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE DID NOT GET
TO A FEW PEOPLE WHO DID NOT GET
A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND PRESS
STAR SIX, BUT I WANT TO REMIND
PEOPLE, WE DO ALWAYS TAKE
WRITTEN COMMENTS AS WELL. WE
HAVE REACHED THE END OF PUBLIC
COMMENT OF THOSE WHO CAME INTO
CHAMBER TODAY AND OF THOSE WHO
CALLED IN. I WANT TO THANK YOU
ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS
AND YOUR PASSIONATE REMARKS
ABOUT ITEMS ON TODAY'S
CALENDAR. WITH THAT, WE WILL
MOVE ON TO OUR AGENDA, I WILL
MOVE ON TO THE ADOPTION OF THE
IRC, THE REFERRAL COUNTERED IF
THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR IS ADOPTED. NOT
HEARING OR SEEING ANY
OBJECTION, THE IRC IS INDEED
ADOPTED. MOVING ON TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA. ARE
THERE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE
AGENDA?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> COUNCIL NUMBER STRAUSS, I
SEE YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WHILE THIS
RESOLUTION IS NOT READY FOR
COUNCIL TO REVIEW AT THIS TIME
, AND I WILL REQUEST AN
INDEFINITE HOLD, THERE SHOULD
BE NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS FACT.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE SUPPORTS
IRANIAN WOMEN, GIRLS, AND
PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOWING
EXTRAORDINARY COURAGE BY
FIGHTING FOR THEIR FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS. I WILL JUST SAY THAT
ONE MORE TIME. THE CITY OF
SEATTLE SUPPORTS IRANIAN
WOMEN, GIRLS, AND PEOPLE WHO
ARE SHOWING EXTRAORDINARY
COURAGE BY FIGHTING FOR THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN THIS
WORLD. WITH THAT SAID, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, THE RESOLUTION IS
NOT READY FOR REVIEW BY OUR
BODY AT THIS TIME. THEREFORE,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I REQUEST TO
REMOVE ITEM ONE FROM TODAY'S
AGENDA, I MOVE THAT RESOLUTION
32 078 BE POSTPONED UNTIL
SPONSORS PROVIDE NOTICE TO
COUNCIL PRESIDENT THAT IT IS
READY FOR PLACEMENT ON THE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA.
>> THANK YOU, ACCOUNT NUMBER
STRAUSS. COUNCIL NUMBER
STRAUSS HAS MOVED TO POSTPONE
ITEM NUMBER ONE, RESOLUTION
32078. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> I WILL SECOND IT. I CAN DO
THAT. OKAY, IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL ROLE ON THE
POSTPONEMENT OF RESOLUTION
32078?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA
>> AYE.
>> CUSTOMER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSE.
>> THE MOTION CARRIED,
RESOLUTION 32078 IS POSTPONED
UNTIL SPONSORS PROVIDE NOTICE
TO COUNCIL PRESIDENT THAT IT IS
READY FOR PLACEMENT ON THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS
TO THE AGENDA? HEARING AND
SEEING NONE, THE AGENDA IS NOW
ADOPTED. I WILL MOVE TO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR NOW. SO, WHEN
WE CONSIDER THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, THESE ARE THE ITEMS
TODAY. THE MINUTES OF JANUARY
3rd, 2023 , SORRY FOR THE MISS
SPEECH, THERE. ON THE BILLS,
WE HAVE PAYROLL BILL, COUNCIL
120490. ARE THERE ANY
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE
TO REMOVE ANYTHING FROM TODAY'S
CONSENT CALENDAR? NOT HEARING
OR SEEING ANY, I MOVED TO
ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR. IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT IS MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL ROLE ON THE ADOPTION OF
THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> AYE.
>> CUSTOMER STRESS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> WILL BE CLERK PLEASE AFFIX
MY SIGNATURE TO THE MINUTES AND
LEGISLATION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ON MY BEHALF? BEFORE
WE GET GOING , COUNCIL MEMBER
SAWANT, I SEE YOUR HAND IS UP.
>> YES, MY APOLOGIES, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT JUAREZ. I WAS NOT
FULLY ALIVE TO THE FACT THAT
THE MOTION ON THE IRAN
RESOLUTION WAS FOR AN
INDEFINITE HOLD. I INTENDED TO
VOTE NO IF IT WAS GOING TO BE
INDEFINITE. SO, I WOULD MOVE TO
RECONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE
AGENDA, BECAUSE I INTENDED TO
VOTE NO ON THAT AMENDMENT.
>> ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO
RECONSIDER THE VOTE? YOUR VOTE?
>> YES.
>> OKAY. SO, IT HAS BEEN MOVED
BY COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT TO
RECONSIDER HER VOTE. MADAME
CLERK, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE ANY
MORE COMMENTS ON THAT? HOW DO
WE MOVE FORWARD ON THAT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE WE NEED ANY
MORE COMMENT ON IT. I BELIEVE
WE CAN JUST TAKE A VOTE ON IT ,
TO SEE IF WE ARE GOING TO
RECONSIDER IT.
>> OKAY. SO, WHAT WE WILL DO
IS BASICALLY CALL THE ROLE ON
RECONSIDERATION OF THE VOTE.
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. AND IF IT IS VOTED
DOWN, THEN IT IS NOT
RECONSIDERED.
>> CAN I JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN
WHY I WANT TO RECLAIM THAT
VOTE? THEN YOU CAN CALL THE
ROLE?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT.
>> I WOULD AGREE TO A HOLD ON
THE IRAN RESOLUTION FOR MAYBE
ANOTHER WEEK OR SO FOR OUR
COUNCILMEMBERS TO WORK ON THE
LANGUAGE. BUT I FEEL THAT AN
INDEFINITE HOLD MEANS THIS
RESOLUTION WILL PROBABLY NEVER
COME TO A VOTE AND NOT SEE THE
LIGHT OF DAY. THAT IS WHAT I
WANT TO VOTE NO ON HOLDING IT
INDEFINITELY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SAWANT. MADAME CLERK, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE
RECONSIDERATION OF THE VOTE.
>> ACCOUNT NUMBER SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> ACCOUNT NUMBER STRAUSS?
>> SORRY, IS THAT THE VOTE TO
RECONSIDER?
>> THIS IS THE VOTE ON THE
RECONSIDERATION, COUNCIL MEMBER
SAWANT. YOU MAY WANT TO VOTE
YES.
>> SORRY, THAT IS WHAT I WAS
ASKING. YES TO RECONSIDER.
THANK YOU. COUNCIL NUMBER
STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> CHAIR, POINT OF
CLARIFICATION?
>> YES? I THINK PEOPLE ARE
CONFUSED. WE ARE VOTING
WHETHER OR NOT WE RECONSIDER.
SO, IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO
RECONSIDER YOUR VOTE, THEN YOU
SHOULD VOTE NO. THAT IS WHAT IS
GOING ON. SO, COUNCIL NUMBER
SAWANT VOTED YES, SAYING "I
WOULD LIKE ALL OF US TO
RECONSIDER OUR VOTES. " SHE
VOTED YES. IF YOU DO NOT WANT
TO RECONSIDER YOUR VOTE AND
STAY WITH YOUR ORIGINAL VOTE,
THEN YOUR VOTE SHOULD BE NO.
MADAME CLERK, CORRECT ME IF I
AM WRONG.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. GO AHEAD.
DEPUTY CLERK SANCHEZ?
>> EVERYONE HAS VOTED YES SO
FAR.
>> WE HAVE ALREADY SURPASSED
THAT, SO IT IS GOING TO BE
RECONSIDERED. WHAT WE ARE
RECONSIDERING WILL BE THE
ORIGINAL MOTION, BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, TO HOLD
THE RESOLUTION UNTIL SPONSORS
BRING FORTH A DIFFERENT
VERSION. I THINK WE HAVE TWO
MORE COUNCILMEMBERS TO CALL FOR
VOTE.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO, I AM GOING TO LET US
FINISH THE VOTE. THEN I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA HAS HER
HAND UP. FINISH THE COUNT OR
MADAME CLERK, THEN I WILL GO TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA AND
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN , AND WE
WILL GO FROM THERE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> CAN I JUST CLARIFY ONE
THING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JUAREZ? [ INDISCERNIBLE ] WHAT
YOU WERE SAYING. THE ONLY
CLARIFICATION MADE IS THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS CAN STILL VOTE
YES TO RECONSIDER AND STILL
VOTE THE SAME WAY ON IT AS
THEY DID BEFORE, BUT THE
RECONSIDERATION WOULD JUST
ALLOW ME TO CHANGE MY VOTE IN
THE RECORD. THAT IS ALL.
>> RIGHT.
>> SHALL I CONTINUE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> WE ALREADY HAVE HER VOTE.
NOW ON TO COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, I BELIEVE.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> THAT IS 9-0 FOR
RECONSIDERATION. NOW WE CAN
TAKE ANOTHER VOTE ON
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'S MOTION
TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE SPONSORS
BRING SOMETHING BACK.
>> SO, DO WE DO GROUNDHOG DAY,
AND ACCOUNT NUMBER STRAUSS
REINTRODUCES HIS MOTION TO
POSTPONE?
>> NO, NOW THAT WE ARE BACK TO
RECONSIDERATION, WE ARE
RECONSIDERING EXACTLY AS IT WAS
VOTED BEFORE.
>> OKAY, WE ARE BACK TO
ORIGINAL VOTING, SO, LET'S CALL
ROLL.
>> SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUEDA HAD SOMETHING THAT I
DID NOT SEE YOU UP THERE.
>> I WANTED TO ADD, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF EXPLAINING WHAT WE
ARE DOING, TO SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT 'S COMMENT
, THAT COUNCILMEMBER VOTING
ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, SHE
MADE A REQUEST OF THE BODY FOR
A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, BECAUSE
SHE VOTED ON THE PREVAILING
SIDE. SO, WE JUST VOTED TO
ACCEPT THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER, GIVEN THAT SHE
VOTED ON THE PREVAILING SIDE.
NOW, WE CAN VOTE AGAIN. YOU DO
NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO
RECONSIDER YOUR OWN VOTE, BUT
WE WERE SUPPORTING COUNCIL
MEMBER SAWANT WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THE RECORD ACCURATELY
REFLECTED THAT SHE WANTED TO
VOTE NO. I SHOULD ALSO SAY
THAT I APPRECIATE THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER SAWANT IS BRINGING UP
THE CONCERNS AROUND THE
RESOLUTION NOT COMING BACK. I
ALSO WANT TO STAND IN SUPPORT
WITH THE WOMEN AND PROTESTERS
AND THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT
IN IRAN. I BELIEVE THE FINAL
VERSION OF THE REVISED
RESOLUTION THAT CAME BACK TODAY
MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTED OUR
DESIRE TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY,
MOVING AWAY FROM WHAT OTHERS
INTENDED TO MAKE OF A POLITICAL
STANCE AGAINST CERTAIN
ORGANIZATIONS. SO, I APPRECIATE
THE WORK THAT WENT INTO IT. I
WILL STILL VOTE TO SUPPORT
PULLING IT FROM THE AGENDA , AS
THE SPONSOR AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HAVE NOTED TODAY. I
DO HOPE WE CONTINUE SENDING
MESSAGES OF SUPPORT TO THE
REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN IRAN.
I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY
SUPPORT AND ALSO FURTHER
ARTICULATE WHAT THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WAS ALL ABOUT,
GIVEN THAT SHE WAS VOTING ON
THE PREVAILING SIDE.
>> RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA,
FOR CLARIFYING THAT , AND
PUTTING IT IN CONTEXT. WE HAD
HOPED THIS WOULD BE A VOTE
ABOUT WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND
THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
IN IRAN, NOT A FORUM IN WHICH
TO EVEN A SCORE AGAINST ANY
ORGANIZATION. THAT IS JUST
WHERE WE ARE AT, NOW. LET'S GO
BACK AND DO THE VOTE. I WILL
AGAIN VOTE YES TO POSTPONE.
MADAME CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSE.
>> THANK YOU, MOVING ON TO THE
AGENDA ON COMMITTEE REPORT,
THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS ON TODAY'S
CALENDAR. SO, WITH ITEM ONE, I
WILL JUST MAKE THE STATEMENTS
FOR THE RECORD, MADAME CLERK,
THAT AGENDA ITEM ONE WAS
POSTPONED. AGAIN, THAT ITEM
WAS ADDRESSED WHEN WE TALKED
ABOUT ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA,
AND ITS POSTPONEMENT PASS.
WITH THAT , MADAME BURT, CAN WE
MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO? BACK TO
REPORT ON NEIGHBORHOODS
EDUCATION CIVIL RIGHTS AND
CULTURE COMMITTEE, AGENDA ITEM
TWO, COUNCIL THE 120312, AN
ORDINANCE RELATED TO HISTORIC
PRESERVATION IMPOSING CONTROLS
ON THE SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL
BANK BUILDING, A LANDMARK
DETONATED BY THE LANDMARKS
PRESERVATION BOARD UNDER THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING IT TO THE TABLE OF
HISTORICAL LANDMARK CONTAINED
IN CHAPTER 25.32 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE. THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDS -- I'M SORRY, THIS
CAME BACK FROM LAST WEEK BEING
POSTPONED , WITH A
RECOMMENDATION NOT TO PASS
FROM THE COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE BEGIN,
AGAIN, WE WILL HAVE SOME
PROCEDURAL ISSUES. WE WORKED
WITH THE CLERKS, SO WE
UNDERSTAND THE BASE
LEGISLATION. COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES WILL INTRODUCE BUT I
UNDERSTAND IS A SENSITIVE, AND
I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD HAS AN ITEM TEED UP AS
WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS.
LET'S MAKE SURE WE DO THIS
RIGHT. NOW THAT THE CLERK HAS
READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, AS CHAIR
OF THE COMMITTEE, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO PROVIDE THE
REPORT .
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. TO CLARIFY FOR
MYSELF, MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT I NEED TO GET THE BILL
BEFORE US FIRST, AND THEN I
WILL MOVE THE SUBSTITUTE.
>> RIGHT. YOU WILL MOVE TO PASS
THE COUNCIL BILL. YOU WILL
MOVE IT.
>> OKAY.
>> CUSTOMER MORALES IS, YOU
NEED TO MOVE.
>> I WAS ON MUTE. MY APOLOGIES.
I MOVE THAT WE PASSED COUNCIL
120312.
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO PASCALS OF THE
120312. ARE THERE ANY
COMMENTS?
>> YES, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. I
MOVE THAT WE AMEND COUNCIL
BUILT 120312 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT A, AS SHOWN ON THE
AGENDA AS A PROPOSED
SUBSTITUTE.
>> AND WE HAVE A SECOND. SO
SUBSTITUTE BY COUNCILMEMBER -
MORALES . WE HAD A SECOND. AT
THIS POINT, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK
TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE?
>> YES, PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, COLLEAGUES. AS WE
HAVE NOTED LAST WEEK AND
YESTERDAY IN THE BRIEFING,
THIS BILL , THE ORIGINAL BILL,
CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A
UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION THAT
IT DO NOT PASS. THE ROLL OF
COUNCIL IN THIS LANDMARK
PROCESS IS TO DECIDE WHETHER
OR NOT TO ACCEPT THE CONTROLS
AND INCENTIVES AGREEMENT. IT
IS NOT TO MODIFY THE LANDMARK
DESIGNATION ITSELF. SO, WE DID
VOTE UNANIMOUSLY TO REJECT THE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES, WHICH
WOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PROPERTY
OWNER TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS, AND WOULD HAVE REQUIRED
APPROVAL FROM THE LANDMARK
PRESERVATION BOARD BEFORE
MAKING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO
THE BUILDING. I WILL
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A DIFFERENT
SUBSTITUTE WILL BE PRESENTED
FROM COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD. I
APPRECIATE HER WORK TO
IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES TO MEET
OUR GOAL OF INCREASING HOUSING.
BUT AFTER FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, I HAVE DECIDED
TO MOVE WITH AMENDMENT A, I
BELIEVE REDUCING SPACE IN THE
DRIVE-THROUGH WOULD REDUCE THE
DEVELOPABLE PARCEL. RATHER THAN
REJECTING THE BUILDING
ENTIRELY, AMENDMENT A ALLOWS
US TO PASS AN AMENDMENT
ACKNOWLEDGING LANDMARK STATUS,
AS DESIGNATED IN 2006. AND BY
ADOPTING THIS SUBSTITUTE, WE
WOULD CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE
NO CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES ON
THE BUILDING. WHAT THIS MEANS
FOR THE OWNER IS THAT ANY
DEVELOPMENT THE OWNER SEEKS
WOULD FUNCTION WITHIN THE
EXISTING ZONING, WHICH IS
SEATTLE MIXED UP TOWN. IT WOULD
PROCEED WITHOUT REVIEW FROM
THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION
BOARD. IF THE OWNER APPLIES
FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, IT
WOULD BE WITH THE CAVEAT THAT
IT IS DESIGNATED AS A LANDMARK.
THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE
DEMOLISHED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO
FOLLOW CERTAIN PRESERVATION
PROVISIONS IN SECTION 281235
OF THE SMC. THAT IS WHAT IS
BEFORE US. AS I SAID, THE
COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY
RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE
ORIGINAL LEGISLATION, BECAUSE
THE BUILDING AND ITS DRIVEWAY
SURFACE PARKING LOT ARE NOT
HISTORICALLY OR CULTURALLY
SIGNIFICANT TO THE CITY. BUT,
IT IS ALSO NOT THE ROLL OF
COUNCIL TO RUBBERSTAMP THESE
DOCUMENTS AND THESE PROCESSES
AS THEY COME IN. IT IS OUR ROLL
TO SCRUTINIZE THE PROJECTS THAT
COME BEFORE US. THAT IS WHY WE
ARE HAVING -- THIS IS NOT AN
UNPRECEDENTED CONVERSATION IN
COUNCIL, BUT THIS PARTICULAR
COUNCIL HAS NOT HAD THIS KIND
OF CONVERSATION, WHICH IS I
THINK WHY THIS HAS GENERATED SO
MUCH DISCUSSION. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES. BEFORE
WE GO, HOLD ON. COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES JUST PUT IN FRONT OF US
AMENDMENT A, THE PROPOSED
SUBSTITUTE. AT THIS TIME, ARE
THERE ANY COMMENTS ON COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES AMENDMENT A,
WHICH IS A PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE?
S.E. CUPP MEMBER MOSQUEDA HAS
HER HAND UP.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. I WANTED TO CHIME IN
WITH MY SUPPORT FOR THE
SUBSTITUTE IN FRONT OF US. I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, EDUCATION, AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF
THIS LEGISLATION IN COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO REITERATE SOME POINTS
THAT THE COMMITTEE CHAIR MADE.
IT IS THE COUNCILS TASK TO
LOOK CRITICALLY AND CAREFULLY
AT PRODUCT THAT COME BEFORE US.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COUNCIL,
WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL
AND THAT THE SUGGESTIONS TO
IMPOSE CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES
ON THE FORMER BANK OF AMERICA,
IN THIS CASE , CURRENT
WALGREENS BUILDING. WE NEED TO
WEIGH THOSE CONSIDERATIONS
ABOUT THE HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS BUILDING
AND HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE
CITY, ALONGSIDE OTHER PUBLIC
BENEFITS THAT THIS SITE COULD
POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE
CITY 'S FABRIC, INCLUDING
CREATING HOUSING , INCLUDING
THE NHA CONTRIBUTIONS THAT
COULD BE GAINED BY THE CITY OF
SEATTLE IF HOUSING WERE TO BE
BUILT ON THE SITE, AND THOSE
NHA CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD ADD
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CAN
COULD CONTRIBUTE TO WALK
ABILITY OF OUR CITY AS WELL AS
MAXIMIZING OTHER PUBLIC TRANSIT
INVESTMENTS. THAT IS WHAT WE
INTEND TO LOOK AT WITH THE
PARCEL IN FRONT OF US. I DON'T
BELIEVE WE SHOULD IMPOSE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES ON THIS
SITE, SO I APPRECIATE THAT THE
SUBSTITUTE IN FRONT OF US MAKES
THAT CHANGE. I BELIEVE IT IS
NOT NECESSARY TO IMPOSE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES ON THE
SITE, BOTH BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
REACH THE LEVEL OF HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE THAT WOULD JUSTIFY
USING CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES
TO PREVENT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
SITE, AND BECAUSE I THINK
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANTLY
GREATER PUBLIC BENEFIT IN
ALLOWING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
HOUSING TO BE BUILT ON THIS
SITE. WITH RESPECT TO THE
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS
BUILDING, THERE ARE THREE
POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER
FOR THE COUNCIL IN CONSIDERING
THIS AMENDMENT. FIRST, THE
DRIVE-THROUGH BUILDING AT THE
SITE IS NOT UNIQUE. THERE ARE
DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF THESE
TYPES OF BUILDINGS IN OUR
REGION AND OUR STATE, WHICH ARE
CONSTRUCTED DURING THE TIME OF
A CAR-CENTRIC ARCHITECTURAL
AND URBAN DESIGN SENTIMENT.
THIS TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE AND
DESIGN HAS ULTIMATELY RUN
COUNTER TO OUR CURRENT
CLIMATE, OUR LIVABILITY IN
SEATTLE, THE STREET SAFETY WE
STRIVE TO ACCOMPLISH, AND
ACCESSIBILITY GOALS. I THINK IT
IS WISE AND VALUABLE FOR US TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RENEWED
VISION OF HOW WE WANT OUR CITY
TO BE WALKABLE, LIVABLE, AND
SAFE. I THINK IT WOULD BE
UNWISE FOR US TO ENSHRINE THIS
FAIRLY COMMONPLACE ,
CAR-CENTRIC ARCHITECTURE IN THE
HEART OF OUR CITY WHERE WE
COULD HAVE A GREATER DENSITY OF
HOUSING. SECOND, THE BUILDING
HAS ALREADY BEEN CHANGED SINCE
IT WAS THE SEATTLE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK BUILDING YEARS
AGO. BOTH THE INTERIOR AND
EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING HAVE
BEEN MODIFIED, AND AS WE HAVE
NOTED EARLIER, IT IS CURRENTLY
BEING USED AS A WALGREENS. I
DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY
SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT.
I THINK, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
WHAT THIS PLACE COULD LOOK
LIKE, WE WANT TO CREATE ALL
OPTIONS, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
THERE TO BE WORKING FAMILIES,
MIXED INCOME , AND DENSITY ON
THIS SITE. FINALLY, MY THIRD
POINT IS THAT, UNLIKE SOME
OTHER LANDMARKS ACROSS THE CITY
THAT HAVE RICH COMMUNITY
HISTORY AND STORIES, THIS
BUILDING DOES NOT HOLD THAT
SAME TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN MY
VIEW. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME
KIND OF COMMUNITY VALUE OR
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR SEATTLE
BROADLY. IT IS A FORMER
DRIVE-THROUGH BANK WHERE FOLKS
WOULD CASH PAYCHECKS. THERE IS
NOT THE SENSE OF RICH COMMUNITY
HISTORY ASSOCIATED WITH THE
SITE AS THERE HAS BEEN WITH
MANY COMMUNITY SITES WE HAVE
LANDMARKS IN THE PAST. SO, I
AGREE WITH THE COMMITTEE. I DO
NOT BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE
TO PLACE CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES ON THIS SITE IN
SEATTLE, AND ONE OF OUR DENSEST
NEIGHBORHOODS, ESPECIALLY WITH
LIGHT RAIL COMING TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD , AND THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN
THIS AREA. I THINK IT IS A
UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET
HOUSING NEEDS AND GO FORWARD
WITH THE AMENDMENT
COUNCILMEMBER -- IS BROUGHT
FORWARD. THAT IS A MEMBER
MOSQUEDA, TO CARE FOR, YOU ARE
SUPPORTING COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES AMENDMENT, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL
MEMBER LOUIS?
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS
AS WELL. THANK YOU, MADAM
PRESIDENT. IS LISTED ON THE
LINE, HERE? I SEE HIS BOX. I
DON'T SEE LIST IN IT. OH, THERE
HE IS. MADAM PRESIDENT, I WILL
DEFER TO COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD, BECAUSE SHE HAS A
PROCEDURAL QUESTION, BEFORE I
ASK A SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION. IF
THAT IS ALL RIGHT.
>> I UNDERSTAND OUR PROCEDURES
REQUIRE COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DESCRIBE AND ADDRESS HER
AMENDMENT -- HER SUBSTITUTE .
I WANT TO CLARIFY, MY AMENDMENT
WAS CHARACTERIZED AS A
SUBSTITUTE, IT IS NOT. IT IS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE. I
WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT,
ALTHOUGH IT IS 100%
APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES TO INTRODUCE HER
SUBSTITUTE, I THOUGHT BEFORE
WE GOT TO DEBATE ON THE
SUBSTITUTE, WE CLEAR THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBSTITUTE
FIRST.
>> NO. EACH COUNCILMEMBER,
STARTING WITH THE PERSON
BRINGING IT FORWARD,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, MAY
SPEAK TO HER AMENDMENT , HER
AMENDMENT A. THEN, AFTER
EVERYONE IS THROUGH SPEAKING
AND ADDRESSING HER AMENDMENT A,
THEN IF THERE IS A NEW
AMENDMENT, THAT AMENDMENT
WOULD COME FORWARD, AND
EVERYONE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO
ADDRESS THAT AMENDMENT B.
>> THAT IS COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD .
>> WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT
AMENDMENT A. I DIDN'T THINK WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENT B.
>> WE WILL FINISH ALL OUR
COMMENTS ON COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES 'S AMENDMENT A, AND
THEN I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD HAS SOMETHING
TEED UP, HER AMENDMENT B. BUT
RIGHT NOW, I SEE COUNCIL
MEMBER LEWISH HIS HAND UP.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS, WILL YOU
BE SPEAKING TO COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES 'S AMENDMENT A?
>> WELL, I WILL ASK STAFF
SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
FIRST, THEN I MAY HAVE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. LISH ON COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF, I HAVE A COUPLE
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. I DO
THINK, FOR THIS DISCUSSION, IT
IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO REALLY
PARSE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT
LAYERS THAT COULD BE IN
CONTROL ON THIS PARTICULAR
PARCEL. AND AS WE SPEAK RIGHT
NOW, THE PARCEL HAS BEEN
LANDMARKS. THAT DECISION HAS
BEEN MADE IN 2006 BY THE
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD.
IT HAS BEEN UNDER LANDMARK
STATUS FOR SOME TIME, NOW.
PROCEDURALLY, WE ARE SORT OF
AT THIS PLACE WHERE MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
OWNER INITIALLY, ALTHOUGH THEY
ARE NO LONGER INTERESTED IN
PURSUING TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS REGIME,
APPROACHED PURSUING A
CONTROLLED AND INCENTIVE
AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD UNLOCK
THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN A
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
REGIME ON THE PROPERTY .
BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSING
THAT MORE, I WANT TO CLARIFY
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
CURRENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION
HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL. I
AM LOOKING AT SMC 25.12835,
WHICH GOVERNS DEMOLITION OF
LANDMARKS. IT LOOKS TO ME THAT
THERE IS A HEIGHTENED STANDARD
UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME , IF
THERE WERE NO CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES -- EVEN IF THERE ARE
NO CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES, THE
MERE DESIGNATION AS A LANDMARK
PUT SOME HEIGHTENED PROCESS AND
SOME HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY
AROUND DEMOLITION OF THE
STRUCTURE. I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK THERE
HAS BEEN SOME SPECULATION IN
THE COMMUNITY THAT, ABSENT THE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES, IT
WOULD BE EASY TO ENGAGE IN A
PROCESS TO REDEVELOP THE PAREL
, DESPITE THE LANDMARK
DESIGNATION. I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY HOW THAT WORKS IN
PRACTICE.
>> IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> THAT IS THE QUESTION.
>> OKAY. LISH, CAN YOU ANSWER
THAT? I DO NOT WANT TO TURN
THIS INTO A COMMITTEE HEARING,
SO, LISH, CAN YOU ANSWER
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS'S QUESTION?
>> YES. AS COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES NOTED, THERE WOULD
STILL BE SOME HEIGHTENED
REVIEW OF THE DEMOLITION . IT
WOULD NEED TO BE RECORDED WITH
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT
THERE WAS A LANDMARK AT THIS
SITE, AND THAT THERE WOULD NOT
BE PERMISSION GRANTED TO ISSUE
THE DEMOLITION PERMITS UNTIL
THE FUTURE DEVELOPER IDENTIFIES
THAT THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT
FINANCING TO BUILD THE PROJECT.
THOSE ARE THE MAIN HURDLES A
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD HAVE
TO CLEAR. IF CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES ARE PLACED ON THE
LANDMARK, IN ADDITION TO THOSE,
A FUTURE DEVELOPER WOULD NEED
TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROVAL FROM THE LANDMARKS
BOARD TO DEMOLISH THE PROJECT.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, DID LISH
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS? DID YOU
HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP?
>> NO, THAT WAS A SATISFACTORY
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ON THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LANDMARK
DESIGNATION AND CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES.
>> THANK YOU. I DIDN'T MEAN TO
BE SHORT, I WAS JUST TRYING TO
GET TO THE MEAT OF YOUR
QUESTION. I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER
SAWANT HAS HER HAND UP. ASK
YOUR QUESTION?
>> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT JUAREZ.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS ALONG
THE LINES OF WHAT COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD HAS. I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THE RESOLUTION WAS,
BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THE
IMPRESSION THAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD 'S AMENDMENT WAS AN
AMENDMENT [ INDISCERNIBLE ] I
THINK WE NEED TO RECONSIDER [
INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> YEAH, WE ARE JUST DOING
AMENDMENT A, WHICH IS THE
PROPOSED -- MORALES. SO,
EVERYONE IS DONE WITH THEIR
QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES ON AMENDMENT A, THE
PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE, I WILL
HAND IT OVER TO COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD, TO MAKE HER MOTION.
THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT
AMENDMENT B TOO. DOES THAT MAKE
SENSE? OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER
LEWIS, I SEE YOUR HAND IS STILL
UP. IS THAT AN OLD HAND OR A
NEW HAND?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> WITH THAT, WE HAVE FINISHED
COMMENTS ON COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES 'S AMENDMENT A, FOR
BOTH SUBSIDY. COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD, WHAT DID YOU HAVE FOR
US?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I MOVED
TO AMEND COUNCIL BUILT 12 0312
AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT B2
ON THE AGENDA. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT B2 ON THE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA. WITH THAT,
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD, I WILL
HAND IT OVER TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. AS WAS
SHARED YESTERDAY IN COUNCIL
BRIEFINGS, THIS AMENDMENT, B2
IS MEANT TO MEET THE GOAL OF
MAXIMIZING POTENTIAL HOUSING
WHILE SUPPORTING LANDMARK THING
OF THE BUILDING. IT DOES SO BY
RETAINING THE CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES FOR THE BUILDING,
BUT NOT FOR THE PARKING LOT.
THIS APPROACH WOULD ALLOW FOR
THE USE OF THE LANDMARK
BUILDING FLOOR TO AREA RATIO,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS FAR ONUS,
WHICH PRESERVES THE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE FOR
DEVELOPMENT COULD TAKE PLACE IN
THE PARKING LOT UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS
WILL SPEAK ON A SEPARATE
AMENDMENT , IF THIS AMENDMENT
PASSES, AS THE LEWIS AMENDMENT
ASSUMES PASSAGE OF AMENDMENT
B2. IF AMENDMENT B2 PASSES, I
AM PREVIEWING THAT I INTEND TO
SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS IS
AMENDMENT AS WELL AS THE
UNDERLYING SUBSTITUTE PROPOSED
BY COUNCILMEMBER MORALES. AS
BACKGROUND, WHAT LED TO THIS
AMENDMENT , ALLOWING FOR
DEVELOPMENT ON THE PARKING LOT
AND REMOVING THE CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES FROM THE PARKING LOT
, AT MY REQUEST, CENTRAL STAFF
EXAMINED THREE DIFFERENT
OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE
SITE IS NEARLY 26,000 SQUARE
FEET. THE PARKING AREA
COMPRISES 11,700 SQUARE FEET .
THE BUILDING ITSELF IS
APPROXIMATELY 8000 SQUARE FEET
ABOVE GRADE, AND THE SITE IS
ZONED SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN
160, THIS IS A MIXED USES HIM
WITH HEIGHT LIMITS UP TO 160
FEET, AND SEVEN SAR ARE
ALLOWED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR
NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL
THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT THAT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT OCCUR ON THIS SITE
, IF WE TAKE ACTIONS THAT LEAD
TO INCENTIVIZING THE REMOVAL OF
THIS PROPERTY. THREE DIFFERENT
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
INCLUDED IF THE SITE WERE TO BE
REDEVELOPED, IF THE ENTIRE
SITE WERE TO BE LANDMARKS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TRANSFERRED
TO ANOTHER SITE, AND IF THE
PARKING AREA WERE REMOVED FROM
THE DESIGNATION AND DEVELOPMENT
WHERE ALLOWED ON THE PARKING
LOT. THE THIRD OPTION RESULTS
IN APPROXIMATELY 300 10 UNITS .
SHOULD HOUSING BE SOUGHT TO BE
DEVELOPED ON THE PARKING LOT
SITE. AND THAT NUMBER IS A
VERY SPECULATIVE NUMBER ,
COMPARED TO THE OTHER TWO
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS.
AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL
SPECULATIVE SCENARIOS.
WALGREENS IS NOT A HOUSING
DEVELOPER , AND THERE IS NO
PROPOSAL TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
BUT AS LONG AS WE ARE ENGAGING
IN SPECULATIVE POLICYMAKING, I
THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
TO REALLY DRILL DOWN INTO SOME
OF THE DETAILS. ONE QUESTION I
HAVE HEARD ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT
FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO
WISH TO REMOVE ALL THE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES IS
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THE ANALYSIS THAT CENTRAL
STAFF HAS DONE IS REALISTIC ,
BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND
GEOMETRY OF THE LOT. DURING
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE HEARD A
STATEMENT THAT THIS LOT WOULD
BE TOO SMALL FOR DEVELOPMENT.
I HAVE SEVERAL EXAMPLES IN
SEATTLE OVER THE LAST DECADE OF
MUCH SMALLER LOT. THERE IS A
24 STORY MARTIN APARTMENTS ON
FIFTH AVENUE BY LENORA, BUILT
IN 2012 ON A 12,720
SQUARE-FOOT LOT NEXT DOOR TO
THE CINERAMA. IN THE BUILDING
WHERE KATHY DART WAS LOCATED ON
SECOND AND STEWART, THAT
BUILDING WAS TORN DOWN AND
REPLACED WITH A 40 STORY CONDO,
WITH 264 UNITS, ON AN 8358
SQUARE-FOOT LOT. THIS IS THE
EMERALD AT STEWART. A
DEVELOPER HAS A PROPOSAL FOR A
14 STORY HOTEL, NOT HOUSING, A
HOTEL, ON THE SITE OF THE
LANDMARK CON BUILDING, THAT
SIZE IS 6772 SQUARE FEET.
THERE ARE TWO TOWERS ON THE
SAME BLOCK AS TOWNHALL THAT
ALSO HAVE SMALLER FOOTPRINTS,
APPROXIMATELY 9000 SQUARE
FEET. THEN, RIGHT ACROSS THE
STREET FROM THIS PARTICULAR
LOCATION , SOME PEOPLE ARE
IDENTIFYING NOT JUST THE SIZE
OF THE LOT, BUT THE LOCATION OF
THE LOT. RIGHT ACROSS THE
STREET FROM THE WALGREENS AT
600 WALL STREET IS A 40 STORY
TOWER BUILT ON A 10,000
SQUARE-FOOT LOT. THE 11,000
SQUARE FEET OF THE PARKING LOT,
COMBINED WITH COUNCIL MEMBER
LEWIS SAYS AMENDMENT, THAT
WOULD RESULT IN A LOT OF JUST
OVER 13,000 SQUARE FEET. I
BELIEVE THIS AMENDMENT IS A
GOOD COMPROMISE, AND WOULD
SIGNAL THE COUNCIL'S
WILLINGNESS TO BALANCE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION WITH A CAPACITY
FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
ANOTHER POINT WHERE PEOPLE HAVE
BEEN SOMEWHAT SKEPTICAL OF THE
ANALYSIS THAT CENTRAL STAFF
HAS DONE IS THAT , ALTHOUGH
NOTHING WOULD REQUIRE ANY
DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE TO
INCLUDE HOUSING, FOR INSTANCE
OFFICE OR OTHER NON-HOUSING
UNITS COULD BE BUILT, OFFICES
AND HOTELS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN
THIS AREA -- IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT, BUILT INTO ONE OF
THESE SCENARIOS WOULD REQUIRE
BUILDING OVER THE EXISTING
PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT AT ALL
AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE. THERE
ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF BUILDINGS
LIKE THIS, BECAUSE UNDER THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE, ONLY THE FACADE
IS DESIGNATED, AND THE
POTENTIAL SIZE OF A DEVELOPMENT
INCORPORATING THE FACADE CAN BE
A LIKELY APPROACH HERE. THAT
CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS ON THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. THANK
YOU.
>> OKAY, SO, WHAT I WILL DO IS
I WILL OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR
THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE COMMENTS
TO COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
AMENDMENT, B2. FIRST, I SEE
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS, THEN
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
PROCEDURALLY, I AM GOING TO
VOTE YES ON COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AMENDMENT B. BUT I
WANT TO SIGNAL THAT IS JUST
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE
AMENDMENTS ARE LAYERED. WE
VOTE ON AMENDMENT C, MY
AMENDMENT, IF COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBALS AMENDMENT B PASSES. I
WANT TO SIGNAL THAT IS MY
ATTENTION, TO ADVANCE AND VOTE
FOR A AMENDMENT C, AND HAVE
THAT BE ADOPTED. I WILL SPEAK
TO B AND C SORT OF TOGETHER,
BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERRELATED
FOR THIS REASON. I APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD BRINGING
FORWARD THIS CONCEPT OF
DIVIDING THE PARCEL A LITTLE
MORE, AND HOW WE APPROACH THE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVE
DISCUSSION THAT IMPACTS THE
PARCEL. YESTERDAY, I HAD
INDICATED TENTATIVE SUPPORT
FOR AMENDMENT B, BUT HAVING
LOOKED INTO IT IN A LITTLE
MORE DETAIL, I AM CONCERNED
THAT EXTENDING THE CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES TO THE DRIVEWAY, THE
BREEZEWAY, AND THE SIGN WITH
THE TOWER WOULD CREATE UNDUE
ISSUES , AND THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY SEEKING TO MAXIMIZE
REDEVELOPMENT AND PURSUING A
COURSE THAT HOUSE NUMBER
HERBOLD ALLUDED TO, THAT WOULD
PRESERVE THE FACADE OF PART OF
THE BUILDING, WHILE BUILDING
ON THE REST OF THE LOT, AND
THAT THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
BOARD MIGHT FEEL INCLINED IN
THE PROCESS OF CONSIDERING
SUCH AN APPLICATION, TO SEEK
PRESERVATION OF THE DRIVEWAY
OR THE BREEZEWAY OR THE TOWER
IN A WAY THAT WOULD
SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT REALIZING
THE FULL POTENTIAL OF THE
PARCEL. I HAD CONSIDERED
WITHDRAWING THE AMENDMENTS , IN
THE EVENT THAT -- AND THIS IS
GETTING AHEAD A LITTLE -- TO
SEE THAT THE DENSITY BONUS THAT
CAN BE PURSUED IF YOUR PARCEL
HAS A DESIGNATED LANDMARK ON
IT, IF THAT COULD BE PURSUED
JUST BY THE BUILDING HAVING
LANDMARK STATUS, AND NOT
HAVING THE IMPOSED CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES FROM CONSULTING THE
CENTRAL STAFF, CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES IS ONE OF THE
PREREQUISITES, SO, THAT WAS NOT
AN OPTION IN ORDER TO STILL
UNLOCK THE ABILITY TO HAVE
THAT DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY. I
WILL SPEAK MORE TO THAT,
BECAUSE I THINK I AM DRIFTING
INTO AMENDMENT C COMMENTS,
WHEN WE GET TO THAT DISCUSSION.
BUT BECAUSE THIS AMENDMENT
IN ITS CURRENT FORM, I THINK,
UNDULY CONSTRAINS THE POTENTIAL
OF HOUSING, MY YES VOTE TODAY
IS PROCEDURAL, TO ADVANCE TO
AMENDMENT C. I WANT TO MAKE
THAT CLEAR FOR PEOPLE VIEWING,
AND I WILL HAVE MORE COMMENTS
WHEN WE GET TO AMENDMENT C IN
A FEW MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES IS?
>> THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE A
LOT TO ADD, I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE THE ISSUE THAT I
HAVE , THE CONCERN I HAVE
ABOUT AMENDMENT B . AS COUNCIL
MEMBER LEWIS SAID, PRESERVING
THOSE CONTROLS ON THE DRIVE
THROUGH, ON THE SIGNPOST, ON
THE OTHER PIECES WOULD REDUCE
THE DEVELOPABLE PARCEL. IT IS
ABOUT 25,000 SQUARE FEET RIGHT
NOW. IF ALL THESE OTHER THINGS
ARE IN THERE, AS WELL, IT
REDUCES IT TO LESS THAN HALF
THAT SIZE. THAT REALLY ALTERS
THE KIND OF BUILDING THAT COULD
GO UP. IT ALTERS THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, CERTAINLY THE SIZE OF
THE UNITS. SO, I WILL NOT
SUPPORT AMENDMENTS B2.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
YOU GOING TO ADDRESS B2?
>> YES, THANK YOU. I THINK
THIS IS A CHALLENGE. IT IS
HARD WHEN WE HAVE
DISAGREEMENTS AMONG FRIENDS.
SO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THIS
AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE, IS BEING
PUT FORWARD WITH AN EFFORT TO
COMPROMISE. AS I NOTED
YESTERDAY, EVEN WITH THIS
REVISED VERSION OF AMENDMENT B,
I STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
CONCERNS. SO, I WANT TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE, WHICH IS TO OPPOSE
AMENDMENT B, HERE, TO MAKE SURE
WE ARE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE
TRADE-OFFS, EVEN WITHIN THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF
US. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
HOUSING TO BE BUILT ON THE
PARKING LOT. I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THAT IT STILL
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE
AMOUNT AND DIVERSITY OF HOUSING
THAT IS POSSIBLE, TO PRESERVE A
BUILDING THAT DOES NOT
REPRESENT A UNIQUE CHARACTER OR
RICH HISTORY WITHIN OUR CITY.
THAT IS MY OPINION ABOUT THE
EXISTING BUILDING. IT IS ALSO
A FACT THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO
CREATE THE SAME AMOUNT AND
DIVERSITY OF TYPE OF HOUSING
THAT COULD BE BUILT. UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
NEARLY HALF THE HOUSING UNITS
THAT COULD BE BUILT, WITH SOME
OF THE AN ANALYSIS THAT WE
HAVE ALSO TALKED TO CENTRAL
STAFF ABOUT, AND VETTED WITH
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE
ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE
HOUSING ACROSS OUR CITY. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN ABOUT
HALF THE AMOUNT OF UNITS . THE
ANALYSIS WE HAVE LOOKED AT SAYS
INSTEAD OF 219 UNITS, WE WOULD
BE LOOKING AT AROUND 113 UNITS.
I KNOW THE SPONSOR NOTED 310,
ALSO NOTE THIS IS SPECULATIVE
POLICYMAKING, BUT IF WE ARE
GOING TO ENGAGE IN SPECULATIVE
POLICYMAKING, I WANT TO TALK TO
FOLKS ON THE GROUND, WHO ARE
ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE
HOUSING DENSITY, AND ASK THEM
WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE. 219
VERSUS 113 FROM THE BACK OF
THE ENVELOPE ESTIMATE FROM
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS I HAVE
CHECKED WITH. IT IS REDUCING
THE AMOUNT OF MANDATORY HOUSING
PAYMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 3.53
MILLION TO ABOUT 1.82 MILLION,
SO ROUGHLY HALF THE AMOUNT OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOLLARS
COULD BE GENERATED BACK TO THE
CITY UNDER THE EXISTING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WE ARE
LOOKING AT. AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE THAT WE MAY HAVE
DIFFERENT NUMBERS FROM THE
SPONSOR, AS WELL. WE ARE ALL
WORKING QUICKLY IN FULL COUNCIL
TO ANALYZE THE PROPOSALS IN
FRONT OF US, BUT THAT IS THE
ANALYSIS WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
SO, WHEN I LOOK AT HALF THE
HOUSING AND HALF OF THE MHA
PAYMENTS AS COMPARED TO THE
SUBSIDY, I CANNOT SUPPORT IT
WHEN, AGAIN, THIS IS AN
EXAMPLE OF DENSITY IN OUR CITY
THAT IS BEING BUILT IN AN AREA
THAT IS WELCOMING TO DENSITY,
NEAR FUTURE LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS. ALL OF US HAVE TALKED
ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE
DEVELOPMENT YIELD MORE
PRESSURE, PUSHING PEOPLE OUT OF
OUR CITY OR DISPLACEMENT FROM
VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS. I
BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE. I
THINK THIS IS LEGISLATION FOR
THE SUBSTITUTE THAT HAS BEEN
PUT FORWARD IS AN EFFORT TO
CREATE ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN
ONE OF OUR DENSEST
NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT CHANGING THE
FOOTPRINT, IF THAT IS YOUR
CONCERN. IT IS BUILDING NEAR
FUTURE LIGHT RAIL. IT IS STEPS
AWAY FROM THOUSANDS OF JOBS,
AND ON A SITE THAT IS CURRENTLY
A SINGLE-STORY BUILDING. SO,
MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITY NOT JUST
FOR UNITS, BUT FOR FAMILY SIZE
UNITS. ONE OR TWO BEDROOM UNITS
CAN BE BUILT HERE, IF THEY TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE NFT E PROGRAM,
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
POTENTIALLY MORE TWO AND THREE
BEDROOM UNITS FOR WORKING
FAMILIES. WE HAVE ALL TALKED
ABOUT WANTING SOMETHING LIKE
THIS. AND THIS IS AN AREA WHERE
THERE IS ALREADY AGREEMENTS ON
BUILDING THAT TYPE OF DENSE
HOUSING AND THAT USE IS REALLY
DESIRABLE. I THINK WE WOULD
SACRIFICE BOTH HOUSING
DIVERSITY, HOUSING UNITS THAT
ARE POSSIBLE, THE AMOUNT OF
HOUSING IN TOTAL BECAUSE THE ON
THE SITE, THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING
COMING BACK FROM NHA, AND
AGAIN, IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A
SITE THAT I DON'T THINK FULLY
REFLECTS WHAT THE INTENT IS FOR
LAND MARKING AND MIXED-USE AND
PRESERVING THE FACADE OR THE
BUILDING FOR HISTORIC
LANDMARKS. I WANT THERE TO BE
A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT THIS
COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY IS
SUPPORTIVE OF HISTORIC
LANDMARKS, AND I THINK IF
THERE WAS A LANDMARK PRESERVE
THAT ALSO SUPPLEMENTED HOUSING
WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF
WHERE WE HAVE SHOWN, OF COURSE
WE WANT TO PRESERVE HISTORIC
LANDMARKS AND SUPPORT THE
PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITY AND
CULTURALLY-ROOTED PLACES AND
BUILDINGS. BUT IN A LOCATION
LIKE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
TODAY, WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO
BUILD NOT JUST DENSITY, BUT
FAMILY SIZE UNITS POSSIBLY TWO
AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS. THAT
IS AN OPPORTUNITY I DON'T
THINK WE SHOULD MESS,
ESPECIALLY KNOWING WE HAVE A
ONCE IN A DECADE OPPORTUNITY
TO READDRESS -- NEXT YEAR. BUT
WE DON'T HAVE MANY
OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE
DENSITY IN AREAS ALREADY ZONED
FOR THIS. SO, I WOULD VERY MUCH
LIKE TO BE TRANSPARENT THAT WE
ARE ALL WORKING REALLY QUICKLY
TO TRY TO ANALYZE THE IMPACT
OF THE POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTE AND
THE AMENDMENT COMING FORWARD.
BUT THE ANALYSIS I HAVE
RECEIVED UNDER THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCE THE ABILITY TO BUILD
THOSE ONE, TWO, AND THREE
BEDROOM UNITS UNDER THE
SCENARIO. IN MY ANALYSIS, IT
WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
HOUSING BUILT HERE BY ABOUT
HALF. IT WOULD REDUCE THE MHA
CONTRIBUTION BY ABOUT HALF,
AND COULD ADD 1 TO 2 YEARS OF
ADDITIONAL MINISTRY OF
PROCESSES TO GO THROUGH, GIVEN
THAT THE ADDITIONAL REVIEW
REQUIRED WE TALKED ABOUT
BEFORE WOULD NEED TO BE
PROPOSED. SO, ANY LOSS OF
TIME, 1 TO 2 YEARS, IS A
TANGIBLE LOSS OF HOUSING THAT
COULD BE CREATED MORE QUICKLY.
SO, I AM UNDERSCORING THE
URGENT NEED NOW, AND THEY NEED
TO CREATE DIVERSITY IN TERMS
OF TYPES OF HOUSING TO BE
BROUGHT FORWARD. I THINK THE
COMMITTEE DELIBERATED THIS.
THEY TOOK THIS UNDER DEEP
CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY LOOK AT
THE HISTORIC VALUE OF THE
BUILDING ALONGSIDE THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
SUPPOSED TO DO. HERE THE
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BODY,
AND WEIGH THE COST OF IMPOSING
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES,
PARTICULARLY THE ABILITY TO ADD
HOUSING SPECIFICALLY HOUSING
THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE ON THIS
SITE. I BELIEVE THESE
CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD STILL BE
AT THE HEART OF OUR
DECISION-MAKING TODAY, AS THE
COMMITTEE ALREADY DELIBERATED
ON. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I
BELIEVE OUR ANALYSIS OF THESE
NUMBERS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND
MY TEAM, IN CONVERSATION WITH
CENTRAL STAFF. I BELIEVE THE
ANALYSIS WOULD YIELD A COST IN
TERMS OF HOUSING IN OUR
COMMUNITY, AND LIMIT OUR
ABILITY TO MAXIMIZE ADDITIONAL
HOUSING UNITS NEAR TRANSIT AND
SUPPORT OUR OVERALL CLIMATE
GOALS WHICH I BELIEVE THIS
ENTIRE COUNCIL SUPPORTS. THANK
YOU, AGAIN, FOR TRYING TO FIND
A PATH FORWARD. I DON'T THINK
THIS IS IT, AND STILL STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE OUR COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THE UNDERLYING
SUBSTITUTE FROM COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
>> OKAY, SO, BY MY COUNT,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES AND
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA WILL
NOT SUPPORT. JUST SAYING THIS
NOW, AMENDMENT B2. WITH THAT
-- COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS HAS
A COMMENT? THEN COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT , AND THEN
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I WILL
LET YOU CLOSE IT OUT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. COLLEAGUES, I AM
INCLINED TO SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS 'S
AMENDMENT, MEANING I AM
INCLINED TO SUPPORT COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD 'S AMENDMENT. IF
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS'S
AMENDMENT FAILS, I WILL NOT BE
INCLINED TO MAINTAIN MY SUPPORT
FOR COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
AMENDMENT. WHAT DOES IT COME
DOWN TO? IT COMES DOWN TO THE
FACT THAT THERE ARE IMPORTANT
REASONS FOR US TO PRESERVE OUR
HISTORY IN THE CITY. I WILL
CANDIDLY SAY WE HAVE DONE AN
ABHORRENT JOB OF PRESERVING THE
THINGS THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT
TO THE FIRST PEOPLES OF THE
LAND THIS CITY IS BUILT ON. I
WILL NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE
THERE. I HOPE EVERYONE HERE
WHO IS FERVENT ABOUT HIS BANK
IS AS FERVENT ABOUT OTHER
ISSUES IN OUR CITY. FOR MANY
REASONS, I WILL FOCUS MY
COMMENTS ON THE BILL. WHILE
SURFACE LEVEL PARKING LOTS ARE
NOT HISTORIC, YET, I CANNOT IN
GOOD CONSCIENCE PUT A CONTROL
AND INCENTIVE ON A SURFACE
LEVEL PARKING LOT IN THE
DENSEST PART OF THE STATE. I
THINK I AM GOING TO END THERE.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT,
COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT, THEN
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JUAREZ. I WILL VOTE YES ON
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD'S
AMENDMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES SUBSTITUTE WITHOUT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD 'S
AMENDMENT WOULD EFFECTIVELY
REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE
LANDMARK RESERVATION BOARD WHO
LANDMARKS THIS PROPERTY. YES,
IT WOULD STILL TECHNICALLY BE A
LANDMARK, BUT THE WORD WOULD BE
STRIPPED OF ITS SUBSTANCE.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS BUILDING IS NOT
IN ANY WAY AN EXAMPLE OF
ARCHITECTURAL BEAUTY OR THE
RICH SEATTLE HISTORY NETWORKING
COMMUNITY MATTERS WANT TO
PRESERVE. THERE IS NOTHING
UNIQUE ABOUT THIS BUILDING THAT
NEEDS TO BE ENSHRINED FOR
POSTERITY. MANY PEOPLE HAVE
WRITTEN TO THE COUNCIL OVER THE
PAST WEEK URGING THE COUNCIL
TO RESPECT THE DECISION OF THE
LANDMARK PRESERVATION BOARD.
AND I AGREE WITH THEIR POINT
THAT THE PROCESS HAS NOT IN ANY
WAY BEEN AN OBSTACLE FOR THE
CREATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO, WHILE I PERSONALLY DO NOT
THINK THIS BUILDING HAS ANY
SPECIFIC HERITAGE VALUE, IT IS
ALSO LUDICROUS TO SUGGEST THAT
THIS ONE PROPERTY IS SOMEHOW
CRUCIAL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THERE IS IN FACT ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO REQUIRE OR EVEN
SUGGEST THAT THE OWNER WOULD
ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE
BUILT ON THE SITE, OR EVEN ANY
SORT OF HOUSING, AS THE PUBLIC
COMMENT SPEAKER CORRECTLY
POINTED OUT. COUNCIL MEMBERS
ARE TALKING ABOUT FAMILY SIZE
HOUSING UNIT BE BUILT ON A
PROPERTY BASED ON NOTHING MORE
THAN WORDS. AS A SOCIALIST WHO
HAS USED ELECTED OFFICE TO
FIGHT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I
BELIEVE WE NEED A MASSIVE
EXPANSION OF PUBLICLY OWNED
SOCIAL HOUSING THAT IS
AUTOMATICALLY RENT-CONTROLLED.
MY OFFICE ALREADY HELPED
LAUNCH AND BUILD THE TAX
AMAZON MOVEMENT IN 2020, AND
WITH THE STRONG SUPPORT OF
ACTIVISTS, WE WON HISTORIC
TAX AMAZON EXPANSION OF WHAT
HAS BEEN AN OBSTACLE TO EXPORT
THE STORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
OPPOSITION, WHICH IS UPHELD THE
INTERESTS OF FOR-PROFIT
DEVELOPERS AND BIG BUSINESS AS
A WHOLE. DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS
IMPOSED RENT-CONTROLLED YOUR
AND AND STATEMENT. DURING THE
TAX AMAZON MOVEMENT, EVEN
SUPPOSEDLY PROGRESSIVE
DEMOCRATS ON CITY COUNCIL WERE
OPERATING BEHIND THE SCENES,
USING PROCESS EXCUSES TO
UNDERMINE THE MOVEMENT. OUR
MOVEMENT PREVAILED, AND FORCED
THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
AMAZON TAX ONLY BECAUSE WE
ORGANIZED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
DEMOCRATS, AND HAD A CREDIBLE
BALLOT INITIATIVE WITH 30,000
SIGNATURES. RENT CONTROL
WITHOUT CARBON LOOPHOLES ON THE
WEALTHY TO EXPAND SOCIAL
HOUSING ARE NEEDED TO EXPAND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT IS A
DISINGENUOUS AND DEFLECTING ACT
WHEN DEMOCRATS IMPLY THAT
PRESERVATION OF THE CULTURAL
HERITAGE OF WORKING PEOPLE IS
AT ODDS WITH PROVIDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO WORKING
PEOPLE. I WANT TO MAKE THAT
GENERAL POINT WITHOUT IMPLYING
THAT THIS BUILDING SOMEHOW HAS
SPECIAL VALUE, WHICH I HAVE
ALREADY MADE CLEAR I DON'T
BELIEVE IT DOES. WE NEED TO BE
CLEAR THAT THE FOR-PROFIT
HOUSING MARKET IS THE PROBLEM,
NOT THE SOLUTION. BY
DEFINITION, THEY PRIORITIZE
PROFIT OVER AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY HAVE FILLED SEATTLE WITH
LUXURY UNITS, BASED ON PRICE,
NOT ALWAYS ON QUALITY. THE IDEA
THAT SOME FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPER
WOULD BUILD A TOWER IN THE
MIDDLE OF AMAZON [
INDISCERNIBLE ] WORKING CLASS
PEOPLE, LET ALONE LOW INCOME
PEOPLE CAN AFFORD IS A JOKE
AND DISHONEST SUPPORT DENSITY,
I VOTE IN FAVOR OF EVERY UP
ZONE. I HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR OF
MHA WHILE CORRECTLY WARNING
THAT IT IS SO SMALL DOESN'T
EVEN KEEP UP WITH THE RATE AT
WHICH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
BEING DEMOLISHED. BUT I DON'T
AGREE THAT GIVING THE
DEVELOPERS WHATEVER THEY ASK
FOR WILL INCREASE HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY, BECAUSE IT IS
THE EXACT OPPOSITE. IT IS
EXTERNALLY TELLING THAT IN
COMMITTEE, COUNCIL MEMBERS
VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST THIS
LANDMARK BILL, CITING THE NEED
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHILE
THE MAJORITY OF THE SAME
COUNCIL VOTED NO ON THE BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR MY OFFICE LAST
NOVEMBER, FOR SUBSTANTIALLY
INCREASED TAXES ON BIG BUSINESS
TO RAISE THE FUNDS NEEDED TO
BUILD THOUSANDS OF NEW
AFFORDABLE HOMES. FOR ME [
INDISCERNIBLE ] THIS PARTICULAR
BUILDING , INSTEAD, THE
PRECEDENT IT COULD POSSIBLY SET
THAT LANDMARKS DO NOT REALLY
MATTER IF THEY ARE ON A
PROPERTY THAT COULD BE VERY
PROFITABLE FOR BIG DEVELOPERS
AND WILL THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR, IF
THERE WERE NOT MASSIVE PROFITS
TO BE MADE, THERE WOULD BE NO
PRESSURE ON THE COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER EFFECTIVELY OVERRIDING
THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK
PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH, AS I
SAID, THE BOARD HAS NOT HAD ANY
REAL TRACK RECORD OF BEING AN
OBSTACLE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO, I WILL SUPPORT COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD AMENDMENT TO
RESTORE THE COUNCIL DECISION
OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION
BOARD. THANK YOU, COUNCIL
NUMBER SAWANT. COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I RAN
AS A PRAGMATIC PROGRESSIVE. I
DID, IT IS ON MY WEBSITE,
THERE. I TOOK A VOTE FOR
HOUSING IN COMMITTEE.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, I LISTENED
TO A LOT OF FOLKS MAKING
COMMENT ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN
CHAMBERS, AND READ A LOT OF
EMAILS. I WAS PERSUADED BY THE
COMMENTS OF ONE REMOTE CALLER,
WHO BASICALLY CALLED IN SUPPORT
OF MAINTAINING THE CONTROLS.
HE BASICALLY SAID THAT, IF WE
WISH TO ENSURE ALIGNMENT
BETWEEN OUR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PROCESSES AND OUR
POLICY GOAL OF BUILDING MORE
HOUSING, THEN WE SHOULD DO SO
IN A COMPREHENSIVE, TRANSPARENT
PUBLIC PROCESS. THAT WILL
TAKE A LONG TIME, AND IT IS NOT
FOR HERE. I COMPLETELY AGREE
WITH THAT. SO, AS SOMEONE WHO
IS LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES
FOR COMPROMISE, WE HAVE GOT ONE
BEFORE US, RIGHT HERE. IT WILL
ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVE
CONTROLS ON THE LANDMARK
ITSELF , ON THE PIECE OF
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY THAT
FOLKS ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT. SO,
I WILL SUPPORT THIS COMPROMISE.
I AM PUTTING MYSELF IN THAT
DIRECTION. I KNOW WE WILL
DISCUSS A SUBSEQUENT VERSION
OF COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
AMENDMENT. I JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT THIS IS WHAT I HAVE
LEARNED. WE ARE NOT EXPERTS IN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THERE
ARE MANY DIFFERENT OPINIONS
ABOUT HOW MANY UNITS CAN BE
BUILT ON THIS SITE, WHETHER OR
NOT THE ONE F.A.R. WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR USE, IF
MODIFICATIONS ARE MADE TO
PARTS OF THE SITE. I JUST WANT
TO SAY, I AM UNCOMFORTABLE
MAKING SORT OF LAST-MINUTE
DECISIONS ON THIS. I HAVE
LEARNED. BUT I REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE
COME TOGETHER FOR A SOLUTION
THAT WILL HAVE THE SUPPORT OF
THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE AND
ALSO SOME HOUSING ADVOCATES AS
WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
EVERYBODY'S EFFORTS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. I AM GOING TO SAY A
FEW COMMENTS, THEN I WILL LET
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD CLOSE US
ON THIS MATTER. FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR THE
DEBATE AND DISCUSSION. IT IS
ALWAYS POSITIVE WHEN WE CAN
HAVE ACTUAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
THINGS WE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE
ON IN A CIVIL, INTELLECTUAL,
AND KIND WAY. I WANT TO THANK
YOU ALL FOR THAT. WITH THAT,
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD, DO YOU
HAVE ANY CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE
WE GO TO A VOTE? I SHOULD SAY
THIS. COUNCILMEMBER MORALES 'S
AMENDMENT B2 OF THE PROPOSED
SUBSTITUTE AND COUNCILMEMBER
LISA HERBOLD 'S AMENDMENT B2
ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. SO, IF
WE GO TO COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD
WHICH WE WILL VOTE ON FIRST,
IF THAT PASSES,THEN THERE IS
NO NEED TO GO BACK -- IT WILL
BE DISPOSITIVE, WE WILL NOT GO
BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE. WITH THAT
IN MIND, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, DO YOU WANT TO CLOSE
US OUT BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE
ON YOUR AMENDMENT B2? HOLED
UP, I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES HAS HER HAND UP .
>> YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED MY
QUESTION. I WAS WONDERING IF I
WOULD MAKE CLOSING REMARKS ON
THE ORIGINAL SUBSTITUTE.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT?
>> SURE.
>> SO, WE WILL LET
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD MAKE HER
CLOSING REMARKS ON HER
AMENDMENT B2. THEN I WILL LET
YOU CLOSE OUT ON YOURS, THEN WE
WILL GO TO THE VOTE ON B2. WITH
THAT, COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD,
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> LET'S SEE, HERE. I FEEL
LIKE THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN VERY
WELL DISCUSSED. I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION IN FULL COUNCIL FOR
THE VIEWING PUBLIC. OUR
ABILITY AS NON-COMMITTEE
MEMBERS IS LIMITED BY THE FACT
THAT OUR COUNCIL RULES NO
LONGER -- I AM LOOKING AT
FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER RASMUSSEN
-- OUR COUNCIL RULES DO NOT
ALLOW NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO
ATTEND AND VOTE IN COMMITTEE.
SO, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
GRACIOUSNESS OF MY COLLEAGUES,
TO ALLOW DEBATE ON THIS
AMENDMENT. I THINK MANY OF THE
POLICY ISSUES HAVE BEEN
COVERED, I DON'T THINK WE NEED
TO REHASH THEM. I LOOK FORWARD
TO THE VOTE, AND URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT B2. THANK
YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, CLOSE US
AND WE WILL GO TO A VOTE.
>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO CLARIFY
A COUPLE THINGS THAT CAME UP IN
THIS DISCUSSION. I WANT TO
THANK ALL OF YOU FOR HAVING
SUCH A ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT
THIS ISSUE. I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE
ARE NOT MAKING NEW POLICY,
HERE. WE ARE PROPOSING TO MOVE
ONE LANDMARK PROJECT IN ONE
NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT CONTROLS
AND INCENTIVES. I WOULD
WELCOME A BROADER CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHETHER TO MAKE POLICY
CHANGES TO WHAT CRITERIA
MERITS A LANDMARK DESIGNATION,
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS HILL
DOES. AS WE HAVE HAD THIS
DISCUSSION, WE KNOW WHAT IS
THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE UNDER
THESE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
THERE IS WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE
PROPOSED, AND THEN THERE IS
WHAT MIGHT ACTUALLY PENCIL FOR
ANY GIVEN PROJECT. BUT AT THE
END OF THE DAY, THIS PARCEL
HAS CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY TO
PROVIDE HUNDREDS OF UNITS OF
HOUSING. AND AT THE VERY LEAST,
TO PROVIDE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OFF-SITE. MY PREFERENCE WOULD
BE TO HAVE THAT PRODUCTION ON
SITE , SO WE CAN PROVIDE HOMES
THAT ARE AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE
IN EVERY CORNER OF THE CITY,
INCLUDING SOUTH LAKE UNION. I
HAVE BEEN REALLY CONSISTENT IN
MY TIME ON COUNCIL, THAT WE
HAVE TO DO ALL WE CAN TO BUILD
A SEATTLE THAT IS WITHIN REACH
FOR EVERY RESIDENT OF THE CITY,
ONE WHERE HE HAVE AFFORDABLE
HOMES AND ACCESS TO AN ARRAY OF
SERVICES IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD,
FOR EVERY PERSON WHO LIVES
HERE. I BELIEVE THE SUBSTITUTE
AND THE VOTE HERE ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THAT
COMMITMENT, SO I WOULD URGE
YOU TO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT, TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE MOVING IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MORALES AND HERBOLD. I'M GLAD
YOU TWO WORKED TOGETHER.
SPECIAL THANKS AGAIN,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, BECAUSE
THIS WAS IN YOUR COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING IT
ONE WEEK, SO WE COULD GET UP TO
SPEED ON THE MORE NUANCED
ISSUES REGARDING IT. WITH
THAT, MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
PASSAGE OF AMENDMENT B2 TO
COUNCIL BILL 120312?
>> COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HER BOLD 2
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWISH?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR, TWO
OPPOSED.
>> MOTION CARRIES. COUNCIL
BILL 120312 AS AMENDED BY
AMENDMENT B2 IS NOW BEFORE THE
COUNCIL. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER
COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED BILL? I
BELIEVE THIS IS WHERE YOU COME
IN, COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU, MADAME PRESENT.
I MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120312 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT C.
>> SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND
THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO FURTHER AMEND
THE COUNCIL BILL AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT C. COUNCIL MEMBER
LEWISH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MADAME PRESENT. I
ALLUDED TO AMENDMENT C IN MY
COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT V. I WILL
JUST BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE.
AMENDMENT C WOULD FURTHER
REMOVE CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES
IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING
LOT, WHICH WE JUST VOTED ON
WITH AMENDMENT B, THIS WOULD
REMOVE THE BREEZEWAY, THE DRIVE
THROUGH, AND THE TOWER THAT IS
LOCATED ON THE PARCEL AS
POINTS OF INTEREST ON THE
PROPERTY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE A
GOVERNING CONTROL AND
INCENTIVE. I WANT TO BRIEFLY
TALK ABOUT THE UNDERPINNING
LOGIC OF THAT , AND OPEN IT UP
TO COLLEAGUES. IN ESSENCE, IT
MAKES SENSE TO GO BACK 17 YEARS
AGO, 1st TO 2006, WITH THE
LANDMARK PRESERVATION BOARD. I
REVIEWED THE PACKET THE
LANDMARK PRESERVATION BOARD
USED TO DETERMINE THAT THIS
BUILDING WARRANTED LANDMARK
STATUS. IT WAS AWARDED THAT
STATUS BASED ON FOUR OUT OF
THE SIX CRITERIA THEY ARE
ALLOWED TO CONSIDER. I DO
AGREE WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT, SINCE 2006, THE PRESENCE
OF THIS STRUCTURE, OF WHICH
THERE ARE MANY COPIES IN THE
CITY, IS CONSPICUOUS, HEMMED
IN FROM SIGNIFICANT
CONCENTRATIONS OF HOUSING
DENSITY ALL AROUND IT , AND
THIS REMAINS A LARGELY
UNDEVELOPED SITE. I WOULD NOTE
THAT, IN THE 17 YEARS IT HAS
BEEN DESIGNATED A LANDMARK, TO
MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAVE NOT
BEEN EFFORTS TO DEVELOP THE
SITE. INDEED, WE ARE HERE
HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, IF I'M
NOT MISTAKEN, BECAUSE THE OWNER
OF THE SITE WAS LOOKING TO
PARLAY THE LANDMARK STATUS INTO
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS, WHICH REQUIRES A
CONTROLLED AND INCENTIVES
AGREEMENT. THERE WAS NOTHING
PREVENTING THE OWNER OF THIS
PROPERTY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE,
FROM SEEKING TO DEVELOP IT INTO
HOUSING OVER THE INTERVENING
17 YEARS . SO, NOW THAT WE ARE
HERE, AND IT HAS THE STATUS OF
BEING A LANDMARK, WE HAVE
LEARNED FROM CONSULTING WITH
CENTRAL STAFF THAT THERE IS AN
INCENTIVE THAT CAN MAXIMIZE
THE FORM OF THE BUILDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THIS
PARCEL TO THE INCLUSION OF 35
ADDITIONAL UNITS BEYOND WHAT
WOULD BE POSSIBLE , ABSENT THE
LANDMARK STATUS AND ABSENT
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES,
BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNATED IN
2006 AS A LANDMARK. I BELIEVE
THAT BY REMOVING SOME OF THE
MORE SUPERFLUOUS STRUCTURES
ON THE CAMPUS, FROM THE
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES, IT
INCREASES THE CHANCES THAT
SOMEONE COULD PURSUE A
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SITE
THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE FACADE
OF THE STRUCTURE , AND WOULD
MAXIMIZE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE
BUILDING BEING PUT IN, TO
MAXIMIZE THE DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL WHILE MAINTAINING
THE FACADE AND GETTING THE
BONUS UNITS ALLOWED UNDER THIS
UNIQUE DENSITY INCENTIVE FOR
THE PROPERTY. THAT DOES NOT
MEAN THAT WILL HAPPEN. THAT
DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NECESSARILY
GOING TO BE WHAT THE OWNER OF
THIS PROPERTY, WALGREENS,
DECIDES TO PURSUE. WE ARE HERE
BECAUSE THEY INITIALLY WANTED
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.
BUT I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE
LANDMARK PRESERVATION BOARD,
AS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
ALLUDED TO EARLIER, HAD A VERY
STRONG TRACK RECORD OF
APPROVING JUST SUCH DEVELOPMENT
PLANS THAT INCORPORATE FACADES
INTO NEW DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS
NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE
UNCOMMON OR ABNORMAL. ANY WALK
IN THE PIPELINE CORRIDOR UP TO
CAPITOL HILL CAN SHOW ANYBODY
WHO IS GOING UP THERE HOW
COMMON IT IS TO HAVE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT
INCORPORATE HISTORIC FACADES
INTO DENSE AND DYNAMIC
OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOUSING. IN
SO DOING, I THINK THIS IS THE
BEST PATH FORWARD, GIVEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE IN FRONT OF US.
AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, JUST
BY VIRTUE OF BEING DESIGNATED A
LANDMARK, IT IS DIFFICULT AND
THERE ARE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL
PROCEDURES , EVEN ABSENT
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES, IN
ORDER TO REMOVE THE LANDMARKED
BUILDING. THAT IS DELIBERATELY
ENVISIONED IN THE SMC , THAT
THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS
NOT DEMOLISHED LANDMARKS
LIGHTLY, AND THAT THE CITY HAVE
A POLICY DISCOURAGING THE
DEMOLISH MOST OF LANDMARKS,
HENCE THEIR DESIGNATION. SO,
THIS IS A STRATEGY THAT, BASED
ON OUR GUIDANCE FROM CENTRAL
STAFF, I BELIEVE IS BEST
POSITIONED TO ACCOMPLISH OUR
TWO GOALS OF MAINTAINING THE
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE SITE
WHILE ALSO MAXIMIZING THE
POTENTIAL FOR HOUSING ON THE
SITE. FOR THOSE REASONS, I
WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE PASS
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT C?
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU. I AM OBVIOUSLY
DISAPPOINTED THAT THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION HAS
TAKEN THIS FORM. I WILL SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I WANT TO
NOTE THAT, WHILE I APPRECIATE
CENTRAL STAFF'S QUICK ANALYSIS
ON THIS, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE
ALLOWABLE TO BUILD ON THIS SITE
UNDER THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS ,
AS I HAVE NOTED, WE HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS IN THE
COMMUNITY WHO HAVE AMPLE
EXAMPLES OF WHAT THEY COULD DO
WITH THIS TYPE OF PARCEL AND
WHAT TYPE OF THE ELEMENT COULD
TAKE PLACE. I UNDERSTAND THERE
ARE SOME DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN
WHAT IS STRICTLY ALLOWABLE AND
WHAT IS MORE LIKELY. SO, WHAT
THE POLICY PERMITS VERSUS WHAT
IS PRACTICAL ON THE SITE ARE
VERY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE,
WHERE THERE IS A POTENTIAL
FLOOR AREA RATIO BONUS
AVAILABLE UNDER THIS AMENDMENT,
I UNDERSTAND THE ANALYSIS
THAT COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF HAS
DONE ALSO INCLUDES BUILDING
THROUGH AT LEAST SOME PORTIONS
OF THE LANDMARKED SITE. IN THAT
SCENARIO, YOU CANNOT GET THE
ONE SAR BONUS, BECAUSE YOU
NEED TO MAINTAIN THE EXTERIOR
AND INTERIOR IN GOOD
CONDITION. SO, DEMOLISHING HALF
THE LANDMARK HOLDING IS NOT
MAINTAINING THE BUILDING IN
GOOD CONDITION, AND THE
POTENTIAL TO DO SO WOULD
REQUIRE A LENGTHY REVIEW BY THE
LANDMARK BOARD, WHICH WOULD
TACK ON ADDITIONAL TIME AND
COST TO THE HOUSING BEING BUILT
ON SITE. SO, I WANT US TO BE
REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THE
ADDITIONAL TIME BEING ADDED TO
THE POSSIBLE CREATION OF
HOUSING, HERE. AND ALSO THE
LIMITATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY
IMPOSED ON THIS SITE, AND THE
ADDITIONAL TIME DELAY HERE
YIELDS LESS HOUSING AND LESS
POSSIBILITY OF TAKING ADVANTAGE
OF THE AIRSPACE. I WILL SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT , BUT I STILL
THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO
DO TO MAKE SURE THIS TYPE OF
BACK OF THE ENVELOPE ANALYSIS
THAT HAS BEEN DONE TODAY IS
NOT REPEATED AS WE TAKE ON
ADDITIONAL, MORE COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE AND ZONING
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WILL HAVE
IN THE UPCOMING TWO YEARS. I
JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT
CONCERN ABOUT THE MATH BEING
USED IN TODAY'S ANALYSES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUEDA. EVERYBODY HAS THEIR
COMMENTS IN ON COUNCIL MEMBER
LEWISH 'S AMENDMENT C. I DON'T
SEE ANYMORE. WAIT, ONE MORE,
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON.
>> JUST A QUESTION. DOES THIS
ALLOW FOR -- ARE WE REMOVING
CERTAINTY THAT THE F.A.R.
WILL BE GRANTED IF FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE, HERE?
>> ARE YOU ASKING THAT OF LISH?
>> YES.
>> LISH, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT
FOR COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> YEAH, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS
WOULD IMPACT THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON, AND THANK YOU, LISH,
FOR BEING THERE. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS WE ARE DONE
WITH DISCUSSION AND DEBATE ON
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWISH 'S
AMENDMENT C. SO, I AM GOING TO
GO TO THE VOTE. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT C.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HER BOLD?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MIRELES?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT MORRIS?
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. SO, NOW THAT WE
HAVE AMENDED IT AND AMENDMENT
C HAS PASSED, THE MOTION
CARRIES , THE BILL IS AMENDED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON
THIS COUNCIL BILL? WHAT I
WOULD LIKE TO DO IS LOOP BACK
TO THE ORIGINAL SPONSOR, THAT
IS COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES,
BEFORE WE GO TO THE FINAL VOTE
OF THE LEGISLATION. ANYTHING
ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD, COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES , BEFORE WE GO
TO THE FINAL VOTE?
>> NOTHING ELSE, THANK YOU.
BECKETT WANT TO THANK YOU,
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES. I KNOW
THIS WAS A LOT OF WORK. I
APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU PUT IN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS
BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE?
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON, I SEE,
IS THAT A NEW HAND OR AN OLD
HAND?
>> HAND.
>> OLD HAND? OKAY. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO TO A
VOTE? COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> I WILL JUST SAY, I THINK
FOR THE FOLKS FOLLOWING ALONG
IN COMMUNITY, I THINK THE
SILVER LINING, HERE, IS THE
VERSION IN FRONT OF US IS STILL
BETTER THAN THE STATUS QUO,
WHICH IMPOSES CONTROLS AND
INCENTIVES ON THE ENTIRE SITE.
I WILL VOTE ON THIS AMENDED
VERSION, EVEN THOUGH I WOULD
HAVE MUCH PREFERRED
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT , BECAUSE
WE AT LEAST GAINED SOME ABILITY
TO BUILD ON THE SITE, AND
BUILD HOUSING ON THE SITE,
WHICH IS MUCH PREFERABLE OVER
THE EXISTING STATUS QUO. MORE
TO COME.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT,
MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE PASSAGE
OF THE COUNCIL BILL 120312 AS
AMENDED?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HER BOLD?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, AND OPPOSE.
>> COUNCIL BILL PASSES,
PLEASE AFFIX MY SIGNATURE TO
THE LEGISLATION ON MY BEHALF.
MOVING ON IN OUR AGENDA, WE GO
TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS
A COMMITTEE REPORT OUT OF THE
PUBLIC ASSET AND HOMELESSNESS
COMMITTEE. I UNDERSTAND
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS WILL
DISCUSS THIS, BUT MADAME CLERK,
KENNY PLEASE READ ITEM THREE
INTO THE RECORD.
>> YES. THE REPORT OF THE
PUBLIC ASSET AND HOMELESSNESS
COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM THREE ,
COUNCIL BILL 320489, AN
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
OF SEATTLE FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION TO ENTER AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBORETUM
FOUNDATION FOR THE SUPPORT OF
THE SEATTLE JAPANESE GARDEN,
CONSISTENT WITH THE
NONGOVERNMENT AGREEMENT IN
ATTACHMENT ONE TO THIS
ORDINANCE. THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDS THE BILL PASSED.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS?
>> THANK YOU, MADAME PRESIDENT.
PROCEDURALLY, I SHOULD MOVE
THIS IN FRONT OF US.
>> IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE
MOVED, BECAUSE IT CAME OUT OF
COMMITTEE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION. BUT THANK YOU
FOR ASKING.
>> SORRY.
>> IT IS OKAY, THERE ARE A LOT
OF MOVING PARTS, HERE. ALL YOU
HAVE TO DO IS TS UP, TELL US
WHAT IS GOING ON.
>> THANK YOU, MADAME PRESIDENT.
AS I ALLUDED TO IN COUNCIL
BRIEFING YESTERDAY, WE HAD A
FULL DISCUSSION IN COMMITTEE ,
AS THE CLERK INDICATED, THERE
WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION
TO APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ARBORETUM
FOUNDATION AND THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. THIS IS AN ONGOING
AGREEMENT THAT IS UP FOR
RENEWAL. IT IS NOT A NEWLY
CONCEIVED ONE FOR JOINT
OPERATION OF SOME AMENITIES
IN THE ARBORETUM. WE VETTED
THIS RENEWAL AGAINST THE OLD
AGREEMENT. IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT RESPECTS , IT IS A
BETTER DEAL FOR THE CITY IN
TERMS OF REVENUE SHARING AND
SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT
IT GOVERNS. THE COMMITTEE WAS
SATISFIED, AND GAVE IT A
UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION. I
RECOMMEND WE DO APPROVE, HERE
AT FULL COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
LEWIS. ANY COMMENTS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES? NOT SEEING ANY.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS, IS THERE
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD BEFORE
WE GO TO VOTE?
>> NO, I AM READY TO CALL A
BOAT.
>> GREAT. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL ROLL ON THE PASSAGE OF THE
BILL?
>> COUNSELOR SOMEWHAT?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR HERBOLD?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR MORALES ?
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES IT'S ?
>>
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT MORRIS?
NINE IN FAVOR, UNOPPOSED.
>> PLEASE AFFIX MY SINGING TO
THE LEGISLATION , SAYS
BASSETT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, ALSO
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS, PLEASE
READ ITEM FOUR AND THE RECORD
BRACKETED ITEM FOUR, COUNT OF
THE 120483, AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO CURRENT USE
TAXATION, APPROVING
APPLICATIONS FOR CURRENT USE
TAXATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED
AT 8240 43rd AVENUE NORTHEAST
AND 711 NORTH EAST 43rd STREET
UNDER THE KING COUNTY PUBLIC
BENEFIT RATING SYSTEM, AND
RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING
CERTAIN PRIOR AT 'S. THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE BILL
PASS AS AMENDED. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, THIS IS
YOURS.
>> THANK YOU, MADAME PRESIDENT.
AS THE CLERK INDICATED, THERE
WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION
FROM COMMITTEE FOR COUNCIL BILL
120483 TO BE APPROVED. THIS
LEGISLATION DEALS WITH TWO
PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE WHO QUALIFY THROUGH
THE RATING SYSTEM FOR A
PROPERTY TAX BENEFIT FOR OPEN
SPACE PORTIONS OF THEIR
PROPERTIES, BASED ON THE
HISTORIC AND RESERVATION
CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE
PROPERTIES. WE HEARD FROM
DEPARTMENTAL STAFF, AS WELL AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROPERTY
OWNERS . THE COMMITTEE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VENT AND TALK TO
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
APPLICANTS AND COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF TO REALLY THOROUGHLY
UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR THIS
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF AND
UNDERSTAND THE RATING SYSTEM BY
WHICH IT IS AWARDED . IN ALL
THOSE RESPECTS, THE COMMITTEE
WAS SATISFIED THAT THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE
APPROPRIATE , AND DID
UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND THAT THE
FULL COUNCIL APPROVE THIS
LEGISLATION. WITH THAT, I HAVE
NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
LEWIS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COLLEAGUES? NOT SEEING ANY,
MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL ROLL ON THE PASSAGE OF
THE BILL?
>> COUNSELOR SOMEWHAT?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR HERBOLD ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR MORALES IS ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR MOSQUEDA
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNSELOR PIECE PEDERSEN?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MORRIS? 90
FAVOR, UNOPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, BILL PASSES. ,
PLEASE AFFIX MY SINGING
LEGISLATION. MOVING ALONG IN
OUR AGENDA, ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, OBVIOUSLY, NO ITEMS
WERE REMOVED. THE ADOPTION OF
OTHER RESOLUTIONS, THERE ARE NO
OTHER RESOLUTIONS FOR US TODAY.
I'M SORRY, FOR INTRODUCTION
AND ADOPTION. OTHER BUSINESS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO
COME BEFORE COUNCIL BEFORE I
MOVED TO ADJOURN?
>> YES, MADAME PRESIDENT. MECH
YES, COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
SELECT THANK YOU, MADAM
PRESIDENT. I MOVE TO BE
EXCUSED ON TUESDAY, JANUARY
24th, FROM FULL COUNCIL, AND ON
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14th -- I'M
SORRY, TUESDAY JANUARY 10th
FROM FULL COUNCIL, AND MONDAY,
THE NINTH OF JANUARY, AND
THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, FROM
COUNCIL BRIEFING. THAT YOU
ALREADY MENTIONED SOME DAYS
THAT ARE GONE. TODAY IS THE
10th.
>> LET ME TRY THAT AGAIN.
SORRY.
>> I AM LOOKING AT A CALENDAR,
LIKE, WHAT IS SHE TALKING
ABOUT?
>> I MOVED TO BE EXCUSED ON THE
20th AND 21st OF FEBRUARY, AND
THAT IS IT, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> OKAY. YOU ARE CERTAINLY
GETTING THAT IN EARLY. IF
THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA WILL BE
EXCUSED FROM THOSE TWO DAYS,
FEBRUARY 20th AND WHAT IS IT
AGAIN?
>> 21st.
>> FEBRUARY 20th AND 21st,
WHICH ARE A MONDAY AND TUESDAY.
BACK MADAM PRESIDENT, I ALSO
MOVED TO BE EXCUSED ON THE 24th
OF JANUARY.
>> MEMBER MOSQUEDA ALSO ASKED
TO BE EXCUSED ON JANUARY 24th.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? I MAY
OBJECT, BUT I WILL LET IT GO.
ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY
OBJECTION, COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUEDA IS EXCUSED FROM THOSE
DATES. COLLEAGUES, THIS DOES
CONCLUDE OUR BUSINESS FOR THE
DAY. WE WILL MEET AGAIN ON
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13th. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, WE STAND
ADJOURN.