Seattle City Council Public Assets & Homelessness Committee 4/6/22

Thank you, San.

The February 16th, 2022 meeting of the Seattle City Council's Public Assets and Homelessness Committee will come to order.

It is 2.02 PM.

I'm Andrew Lewis, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Chair Lewis.

Present.

Chair, there are four members present, one excused.

Thank you.

And as the clerk just indicated, Council President Juarez did reach out to the committee to let us know she would be unavailable and she is excused from today's committee meeting.

Approval of the agenda.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

chair's report.

so today we are going to be going through the first hearing on something that has been discussed a little bit in the public discourse and the media regarding the possibility of a transfer of city hall park and the pioneer square neighborhood from the city of Seattle to King County.

I want to make it really clear that today's hearing on the matter is just an initial briefing and discussion on what that might entail and how that process might be conducted, as well as hear from community stakeholders and the county on some of the potential plans undergirding that transfer.

So looking forward to that item, that'll be the first item.

of business today.

We're also going to hear a report from Seattle Center regarding the race and social justice initiative and a report from Seattle Center on their annual RSGI report.

Finally, we're going to close out.

We will move on now to public comment.

when it is your turn to speak, you will hear a prompt if you've been unmuted.

That will be your prompt to hit star six and then to speak for a two-minute amount of time.

I'm gonna go ahead right now and say the public comment period will be for 25 minutes, so we'll go until 2.30.

We have about 12 speakers, so that should work out.

perfectly.

And with that, I will turn it over to the clerk to preside over the public comment period.

The first public commenter who is signed in is John Grant.

John, you may begin when ready.

Good afternoon committee members, my name is john grant testifying on behalf of the low income housing Institute in opposition to the proposal to transfer city hall park.

Lehigh owns and manages the fire apartments, which is across the street and home to approximately 240 residents living at 30 yes, where these residents of pioneer square benefit from the sun and fresh air at city hall park.

We want 3rd and Yesler to be safer for residents and employees in the area.

We want businesses to have a viable location to lease retail space.

However, a land transfer does not solve the problems surrounding City Hall Park, Prefontaine Fountain, and its surrounding sidewalks.

Lehigh is ready to support the city to find practical solutions.

We have two commercial spaces right across the street that could be space for community service officers, Seattle Parks, or Department of Neighborhoods.

Moving the land from city to county hands removes the strong protections that exist in municipal code to protect green spaces.

What happens when the current negotiators of this space change jobs or retire?

Could we lose this last piece of green in the area?

We believe we can partner with the county and city to make this a successful space.

In our progressive community, City Hall Park should be recognized as an unparalleled civic space.

The park should not be transferred from the city to the county as the current proposal is untenable to the interests of the surrounding community.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, John.

Our next public commenter is Tia Petrovich.

Tia, you may begin when ready.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tia Petrovich and my comments address the proposed land transfer of City Hall Park.

I'm wondering how a historic public asset like City Hall Park can be transferred without a public process or input.

Public transparency was lost in King County's proposal process, and I appreciate the public process today.

As chair of the Pioneer Square Residence Council, it's my job and my honor to always find ways for the residents of Pioneer Square to be heard, to find and create transparency on issues that affect us.

And when I say all, I mean from no income to high income.

We along with our neighborhood businesses and social service partners strive to make Pinder Square a wonderful and healthy place for all.

We've had an incredibly rough last two years but a land transfer does not answer any of those issues during the park during COVID.

The answer is not transferring away our irreplaceable public historic asset.

If anything it's time to dig in and involve the Pinder Square community in a formal process about our largest green asset.

City Hall Park was created as a public amenity and a place for all.

not a highly controlled private space for some.

How are the needs of 800 plus marginalized residents who live adjacent to the park being considered, many who do not have access to other open spaces?

It's not like we're getting a transfer of property into Pioneer Square with a proposal.

It's time to take a step back and to think together.

I've lived here for 30 years.

We have had tough times, but we always come back together better and stronger.

My three requests today, step back and reconsider exchanging the park for county properties as proposed.

Let's fix it, not dump it.

Please consider the underserved residents who would be directly affected by potential loss of their park.

Involve my community by partnering in a conversation on how to maintain and protect this sacred space.

In Pioneer Square, we never give up, and we ask that you not give up on us.

Thank you for the privilege of your time today.

Thank you, Tia.

Our next public commenter is David Haynes.

David, you're off mute.

Thank you, David Ames, District 7. City Park is proof that city leadership has failed this community.

The homeless crisis has gotten worse with the council, mayor, and the prosecutor's policies that still exempt evil low-level drug pushers from jail.

Committing crimes against humanity, listed non-violent misdemeanor, prioritized for housing and services first via Just Care and the LEAD model, prioritizing repeat offenders who belong in jailhouse, until they say where they get the drug so cops can shut it down, or they belong in the behavioral crisis psych ward, or the low security conscription for addiction.

That's not voluntary since the drug pushers are allowed to continue to supply the neighborhood, saturating the community in drug addict thieves, as people in Seattle act more incensed and judgmental if they see a tent.

yet look the other way when crack meth and heroin fentanyl pushers set up a different bus stop one foot off the jurisdiction of the transportation property line as Metro and city cops argue over the lawyeristic jurisdiction proving county and city are inept at public safety as cops on all levels look for budgetary resource excuses not to shut down the same 20 predatory drug pushers in my neighborhood in Pioneer Square every night.

blaming transients for all the societal implosion for an easier payday, while city council can't even keep the central library honest about 21st century times.

They're always closing early with a lack of effort to fix anything regarding the lack of personal spit-spray space.

And they only allow you to go on the upper level between six and nine on Wednesdays, only Wednesdays, until 6 p.m so forget about it if you have a job and you got to use public transportation also we need a better coordinated response with the service providers who seem to never help the people the same people yelling and camping doing drugs in front of the 7-eleven at first and cherry street thanks david our next public commenter is harold hillseth harold uh you may begin when ready

Hi, y'all.

My name is Harald Hilseth, and I am Tsimshian, Alaskan native.

I'm also the new policy and advocacy manager for Chief Seattle Club, and I'm here to comment as a representative of Chief Seattle Club today on the agenda item concerning the City Hall Park intergovernmental land transfer.

City Hall Park provides important and necessary space for our members due to its proximity to Chief Seattle Club's day center and our newly opened 80-unit housing property all all.

Additionally, we will be opening another permanent supportive housing development a block away from City Hall Park later this year.

We are very interested in any opportunity to advocate for existing spaces in Pioneer Square that increase the quality of life of our members and the livability of any space throughout King County that benefit the folks we serve on a daily basis.

Chief Seattle Club supports any efforts to keep City Hall Park open and readily available for our community to utilize moving forward, including our members that live right around the corner.

I just want to thank you all for your time, and we look forward to continuing to follow the process as this moves along.

Thank you, Harald.

Tiara Dearbone, you are our next public commenter and can begin when ready.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

My name is Tiara Dearbone with the Public Defender Association.

Calling regarding the transfer of City Hall Park from city to county property.

I'd like to request that the city reconsider exchanging City Hall Park for other county properties and include the surrounding communities in the conversation about how this land should be protected and maintained.

In the summer of 2021, Just Care dedicated a lot of time and resources to place individuals who are living here into non-congregate lodging.

The future of City Hall Park must include a detailed plan on how to compassionately address the potential of unhoused individuals with complex needs living in the park while balancing accessibility for neighboring social service agency clients.

The plan cannot be just outreach or security but must be individualized and sustained sustained care.

City Hall Park is a historic asset a space for community and a space for cultural healing.

We would love to see the park reopened as soon as possible, and we are committed to partnering with the city and county to make this a successful space for all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tierra.

Our next public commenter is Ito Ito.

Ito, you may be getting ready.

Oh, thank you.

My name is Jeff Ito, but I had to put it in twice to make it work.

I want to thank you guys first for allowing me to speak.

I do appreciate it.

I don't have a set, like I didn't write anything out.

I'm doing this off the cuff and from my heart.

I'm a resident of the Frye, so I live directly across the street.

And so just to quickly tell you a little bit about myself, I've been homeless seven years in Everett, and then I finally got into low-income housing I'm a musician, an artist.

My wife is a ballerina.

And we work for Parks and Rec.

So we've played in that park professionally as a business.

One thing that people haven't mentioned is animals, dogs, cats.

Everybody's elegant in there.

That one man that was really passionate, I'm with that dude.

It's kind of not good that he was so aggressive because it could be a turnoff.

Accountability is really where it's at.

If we can make people, you know, be accountable for their actions, drug dealers, you know, stop looking at the homeless like they're just, you know, innocent victims.

There's a lot of drug addicts that are homeless.

We can fix this through just being intelligent.

But we need that park and I'm opposed to the land transfer because It's a beautiful property with grass where we can have food courts.

We can have a picnic kind of vibe.

We have people coming in from all over the country to see Seattle.

Pioneer Square is Seattle.

We need to make Pioneer Square the crown jewel.

Yeah, so got emotional there for a second.

Good luck, guys, and thank you for your time.

Thank you for joining us, Ido.

Our next public commenter is Donald Harris.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Donald Harris, and I'm speaking on the proposed transfer of City Hall Park to King County.

I'm the vice president of the Friends of Seattle's Olmstead Parks, a group supporting Seattle's historic parks.

I was a 40-year-plus employee of the Parks and Recreation Department And for 26 of those years, I was responsible for the acquisition and management, hundreds of acres of new parks and open space in Seattle.

That would be impossible today, and it is inconceivable to me that the city would give up any of it.

Seattle residents have often had to rise to the defense of our parks.

Most recently, that resulted in initiative 42, which never went to the ballot, but resulted in the adoption by the council of ordinance 118477. You'll hear more about from the county or the city staff.

Basically once park land or land used for parks and recreation shall be preserved for such use.

Council staff have done a good job of providing you with a memo laying out the facts and how the intent of that ordinance could be circumvented despite the fact that the county has rejected a provision that would guarantee the site would remain a park in perpetuity.

And it would be impossible to replace City Hall Park in kind with equivalent or better property in the same vicinity and serving the same community.

What King County is proposing or offering in trade comes nowhere near meeting those requirements.

It's little bits of property that would have basically little or no public benefit.

And just to remind you of some relevant history, there are five examples of where parkland in Seattle was threatened.

Lower Woodland Park was threatened by the expansion of the zoo.

Golden Gardens was threatened by the development of an aquarium.

Sandpoint Magnuson Park was threatened by the retention of an airstrip.

Discovery Park was threatened by the development of a golf course and the Washington Park Arboretum by proposal to fence it and charge admission.

All of those proposals resulted in citizen initiatives to protect parkland, which never went to a vote, because the council understood the breadth of public support and voted to protect Seattle's parks.

Thank you, Donald.

Our next public commenter is Tiffany McCoy.

Tiffany, you're off mute and can begin when you're ready.

Thank you.

I'm the advocacy director at Real Change and I am calling in as a member of the City of Hull Park Coalition, which is advocating that the city reconsider selling off the public land at City Hall Park.

And I implore you to listen to the low income and unhoused neighbors that use that, well, used to use that space.

It's a large fence barricade that has an endless timeline on it.

I wanted to address some of the concerns around safety and that we have a homeless problem in the city.

We know all of those things.

And transferring City Hall Park to the county will not resolve any of those issues.

This is not the answer to safety concerns or people that are unhoused.

So let's address the root causes of poverty, crime, homelessness, and maintain our parks.

We can do both.

And, yeah, I'm just calling in because Rail Change would really like the city to take some time and listen to communities.

I'm happy to have any council members come and listen to vendors' concerns over the selling of one of the last green spaces in the area.

And, yeah, please don't sell this off to the county.

This is really, like, a very important part to vendors when it used to be not fenced in.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tiffany.

Our next public commenter is the Honorable Patrick Oishi, Judge Oishi.

You're off mute and can begin when ready.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Patrick Oishi and I'm the presiding judge of King County Superior Court.

I'd like to thank the committee members as well as Committee Chair Lewis for considering this extremely important legislation.

I'm addressing the committee both as a longtime Seattle resident as well as the presiding judge of the largest trial court in the state.

I'm respectfully requesting that this committee support the City Hall Park land transfer for a number of very important reasons.

First, it absolutely makes the most sense that City Hall Park is part of King County's downtown campus.

As we all know, the park is immediately adjacent to the King County Courthouse, which is both the seat of county government, as well as where King County Superior Court is housed.

And the park is truly the front yard of King County government.

Second, the courthouse and surrounding area must be safe for everyone to access justice.

In many instances, those who come to court do not have a choice but to come to court because of their personal circumstances or because they've been summoned or subpoenaed to come to court.

All must feel safe when they come to court or justice surely will be denied.

in a land transfer with King County would be a huge step for safety in the area and would ensure access to justice.

I strongly encourage the committee to support the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Judge Oishi.

Our last public commenter who is currently present is Eric Salinger.

Eric, take us away.

Yeah, hi, my name is Eric Salinger.

I live in District 7, and I'm calling also about the park redevelopment.

I think there's basically two main issues.

The first issue is, as far as I can tell, from following what's been going on at the county level, if we were to engage in this land transfer from the park to the county, it would lose its protected status as a park and could be redeveloped as anything.

Now, I'm going to guess that that park in downtown Seattle, if it could be a building, would be worth at least $50 million.

So giving $50 million to the county or more seems absurd.

How many initiatives could each of you fund with $50 to $75 million or possibly more?

Things that we need, the programs that are important for folks downtown.

My second issue with this is the county told us that they are, or they repeatedly talk about, Oh, we're thinking about leaving Seattle.

Well, that's interesting because there's a plan that was supposed to come out in 2021 for their civic center.

I forget exactly what it was called, supposed to come out in 2021. And it hasn't.

So I think if we're going to be serious about selling this park, we should get the value for it.

But the problem with the park is it's in an area that's full of government buildings.

and homeless services providers.

There's something to do there to keep the park activated after 5 p.m.

so people go home.

But if the county's pulling out, we have tons of prime real estate that can be developed into mixed-use, residential, commercial, low-income, middle-income, high-income housing in a wonderful neighborhood of Seattle with great transit access.

Well, none of that's gonna happen, or rather, if that does happen, that park could be an amazing space to anchor that entire community together.

Unfortunately, if we give it to the county for free or for some other land that isn't worth that kind of money, that just may not happen.

So I encourage the council to reject this.

I think we want the park, and I think we want the neighborhood.

And I think we should focus on that.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Eric.

Mr. Chair, there are no more present public commenters.

All right.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk, and we're ending the public comment a little bit ahead of schedule, so that's good.

The committee's already ahead of schedule.

Let's work to keep it that way.

So we'll move on to our items of business.

Mr. Clerk, will you please read in the first item of business?

Item 1, City Hall Park Intergovernmental Land Transfer Briefing and Discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We are now joined by an extensive panel for this presentation, including Superintendent Christopher Williams from Seattle Parks.

Sorry, can everyone that's joining go on to video?

OK, it looks like everyone is.

Adeem Emery from the mayor's office, welcome.

Jackie Kern, Lisa Howard, Rebecca Bear, and Director Nellens, you're for the next presentation, correct?

Yes, okay, good, just making sure.

And Callie Knight, did I miss anybody for this discussion?

Go off mute and say so if I did.

Tony Wright, King County Facilities Management Division.

Oh, thank you so much, Mr. Wright.

Appreciate that.

So I think the way I want to divide this is we sort of have two panels, one that might be best described as a county panel, one that might be best described as a Pioneer Square stakeholder and parks panel.

So the way I would like to proceed with this is maybe to hear from our partners at King County first and to include some of our city officials in that panel as well.

So Superintendent Williams and Chief Equity Officer Emery to include you in this sort of initial panel.

But obviously I would invite everyone to stay around when we hear from the Alliance for Pioneer Square and the Seattle Parks Foundation among other stakeholders.

So with that, I think I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to the county and invite the county presenters to introduce themselves and then to proceed with their presentation.

Good afternoon, committee members, Chair Lewis, members of the public.

My name is Callie Knight.

I use she and her pronouns and I direct the External Relations Program out of Executive Constantine's office and have been in conversation with many of the stakeholders on the line about City Hall Park and the proposed land transfer.

I have my colleague Tony Wright, I'll let him introduce himself and then I'll make some brief comments.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and the public, my name is Tony Wright.

I use he, him pronouns.

I'm the Director of Facilities Management Division.

In that role, I both oversee the maintenance of our buildings and grounds, but also am in charge of the county's real estate portfolio.

So I have two kind of areas where I touch this particular issue.

Great, thank you.

So I'll just make some brief comments and then happy to turn it to my colleague, Tony, or answer any questions that folks might have.

But as far as the proposed land transfer of City Hall Park goes, the county is excited to be able to take ownership of the park, make it clear that it is going to be substantially used in perpetuity for open space.

with the nuance that we really would like to look at opening the historic south entrance of the park.

We have 6,000 employees who work in the neighborhood and some live in the neighborhood and commute in and out of the neighborhood, patronize businesses in the neighborhood as well.

And so we are working with community stakeholders, but also really our employees as a stakeholder as well.

We are excited to be able to transfer additional open space to be used by Seattle City residents, and are very much looking forward to a robust and collaborative public process should the transfer occur, and would be happy to answer any questions that committee members have.

Tony, do you have anything that you wanted to add?

The fact that we have sent some proposed covenants to be established.

Um, to be enforceable by the city because we can't as a county covenant ourselves, um, over the future use of this park.

I know that's being reviewed, um, by the city attorney's office.

Um, but I would state that as an important aspect, because one of the things we heard, um, leading up to this and throughout the public comment is that, uh, this belief that, uh, we just want to pave it over or put a building on it or something.

And the covenants that we have proposed that would travel with the land in perpetuity would, I think, address that concern.

But that'd be the only thing I would add at this time.

Thank you.

Sorry, go ahead.

I was just going to comment.

This is Addy.

I'm Emery, chief equity officer with the mayor's office.

Even though the agreement didn't happen with this demonstration, we're moving forward and excited to hear that King County is honoring the open space and tree canopy are important, which are especially for the downtown area where we have limited open space and green space.

So we are here to encourage to work with us.

continue to work with us in advancing those priorities.

And we're also here to support the land transition and the requirement that's needed.

Hi, this is...

Go ahead, Superintendent.

Thank you.

I was just about to ask if you wanted to make some remarks.

Go ahead, please.

I would like to highlight a few comments made by Donald Harris, the former Seattle Park and Recreation property manager.

you know, the spirit and intent of initiative 42 was designed to protect public open space in perpetuity.

We would be very interested in knowing more about covenants that allow sort of the keeping of this, you know, the space is public open space and park land.

I think one of the things that is really important to call out is prior to the pandemic, Council member Bagshaw funded the, uh, or found funding for the, uh, public life study for city hall park that resulted in a whole range of activation uses.

Um, you know, in pre pandemic, uh, that part probably saw its best.

life, you know, and probably 50 years.

And, uh, I think that's an example of the kind of activation strategy and the kind of public uses that, uh, this park could return to, uh, regardless of whose ownership it ultimately results in, in being it.

But I think the idea that, um, it has been successfully programmed and uses public open space is really an important consideration moving forward.

Thank you to the county and to some of our executive side partners for that presentation and those comments.

I have a couple of questions for this group here before we hear from some other stakeholders who have an interest in this conversation.

And I don't know exactly who would be best to answer these, so we'll just sort of do a raise of hand as I kind of go through.

If someone has something to add in terms of this committee in a good sense for contours of possibly reaching an agreement between the city and the county on this with an eye toward the county seeking city council approval for some kind of potential swap.

But I guess as a preliminary matter, maybe just asking for clarification from CEO Emery, is it the Herald Administration's position that they would like to see the transfer go through?

Because I don't know if that had been made clear to me before today's hearing.

So just as a threshold matter, I'm kind of curious about that.

We feel like the agreement and process has gone too far for us to pivot at this point.

So we will honor the agreements that are set that were established and move forward.

But also, again, to Christopher Williams' point, preserving, what would it take to preserve that open space and green space as we transition this land swap?

Okay, I mean, I guess I mean, just as a threshold matter, though, you know, any agreement would have to have the council's concurrence.

So, I mean, we're still kind of at the beginning of a fairly long process.

So, but it sounds like the Herald administration would like to see the transfer go forward.

And it sounds like that's the administration's position.

So that is good information for the committee to be aware of.

I think this question would be for the county.

So my understanding is that there's going to be 12 parcels from the county offered in exchange for the City Hall Park parcel.

And I'm curious what the county's considerations were in selecting those 12 parcels, and maybe if the presenters today are for the county presenters, maybe just a bit of an overview of those 12 parcels for the general public and for the committee members.

And then Superintendent Williams, if you've had a chance to kind of review those parcels a little, it would be interesting to hear the parks department's position on those parcels and what future activation plans for those might be.

So why don't we start with the county panel to kind of just get an overview of those parcels that are on offer.

And then I'd like to hear from the superintendent.

Well, let me, I think that was a meaningful look from Callie that she would like me to answer that question.

So, so, First, I would just, I think it's useful to understand that the discussion of which parcels would occur, would transfer was a interactive process identified through elements of the city government and the executive branch and the county.

And we went back and forth with some of those.

One of the things that has been stated before is the intrinsic land value that may be present.

Unrestricted, I concur absolutely with Mr. Gallagher that the property is worth a lot of money.

I'm not sure I'd go as high as 50, but probably 25 to $35 million in value if it is unrestricted.

Um, we're not proposing to accept that property unrestricted, nor are we transferring any of the open space properties that are part of this 12 over to the city, um, without asking also for the city's assurances that they would remain open space.

And I believe, um, although I didn't speak with superintendent Williams personally on this, I believe the parks department had some, interaction with the mayor's office on which parcels they were interested in at this time.

I do not have the specific list of those in front of me, but I can pull that up in a second.

And perhaps Mr. Chair, you could come back to me and I can go through my list because I remember the ones that are, I remember the significant ones, but some of them are honestly small portions of County property that are adjacent to existing city parks.

And They are just slightly additive to that particular part in this case.

So, and it, they will do that I need to pull the list up really quick in order to walk through it with a degree of accuracy, rather than depending on my somewhat deteriorated brain cells to remember.

Yeah, that's perfectly fine, Mr. Wright.

We can go to Callie for a moment to give you an opportunity to do that.

It might be, I mean, quite honestly, just to jump into a little, I was honestly kind of expecting maybe, you know, like a presentation from the county or like a slide deck that might Incorporate overviews of those parcels and maybe that might be just flagging maybe a subject for a future hearing that we might have on this just as a something we might consider.

Uh, we could absolutely do that, Mr Chair.

I mean, I just we didn't.

I thought it was coming to answer questions.

Um, but we can.

Um, that's probably my misunderstanding, and I will ensure that I can come in with a, um, with a presentation that can address each of these and and how that works in the future, if that's what the committee desires.

Yeah, I mean, if the council's gonna approve swapping an asset the size of City Hall Park, I think that, you know, it would be good for us to go into detail on the 12 other parcels, and we can do a little bit of that in this meeting, but that might be a good kind of work product request for the next hearing on the topic.

So just flagging that.

But Callie, did you have something to add to that while we give Mr. Wright an opportunity to load up the list of 12 parcels?

No, I don't have anything to add.

Not at this time.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Council Member Lewis, Tracy Russ of Council Central Staff.

My memo that's attached to the agenda, sorry to interrupt, but the memo that's attached to your agenda, attachment one of that memo actually has each one of the properties listed.

Attachment two shows a map of where those properties are located.

So we have provided that to the council members in that memo.

Great, excellent.

I mean, and I'm aware of that from reviewing the memo, but, You know, I wanted to give the county sort of an opportunity to pitch the parcels to the committee.

Do we have a sense, maybe Tracy, this is a good question for you.

I don't know where this is at this time, but do we have a sense of the appraisal sort of value to value of the parcels to City Hall Park with the caveat that Mr. Wright issued that it wouldn't be, an unrestricted parcel, which would have value implications for City Hall Park and then vice versa.

Do you have a sense on how that stacks up?

So to my knowledge, no appraisals have been done on any of the properties that are involved in this transfer.

I did inquire of Mr. Wright if there were any appraisals and did not hear back.

So I presume that the answer was no on that, but I'll leave them to affirm that truth or not.

No formal appraisals.

Tracy, I apologize for not getting back to you on that one.

But we did not do appraisals of any of this property, some of which have had estimations of value in their past and other elements.

But in our initial discussions with the previous administration, Um, you know, we settled upon a, an area negotiation because, um, we recognize right up front that, um, uh, the location of the park, if it was, uh, unrestricted property would render that, um, completely outside the scale, which is one of the reasons we also have about three times as much property, uh, being conveyed in terms of area.

But we went through it for an area negotiation, not a price negotiation, which is why, to my knowledge, neither the county nor the city conducted appraisals related to this transfer.

Is that a common alternative metric to do an area ratio rather than a value ratio?

And maybe Superintendent Williams has a clarification on that.

So we would absolutely at some point as we get a little further into this one want to do a value dollar value for value appraisal.

My gut check is we just haven't gotten to that point in the process yet.

Also on some of the questions you asked earlier about the land value or rather about parcels, there is a parcel in South Park That is adjacent to a property of rather partial property.

We already own that we're working with the community to try to develop.

We believe that that has some value to the existing project.

It is contiguous with the South Park Plaza.

project that we've been working on now for at least four or five years.

The other parcel that has some utility value is the parcel adjacent to Yesler Community Center.

Of course, we have a community center there.

We have an athletic field there.

We look for adjacencies versus a postage size, you know, what we call squares, places, and triangles that ultimately just create a lot of extra work for our maintenance staff and are not connected to existing parcels of land.

So that's a little bit of background on what's in the inventory.

Those are the two biggest pieces that stand out.

So I noticed my colleagues have a couple of questions.

Are they related?

Are they questions related to the county parcels or are they related to a different topic?

Looking at Council Member Morales, this data here.

Okay, Council Member Morales, go ahead.

So yes, and is what I'll say here, but happy to stick to this one for now.

So I think I really am interested in this question of different metrics for appraisal, because understanding that the idea is not to make a swap for the purpose of development and all that that might mean in terms of value, but still in terms of utility, you know, which also has value.

So many of these are really small, you know, there's a couple that are less than 300 square feet.

Several of them are much bigger than that, but I'm just thinking in terms of added value to city users and, you know, not sure what the city's gain would be in terms of being able to use these parcels.

I think my question might be for, I don't know, maybe this is a question for Lish, but I am interested in understanding to Ms. Emery's point about the agreement having gone too far to change course, understanding better where exactly we are in the timeline of this process, because I I understand we haven't even begun SIPA and there's still a lot of work to do and no decisions to be made until that process is through.

So I feel like we've got plenty of opportunity to weigh the balance of whether this is actually good for the city or not.

Okay, I'll answer.

Council Member, you have from the council's perspective, there's no deal here until you adopt legislation that authorizes the deal.

So from the council's perspective, we've not even taken up the legislation.

This is your first conversation publicly about the legislation.

So from the council's perspective, we've got some time.

I wouldn't want to even begin to speak for the executive on this, so their new administration, and let them speak for themselves in terms of their perspective on this.

Thank you, Tracy.

Council Member Morales, do you have other questions?

Or did that answer all your questions?

Well, I appreciate having, for the record, where exactly we are in the timeline of this process.

And really just wanted to make a comment that part of my concern is looking at the comparability and the value of what's being offered in exchange for this very nice city-owned piece of land that could serve as an important park downtown.

OK.

Let's go ahead and Council Member Miscady, you had a question related to the parcels too.

Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And again, thanks to the central staff for the memo.

I'm looking at page four of the memo and it says for City Hall Park, the county commits that the City Hall Park will continue to be used for public open space, a park, a recreation and community facility.

The expansion of existing county facility or public benefit purpose, provided that any such purpose shall be used by the general public and primarily non commercial in nature.

And then I think the opening comments that were made by Kelly and perhaps others was the intent to have this remain a public.

open space in perpetuity.

So, I appreciate that comment here and also clarification that Council Member Morales thought about like where we're at in the process.

So, given that the intent from the county is to have an open public space in perpetuity and it sounded like there was a number of folks who called in from public comment desiring open public space in perpetuity as well.

What would it look like to codify that?

Is that something that the county council modifies and the covenant on City Hall Park?

Is that something that the city council needs to do to codify in city statute somewhere?

Can you tell me if that's the intent and the future use if the county were to acquire this property?

And it sounds like a shared desire to have open public space and perpetuity.

Where does that get codified in both jurisdictions?

from the council's perspective, City Council, it would be in this intergovernmental transfer agreement that is attached to the ordinance.

So I believe that there is some language that's being circulated by the county that would modify even what has been shown in the memo, late breaking information, and I'll have them speak to that.

But it would, for certain, we would be modifying the language in the covenant that is in the intergovernmental transfer, which is an attachment to the ordinance that the council will adopt.

Thank you.

And then anybody from the county thoughts about where that would be housed?

The council member, I'll try to take a stab at that.

The process that I would understand is that if modifications were made by the city council to the agreement that caused the agreement to be substantially different from what it currently is and substantially different as one of those Nice terms that isn't clearly defined is then.

As the executive branch agency, I would need to retransmit that agreement back to the county council to agree on it.

If it's close under our code, the city could make some adjustments.

We believe the adjustments we propose in the covenant language would be consistent with the authority where we would not need to go back to the county council.

That's sort of how the process goes back and forth.

Both councils would need to agree on it or have it close enough that essentially a reconciliation committee could say, yeah, this is, we're here.

And then we have binding documents that would, in a real estate perspective, memorialize the aspects of the decisions of the two legislative bodies.

Tracy, how'd I do?

Very well, Tony.

Council Member Herbold, you have a question.

Thank you so much.

So, as it relates to this notion of creating a covenant that would maintain the property in perpetuity as parks are an open space, It seems to me, given that we haven't begun the SEPA process yet, and I want to thank central staff for their work on identifying this as a transfer that would be triggered, that SEPA would be triggered for at the end of last year.

The previous administration had been arguing SEPA wasn't triggered, so really appreciate setting us on the right path there.

But It seems to me that doing SEPA review on a piece of property where we have a legally binding commitment to maintain the property as open space in perpetuity, that that SEPA process would have a particular outcome that would differ significantly from a SEPA process on a property transfer that doesn't make any such promises.

So I'm just wondering if, on We're going to have, we're potentially going to have lots of things that the C process tells us that we need to be doing.

So just putting that out there.

Two other things I wanted to mention.

One, I really appreciate Superintendent Williams' statement early on, quoting former Open Space Director Don Harris about the spirit of I-42.

And even though this legislation exempts this transaction from I-42, I think we really need to get handled as a matter of policy before moving forward.

Whether or not we want, even if we're exempting this from I-42, which parts of I-42 we want to adhere to, the spirit of, because, again, the I-42 requires that the land be of equal or better size equal or better value, location and usefulness in the same vicinity, serving the same community and the same parks purposes.

And that's clearly not something that we're meeting now.

And I think it would be great to get a sense from the council on the front end.

What parts of I-42, the spirit of I-42, we think are still really important to us.

And then lastly, I wanna just, this is also just flagging a point that Superintendent Williams made, but I do have a question.

As it relates to Council Member Bagshaw's work, to get funding for the design of a park.

I believe, and again, tell me if I'm wrong, I thought those dollars had not yet been expended and that there's about, I don't know, something like $400,000 to do that.

and an estimate of about two million dollars to do the same sort of amazing work that was done down in Occidental to really look at ways to program the park, make some space configurations along with SDOT to make some of the entryways work better for pedestrians and cars.

Can you just talk, and I mean, that's work that I think has been started.

I would hate to just throw that out.

So just wondering if you could just give a little bit more detail on that.

Sure.

So as you recall, Council Member Baxhaw, one of her pet projects before she left, was piloting sort of this transformation of City Hall Park.

It resulted in an initial $900,000 allocation.

We used a great portion of that to fund what was called a public life study that looked at uses, looked at communities, looked at future uses and stakeholders.

We funded a lot of activation pre-pandemic that seemed to be successful at the time.

About $400,000 was set aside for a redesign and redevelopment of that park.

And, you know, it included ideas like maybe fencing some of it with ornamental fencing, maybe creating an ornamental garden, you know, kind of robust community engagement work around, you know, what this park Blacks is sort of the same, you know, kind of neighborhood that you'd find adjacent to Lincoln Park, for example, right?

And then just thinking about ways to sort of get the community more engaged in this park.

So it really kind of talked about design and then what it would take to sustain a redesign of City Hall Park once any design was built, what sort of community engagement would need to be ongoing to sustain positive uses.

Thank you.

Really seems like we should be looking at how to implement that next phase, so appreciate that.

CEO Emery, do you have a comment as well?

I just want to correct my statement early on.

when I said like the administration supports the land swap, not because of the process of going down further, but we do support it as it is.

And because King County is honoring the fact that to keep the open space and so forth.

So I'm sorry, a call was coming in, but I just want to kind of correct my statement that we are in support of this land swap.

Thank you.

I appreciate the clarification.

I have a couple more questions and then maybe a couple of action items for the next hearing that we have on this on this concept.

My understanding is the way that this is currently envisioned there would also have to be some city street vacations and I just want to I would ask maybe central staff as a preliminary measure to walk the committee through what the requested street vacations are and what that process would entail as one of the other kind of factors in terms of timelines and designing the work here of what we need to consider.

I think it's important to get that on the table in this initial hearing.

And I'll start with central staff and then I'd like to hear responses from other panel members if there's some additional context for that.

So why don't we start, I don't know if that's best with Lish or Tracy.

Good afternoon, Lish Whitson, Council Central staff.

So under state law, the council has sole authority to vacate city rights of way.

The process includes filing a petition with the city council, a review of the impacts of the potential vacation, including impacts on light, air, open space, circulation, public, Access space for utilities.

And includes a required public hearing.

And and a commitment for public benefit features, not related to the sort of functions of.

either the park or county facilities, but rather public benefit features in addition to the public's benefit for the park's use.

The vacation typically will involve a paid to the Seattle Department of Transportation for analyzing and processing the vacation, as well as at the end of the vacation process, payment of the appraised value of the right-of-way that is being transferred to the petitioner if the vacation is approved.

Under the proposed legislation and agreement, the city would cover all of those costs rather than the county covering them.

And that's your three-second summary of the process, but I'm happy to answer questions.

Can we get a sense on what the timeline would be to go through all that?

It typically takes at least a year.

Oh, OK.

So just the street vacation element of this would take at least a year?

It would extend past council approval of this property transfer, most likely.

Okay, so the sequencing would be, we would do the transfer and then there would subsequently be action around the street vacation.

So they would be severed out in advance.

Okay, all right.

And the legislation recognizes that the street vacation is a separate process and does not commit the council to vacating those rights of way.

All right, I appreciate that clarification.

Do we know about how much fiscal impact covering the street vacations would be?

Well, we don't have an appraisal for any of the property.

My back of the envelope estimate is that the right-of-way is as much or greater square footage as the park space that is proposed to be transferred.

So you're probably looking at a similar appraised value for the right-of-way as for the parks.

But I guess I was also referring to those processing fees.

Oh, that's $10,000.

Total or?

Total, yeah.

Total, OK.

OK, so that's it's not.

a terribly significant in the scheme of our budget.

OK, great.

All right.

But the value of the right-of-way would be significant.

So OK.

I just wanted to get clarification on that process as well.

Are there any other comments, I guess, on that street vacation component now that we've gotten central staff clarification?

Mr. Wright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The one thing I would state is the county is very much willing to pay the processing fees and other things.

It got kind of wrapped into the much larger number of what the city typically charges for street vacations, which as the county real estate, I have paid for for other things like Harborview and such.

We wanted to avoid that particular additional cost.

I guess the way I would see it is it would be lost potential revenue to the city as opposed to an actual expense.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification on.

Council Member Mesquite, do you have a follow-up on that?

I'm so sorry.

I might have missed this.

Regarding the street vacation, and apologies if you've just commented on this, is there any impact of the street vacation, as noted on page five as well, regarding the 4th Avenue bike lane?

Any impact that street vacation would have there?

And apologies if you already commented on that.

Most likely it would not.

The street right-of-way that we're talking about is adjacent to and sort of within the park area or between the park and the King County Courthouse building.

But those sorts of impacts are what would be analyzed through the street vacation process.

Lish, can I also just ask as one of my last questions, this is sort of a pivot, but we talked a little bit about SEPA and Council Member Herbold had good questions around sequencing of doing the SEPA work.

But I guess my question would be, you know, for all parties concerned here who would like to see a transfer queued up, when is the soonest the council could approve a transfer based on the SEPA work?

So there is a 21 day appeal period after the publication of a SEPA determination.

If it's a determination of non-significance and the council should not act before that period ends.

If there's an appeal, then it's a fairly lengthy process that could result in requirements for an environmental impact statement.

So assuming no appeal, when's the soonest we could potentially vote on the transfer?

Probably a month or so after the publication of the SIPA documents.

Right, but I guess my question is, how long would it take to complete the SIPA documents and publish them?

I am, maybe Mr. Williams would.

Yeah.

So where we are today is we have completed the checklist.

and assuming there, you know, a determination of non-significant is issued for the transfer, there's a two week public comment period and a three week appeal period.

And these periods run concurrently.

So from today, assuming that we, assuming we received the checklist, we're about five weeks out, assuming no appeals to assumingly a determination of non significant.

So, um, and I think, as was mentioned earlier, if there is an appeal that could push us into an environmental impact statement, which is a much longer process.

Okay, so assuming no appeal, the soonest would be five weeks from today.

Yes.

Okay, that's all I was looking for just to kind of, you know, initial hearing, we're just trying to get all the facts out there in terms of potential timeline and the potential work that needs to be done.

So it does sound like some of the other things I was hearing from committee members that we would like to see is appraisals of the relevant properties.

and potentially getting a subsequent presentation, either from central staff or King County, diving a little bit into those parcels.

Council Member Herbold raised good points regarding those parcels that any action here would probably require a council waiver of initiative 42. And I don't know, Superintendent, if you could maybe speak to that a little bit, or maybe central staff, It's within the power of the council to waive initiative 42 if the council felt it were warranted.

Yes, and the ordinance does that.

Council member, the proposed ordinance does waive the provisions of I-42.

Right, I just wanted to make sure we kind of got that on the record.

Superintendent Williams.

Yeah, I was going to echo what Tracy said.

I think you have to also hold a public hearing.

and public has to be allowed to provide testimony and that is basically the process.

Okay, thank you.

Before we move on to the next panel, well there's some questions.

So why don't we go to Council Member Morales and then Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

I just wanted to reiterate my request, especially in light of these last few questions.

Chair Lewis, if we could see a timeline of all of these processes kind of stacked on top of each other to get a better sense of, you know, when's the street vacation, when's the super review, with or without an appeal, just so we have a real sense of what the work will be with this project, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Thank you, totally concur in that request.

And I don't know, central staff, would you be able to prepare something like that for us?

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

Currently, while the City Hall Park is in city hands, I believe it's still fenced off along with 4th Avenue, which I just saw last week.

If it hasn't been removed in terms of the fencing, just wanted to raise here my concerns about City Hall Park specifically being fenced off still.

I think there's some concerns about the safety and the ability for folks to use the park as it currently stands.

So I just wanted to flag that.

And also for the county partners, I assume that when it gets over to county, if it gets over to county control, the intent would to not have it be fenced off.

And I know that there's mention of activation and open public space.

Obviously, that includes not having a fence.

Can you talk a little bit about any resources needed for keeping it an open public space and what activation might entail in terms of resources?

opportunity for community engagement and for everyone in the city to be able to utilize that and make sure that as well, you know, for folks who need resources and services that we're able to connect people there.

So looking for any answer you might have about if the city is needed for ongoing resources for activation or if you have other thoughts about that type of work.

Yeah, council member, I will take a stab at an initial answer and thanks so much for your question.

So yes, we are not planning to keep an open public space fenced off where no one can use it or access it or acquire benefit from it.

Our legislation that was passed at council along with a report that we prepared and delivered at the beginning of the year really requires a robust public engagement process should the county become the owner of the property.

And that would also include the Department of Neighborhoods, so the city would remain a strong partner in addressing how best to activate the park.

I think we, from the county perspective, would be really interested in understanding if the city has an activation plan for the park.

We have concepts and ideas that were outlined in the report that I referenced, but are unclear if the city also has some kind of activation agreement with stakeholders in the vicinity, and so would really welcome any previous plan or activation work as a basis for what we could start the conversation on.

I think it was mentioned before that there's an interest to see this be part of the civic campus planning process that was delayed due to COVID.

I just want to go on the record and say that the county is not planning on leaving Pioneer Square.

We have a civic campus planning process that will likely restart next month.

We will not be able to plan for this parcel if we are not going to assume ownership over it.

and will not be able to begin activation planning and stakeholder engagement until the transfer goes through.

So I hope that that provides some initial response and would be happy to talk further with you or anyone on the committee or anyone from the community who might have further questions.

Thank you very much.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

And just to jump in on that too, I think as we discussed earlier with superintendent Williams and Councilmember Herbold, there was a fairly extensive activation plan and strategy that the Council funded.

And I believe pre-COVID was partially implemented.

I'm sure that that information is still handy.

If you're listening, Council Member Baxhaw, I know you still tune in sometimes to our proceedings.

I'm sure that she would be willing to make herself available to talk about some of those efforts in the past as well, since she was such a big leader on them.

Mr. Wright, do you have a final comment?

I'm sorry, I don't want to jump in if it's final.

I just wanted to state that I worked closely with Councilmember Bagshaw.

The park is sort of sitting surrounded by a bunch of county buildings along with some other things.

work closely on the activation schedule.

We saw, as Superintendent Williams stated, some remarkable success in those things.

And we don't believe in trying to reinvent something new.

But of course, those are resources the county would commit if it was county property.

Understood.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right.

Why don't we go ahead and move on to, oh, sorry, Council Member Herbold.

There you go.

Thank you so much.

Your action steps, I didn't hear the reference to my observation that perhaps I should phrase differently so that it is captured as an action step.

I'm concerned if the objective of the executive is that the SEPA review results in a DNS, a determination of non-significance, I'm concerned that it should not begin until we have a commitment from the county that they are going to maintain the park as open space.

If we don't have that in place before the DNS begins, then I don't see how we could get, I mean, before the SEPA review begins, I don't see how the SEPA review could possibly result in a DNS determination.

I think to your point, codifying initiative 42 is something that you asked, and you asked a specific question early on on somebody, if I'm not mistaken, how we codify this thing.

Those are, I think, steps that we will continue to support in partnership with the city council and county.

So we should, I don't know if the SEPA checklist is something that would daylight this thing.

Yeah, my question's about the council determining sort of, you know, what, as it relates to I-42, if there are areas that we want to adhere to the spirit of I-42 while also exempting this project from I-42.

That's a separate question than my question about the SEPA process.

Is the goal of the executive for the SEPA process to result in receiving a DNS, a determination of non-significance?

If so, if that is what the executive hopes happens as a result of the SEPA process, shouldn't we get the confirmation from the county that they are going to maintain in perpetuity the property as park space and open space.

If we don't have that in the front end, I don't see how we can possibly get a DNS as a result of the SIPA review.

Superintendent Williams, do you have an opinion on that?

Yeah, I mean, I think that's a very clear logic model.

You know, it's sort of putting the cart before the horse is what you're getting at.

And we get it.

Um, you know, uh, I think in my comments, I, uh, I might have said DNS.

I don't want to presume that that will be the outcome of this process for the very reasons you highlight it.

Um, and it's something that I'll go back and talk to, uh, audience and the mayor's office about.

But, um, I just want to acknowledge and recognize that you are raising a concrete point here.

I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

I just want to add to Councilmember Herbold's point as well and I saw Callie with her hand up but I thought I heard Callie say at the beginning that there was maybe an amendment or an addendum or something like that the county was working on so it does seem like in terms of sequencing this that offer or codification perhaps is already in place and I really appreciate what Councilmember Herbold has teed up though as well because we don't want to I don't know if there is a firm commitment for open public space in perpetuity.

It sounds like it is a shared goal.

in order to complete the SEPA checklist.

And I think that those things could be reconciled as an action item.

So I do apologize, Council Member Herbold, I should have included that as an action item on the list.

I understand where you're coming from.

But Pally, do you have a clarification on that?

More of just wanting to affirmatively just confirm that, yes, we've been having conversations with folks from the community the immediate vicinity of the park and have developed the language based on the feedback and concerns that we've gotten from those stakeholders and that we've heard from the city.

I do think that there is a shared intent and agree with you, Council Member Lewis, that I think that those are reconcilable.

I believe probably central staff has the language and can share it with all of the committee members who are interested.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's no more questions from the county folks, I think we can move to the next panel.

But we have a couple more items to consider this request from the county and look forward to continuing to talk about this potential opportunity and appreciate you guys making yourself available today.

We'll be in touch about the next possible time to maybe drill down into some of the things that were outstanding questions from today.

And, you know, look forward to having you back to talk a little bit more about this.

So thank you so much.

Okay, so next we have joining us some folks from the Pioneer Square neighborhood who I also wanted to be included in this discussion and raise some of their thoughts.

And would everyone introduce themselves, just to make sure I have the whole panel here?

Maybe starting with Lisa Howard, and then Lisa, if you're aware of the other presenters, if you want to just kind of popcorn introduce yourselves until everyone's present.

But I'll let you go ahead and start.

We have me and Rebecca here today.

Lisa Howard, Executive Director of the Alliance for Primary Support.

And I'm going to hand it over to Rebecca to introduce herself.

Hi, everybody.

Thank you very much, Council Member Lewis, for inviting us.

And I am this president and CEO of the Seattle Parks Foundation.

And really excited to be here and to share perspective.

Great.

Well, why don't we Go ahead and jump into it and looking forward to hear.

some of the thoughts, I mean, we heard some thoughts in public comment from some community members in Pioneer Square who have some concerns, and I think it would be good for the committee to hear some of this and kind of get a sense of, you know, how some of those concerns might be mitigated in the event of a transfer or some of the things you guys are thinking about.

So I don't know, Rebecca, if you want to start or if Lisa does, but I'm happy to turn it over.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, so you did hear a lot from the community on a number of points that I wanted to speak to today, and many of it was discussed, and I'll just reiterate.

So the Parks Foundation, our mission is really to partner with community to champion thriving and equitable public spaces, and we work in this case with the Pioneer Square community to really think about how can we have a thriving and equitable public space.

Clearly around this park, it's a very unique park in that it has over 600 residents who are in low income or affordable housing, transitional housing, and they use and need City Hall Park as it's the largest green space with some of the oldest trees downtown.

It is complex.

It has a lot of issues, as have been stated.

Closing off the park and even transferring the park to another jurisdiction is not going to solve that problem, as we've discussed.

We have some data from a published study from the National Institute of Health in similar parks, in 48 urban parks in low-income neighborhoods where there is significant unhoused populations.

And it's found that it's not the presence of unhoused that is the predictor of safety concerns.

It's actually the lack of activation in those parks, reduced lighting, and individuals who are engaged in criminal activity that reduces positive usage.

So any solution, as we discussed today, really is, whomever has jurisdiction of this park, needs to really focus in on activation of the park, engagement in the park, design of the park that's going to ensure effective use and participation.

So that is one of the pieces that I think from a park's perspective is really important.

I've talked with Christopher many times about the core success to our parks in Seattle.

is having a community that fights for their park.

And there is a community here that really believes in fighting for this park.

Occidental Park, which used to be in terrible shape several years ago, was revitalized through efforts of the community and the public-private partnerships, such as the Urban Parks Partnership, that has allowed for Occidental to be transformed with a new pavilion, a playground, a space where people come together It's funded activation and art.

And it has gone from intimidating to iconic.

And that's really a testament to the work of the community and that engagement.

The safety incidents in that community have also reduced.

The rallying that's happening around City Hall Park is really about ensuring that the community is engaged.

And it is the largest green space.

And there was a process underway.

So I would love to ensure that the good work that the Seattle Parks Department has done with SDOT and others around design, and particularly thinking about it as an ecosystem, City Hall Park does not stand alone.

There is Prefontaine Place.

There are the right-of-ways, the bike lanes, the whole network of neighborhoods.

There are the nearby adjacent public spaces that are really important for the community to be connected to.

So whomever has ownership of this park, it's important to be connected into that ecosystem, have very strong relationships with the community around, and also be designing with that in mind.

As per the initiative 42, I think I really appreciate Council Member Herbold really pushing on that point, the potential value of this park is significantly, there is not really an equivalent or better value exchange.

within the vicinity.

And so ensuring that this park remains a park is really critical in this process.

So as you look at the land transfer, we're really asking that you focus in that language of a covenant.

If it does transfer to King County, it can either stay with city, as you said, this is the decision of the council, you do not have to go forward.

It's also, you know, if you do decide to go forward, then we ask that you do look at a covenant that ensures in perpetuity that it is a park, significantly a park for the community, and that the community is engaged in that process, that the funding for that park is long-term and focused on activation.

and that management has an understanding of the diversity of that community.

So those are the key points that I wanted to make sure that we talk through.

There's other pieces of the puzzle.

We have looked at the value of the property.

It is significantly higher than I think what has been communicated.

And we're also concerned about the potential, some of the properties that are in the transfer could have some environmental issues related to them that will need to be addressed if they are added into park spaces.

So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Lisa.

Thanks, Rebecca.

Layering on a little bit, I've met all of you, but just a reminder, I'm here to represent the Pioneer Spark community, the diverse group of stakeholders, the Pioneer Spark BIA, and reminds you that we work as a community to implement a comprehensive strategic plan to ensure that this community works for all members of the community.

We do have concerns about the proposed land transfer as listed.

We have been in conversations with the county about the proposed language and have questions about just the legalities and what that means overall.

We have participated and led conversations around this area.

So we understand the complexities of the history in the urban environment very deeply.

The decisions here have real impacts on the community members here.

And just a reminder that there's 800 people in either shelter community housing or affordable housing on these two blocks, just within Pioneer Square.

And we look to you to ensure that the actions taken within this lamp transfer or in the financial operational legal and land use interests of the city of Seattle.

We have brought a proposal forward for an alternative path for you to consider, but I will also wanted to I also wanted to encourage you if you haven't went back and watched it to watch the county council meeting that passed legislation.

If you are considering any sort of covenant to ensure that this land is fully legally protected in the long term.

As well as I just, I just want to raise in the end, I reviewed the memo that central staff put together.

Thank you for being able to raise all of the issues.

But this conversation started with the premise that this property, City Hall Park, was no longer needed for municipal purposes and was a surplus in the city's inventory.

This is a site of the Battle of Seattle.

It's the site of one of our most challenging environments and it's where our government and community intersects and it needs to have that level of consideration given to it, not just a quick thing.

And I'm glad that the CEQA process is moving forward and hope that it's an unbiased process and we're not just looking for a determination on non-significance.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Do committee members have any questions?

So Rebecca, I have, oh, Council Member Morales, go ahead, please.

It's okay.

I don't have a question.

I just really want to thank Rebecca and Lisa for being here and sharing your deep thoughts and wisdom with us today.

Thank you.

So Rebecca, in that vein of seeking deep thoughts and wisdom, I'm going to ask you a question regarding some of the proposals that I understand King County has been exploring.

in partnership with the Parks Foundation in having conversations around some of the concerns here.

And I just wonder if you could maybe provide a bit of an update.

You know, we heard a little bit of that earlier from the county's presentation, and I wonder if you could just jump in and maybe talk about how those have been going and what some of your thoughts are on some of the language being considered.

Sure.

I haven't seen what was presented to you all from the language other than what's in the memo.

And one of our board members has had some lengthy conversations and back and forth with King County around some of the language, specifically trying to ensure the park and perpetuity first and foremost, and then also having predominant, you know, ensuring the natural functions of the park as well.

So the green space, trees, et cetera, are preserved as part of the park.

There's some dialogue around Jefferson Street as well, and the vacation of that, and recognition that that is, seems like that is necessary for the county, if they're going to move the entrance.

And so those are some of the pieces that I have, that I am aware of.

And I know there's, it's sitting right now with the county.

So the language that we have inserted have been mostly around ensuring the long-term preservation of the green space function of the park.

And I appreciate you highlighting those priorities.

I think that they're, you know, I don't want to speak for all the members of the committee here today, but I think those are definitely baseline values that we all share.

And it was good to hear from the folks from the county today, make some big public assurances that as we go through this process, those are values that they want to highlight as well in terms of their intent moving forward.

I appreciate that those conversations are happening.

Lisa, you have a comment.

Just a quick highlight.

I wanted to make sure we talked about Prefontaine Place is not included in this transfer.

Also a very challenging park property.

and that it does, like, parks will still need to care for it.

There's still significant issues, criminal activity that happens there.

It's also a place where people congregate and that social aspect is needed, as well as the Fourth Avenue bike lane connection that goes through Dillingway as part of the bicycle master plan.

You know, there was concerns when it was put in, but it was cited as a critical link for the city of Seattle.

and what happens there in the long term should also be considered as you're considering this, the options within this.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have a question for the panel here?

I do notice I don't know if you want to also weigh in a little bit, but I guess I would just, I'd be remiss if I just didn't kind of mention that I'm hearing similar values expressed in terms of vision between the panels, although there are certainly maybe some differences in terms of sequencing and and who owns the parcel, obviously, but I just wonder if you want to jump in one last time there, Tony.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think both Lisa and Rebecca's comments, they resonate with us.

We, as we talk about the residents who live there, we as the county government also kind of live there, where it, unfortunately, most of the county employees leave at night, but we have a high concentration of that.

in the discussions and I worked on the negotiations with one of the board members of the Parks Foundation that Rebecca was referring to.

And I think that we got to language that really captures The, the essence of it, it's, um, it's, it's going to be operated like a park and we even talk about operated and maintained and we talk about retaining the existing landscape features, including trees and ground cover.

This, to quote our executive, it's ideally, if we use the original opening, it's a front steps.

I mean, and we want to keep it in that nature.

If this deal, this transfer happens, that's, you know, so there's a, I don't know that your central staff has this language yet because it got sent over from, our prosecuting attorney to your city attorney.

So I don't know if they've got it or not yet, but I think if they did and seeing that language, what our proposal is, I think that will, it shows the county's intent, vision, and commitment to keep this property for the, for the public benefit and not, I'm actually not much of a, I'm not a very good developer as a facilities manager.

So I, but integrating that in as we think about different things about the activation, I would just close with As part of the Civic Campus Master Plan, which my organization is also pushing through, we are looking at housing as a big component in many of the locations where we're at.

And if you look at the studies of park activation in some major cities, bringing that 24-hour presence of residents changes the nature of the neighborhood.

And we're hoping that some of that may be able to be incorporated in our Civic Campus Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you for those remarks, Tony.

Are there any other questions for the panel here from committee members?

It doesn't appear that there are.

I really appreciate having the opportunity to have, oh, sorry, Lisa, go ahead.

Yes.

I just wanted to do a quick reply to that because I think we value our work with the county over time.

Tony, you have an amazingly hard job and you're very good at it.

We appreciate all you've done for the neighborhood and the county employees.

I think the premise of our concern doesn't stem from the current conversation with the executive office, which we appreciate the opportunity to have that back and forth.

It really stems from the early cited alternative uses that have come up through the county council conversations and their voting down an amendment of this very thing.

If they would have considered it and accepted it at that point in time, I don't think we would have been having the same conversations at that point.

And they voted it down five to two.

And so any sort of just ensuring any sort of triple checking because they don't understand the where between the two entities that legal language has to live to be upheld over time for those commitments to truly be held through administrations and time is of utmost importance within this.

If I could reply really quick, the mechanism wouldn't be through, in my understanding of how we would approach this, the mechanism would not be through ordinances or other actions of the two councils.

But instead, as part of the deed, a covenant would be placed upon that with the city having the ability to enforce that covenant.

So we would be bound by the very deed to this property And any changes to that covenant would require us to go back to the city council and have specific affirmative city council action to adjust any such covenant into the future.

So that's, I think that's about as strong as we can place on that, Lisa.

And I think that's, that'll be a separate recorded document that would be executed if this transfer went forward.

And then all sorts of people are jumping up who are probably attorneys.

And I'm just an old army guy.

So I'll let them answer that question better.

Oh, boy, don't libel Lish Wixon like that, Tony.

Not an attorney.

This is not legal advice.

But typically, you would see that language attached to the ordinance that you pass.

indicating that the executive has the authority to agree to that covenant language.

Great, thank you for that clarification, Lish.

Okay, I really appreciate having the opportunity to hear from Rebecca and Lisa as part of this presentation.

We need to keep in mind that even though this is a property owned by the city, it's a property that is used by this entire neighborhood and community.

And having both of you be here to speak to the implications of this is important as we consider this request from the county.

And we will continue to keep you involved in our process and talk to not only you, but the folks who called in the comment who have concerns as well, to make sure that this is a fair, open, and transparent discussion.

And Rebecca, did you have a closing remark before we move to the next?

Yeah, I just it just occurred to me, you know, I think it's really important to recognize the precedent of this conversation and ensure that you all are really taking that to heart and ensuring that this is a very big and valuable historic piece of property.

And so when thinking of a transfer like this, remember and consider that for future, there may be future situations where this could happen again.

And so just wanting to make sure that all your T's are crossed and I's are dotted in the process itself and that we're not speeding through it just to ensure the process moves quickly.

The other piece I would say is just The park does need love now while this process is going on, and so I would encourage you all to work with the agency to see if there's a way we can get the park open and activated before any land transfers happen.

Otherwise, it stays with the fence and the community is still without a park.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, well, we will close out agenda item one.

Mr. Clerk, would you please read agenda item two into the record?

Item two, Seattle Center 2021 RSJI presentation.

Excellent.

And we are joined now by Director Robert Nellums of the Department of the Seattle Center, along with some other presenters.

And Robert, I will let you introduce the rest of your team there.

proceed with the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Robert Dellums, and I'm honored to be here, glad to be here.

I'm joined by Chelsea Mose, who's our Director of Inventive Production at Seattle Center and is our Executive Sponsor, and Jackie Kern, who is a Strategic Advisor for us and is a Change Team Co-Lead.

So they will do the bulk of this work.

because they are the team working on it, and we like to make sure that the people who actually do the work actually present it and make sure that you hear from them directly.

You know, what we're going to be doing is taking you through and sharing some of our Seattle Center RSJ accomplishments, things like shelters and hydrating facilities, online festival events.

And also we're going to share with you some of our challenges during COVID.

You know when things start to close down and start to get tightened up and everything at Seattle Center our you know, purpose is to bring people together.

And when we can't do that, we can't do the things that make Seattle Center special and a great place to be.

The other piece that's been a challenge for us is that as we've been closed down and going through a lot of changes in turmoil, some of our staff have moved on to bigger and better things.

for them and we applaud them and thank them for that.

But we lost a few members of our change team as this process has gone on.

So we're going to talk to you today about what we've done, how we've partnered with different entities to make that work.

And we're also going to share with you some of the challenges that we have.

And so right now, I'd like to turn it over to Chelsea, who's going to kick us off.

Thank you, Robert, and thank you for having us.

I don't know.

I think there's someone that's operating our deck.

Yes, I'll be happy to share the presentation when you're ready.

Oh, great.

Go right ahead.

And you can go to this next page and you will be caught up.

Awesome.

Thank you.

So just want to briefly talk about some of the highlights.

And throughout this pandemic, I have to say that the team at Seattle Center really rose to the occasion.

One of the biggest things that Robert mentioned earlier is that Seattle Center responded and delivered a solution to continue with bringing festivals and connecting with the community.

A virtual studio was created, which included having to coordinate rehearsals in the middle of the pandemic community coordination, technical education and problem solving to connect festivals to a local.

and a national, and in many cases, an international audience, which we were so happy to have.

The other thing is that Seattle Center was happy to partner with the Seattle Arts and Culture for Anti-Racism, which is a consortium of resident organizations on the Seattle Center campus.

The other thing is that we received $100,000 in personal PPE, which we quickly pivoted from distributing and communicating about programs and events, and began to distribute to staff, to resident orgs, and to patrons that were on the campus.

Next slide.

Some of our other highlights and outcomes includes, which Robert also mentioned, was our ability to transform our venues, like the Exhibition Hall and the Fisher Pavilion, into shelters.

We also housed hygiene trailers for 16 months on our campus.

So for eight hours a day, 365 days for 16 months, we provided close to 19,000 showers for an underserved community.

We received high accolades from SPU, who shared that this was one of their most successful locations that they had throughout the pandemic.

The other thing is we were able to collaborate and partner to host the RSGI Summit.

This year we had several people on the planning committee, which allowed us to be a part of curating speakers for the different panels, developing content, and orchestrating and managing the programming flow.

We also had to enlist our internal IT team, which ultimately allowed us to host the event on our Seattle Center site.

So we are incredibly proud of that.

Next slide.

And I'll turn it over to Jackie.

Thank you, Chelsea.

Seattle Center's race and social justice is a prominent commitment throughout Seattle Center's strategic business plan.

And some key areas include campus programming and events, securing partnerships with new BIPOC campus tenants and collaborators, and supporting campus resident organizations to advance their equity and inclusion commitments.

Next.

As Robert mentioned, 2021 was a challenging year for all of us, and we had some challenges and lessons learned.

I'm going to make three points.

One, as Robert said, the COVID shutdown not only limited the in-person activities on campus, But it also curtailed our team's ability in some areas, including the ability to complete racial equity toolkits.

And it also backburnered our culture change program that is focused on dismantling the white supremacy culture in our workplace.

Second, one lesson learned is that when the COVID telework stipend went into effect, that this caused some feelings of inequity for some frontline workers.

And that's something that we aired and talked about.

And finally, our RSJ team had an unusually high transition with some new members coming on and many leaving, many really talented, long-term committed members leaving for primarily career advancement.

So we are now focused on rebuilding our team and setting a new RSJ direction.

Next slide, please.

Thank you, Jackie.

So again, another example of how the Seattle Center team was able to quickly pivot and transition.

We, as I mentioned earlier, we've partnered with to support the RSJ and host the RSJI Summit, as well as the MLK Unity Day celebrations.

One note I want to say about this slide, we also were able to, and we are continuing our virtual studio, which allowed us to host the Mayor Harrell for his announcement around the RSJI Summit and MLK Unity Day celebration.

Next slide.

Seattle Center partnered with SACA to produce the Holistic Public Safety Lunch and Learn series.

This workshop series included national speakers, leaders, and scholars providing cutting edge dialogue at a moment when SPD was facing defunding and announcing its reduced capacity to support public events.

And next slide.

And lastly, I'll mention that last year after six Asian American women were killed by a white terrorist in Atlanta, the Seattle center RSGI change team held a lunch and learn session to acknowledge and reflect on injuries out of the xenophobic anti-Asian sentiment that rose with COVID-19 pandemic.

And I will say that it was attended, was highly attended, and there was lots of great feedback at that Lunch and Learn.

We're happy we could produce it.

Next slide.

Our change team members participate in many efforts.

Some examples are the Citywide Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee, known as WPEC.

We're active with the Seattle Arts and Culture for Anti-Racism, SACA, and again that's the consortium of resident organizations on campus that come together to work on race and social justice together.

We're active with the Citywide RSJ team co-leads and as we've mentioned before, with supporting the production of the annual summit.

Next slide, please.

Our team provides resources to continue our department staff's learning, including we have a lending library, and we strive to provide online resources through the RSJ internet site, and also we have a special SharePoint for RSJ teams.

Next slide, please.

The next two slides are about our WMBIE purchasing goals.

Our WMBIE, I'm sorry, our WMBIE goals.

Our first one is purchasing goal, which was 25%, which we met.

Next slide.

However, the consulting contracting goal of 40% was not met, but we are committed to increasing our WMBIE utilization in the future as we go forward.

Next slide.

I'll turn it back to Robert.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Robert?

Oh, you're on mute.

I'm just talking away.

As you can hear, there's a lot that's gone on.

There's a lot that's transitioned.

What I'm most proud of for our department is the way we were able to pivot from the work that we had planned to do and got into a lot of new things.

We did shelters and hygiene trailers and we had staff addressing issues that came up in real time.

We had online sessions.

We had space for people to share and to commiserate in.

We had space for people to share and to get strength from.

And all of that enabled us to be able to say that we're in a decent place to move forward.

Even though we didn't do all the things that we had hoped to do and planned to do, COVID doesn't allow you to do some of the things with your organization is basically not allowed to have events and 35 to 40% of them are at home.

And so we're kick-starting our efforts again, and we're going to jump into doing some major goals and change team development.

And our primary thing that we're going to be doing is, you know, we do a lot of work to make sure that the change team is is whole and supported and so there's a lot of facilitated efforts that happen during the annual retreat.

But the biggest thing that we're doing because we got a lot of new change team members and we will have more new change team members is strengthening the relationship that the change team has with our executive team and making sure that those two entities are aligned and working well together.

And as we continue to work and develop BIPOC and white caucus spaces for folks to bring more people in and to have conversations that help us meet our customers, our patrons, our citizens where they are, we look forward to continuing to work and do those things as we work on our our change team development as we work on our organizational strategic plan and as we just be citizens of this fair city.

I look forward to an opportunity to grow and to develop our change team with its new members and have some new initiatives and energy.

But I am exceedingly proud of the way that our change team and our organization was able to pivot and address issues as they came up throughout the year.

And that's what we do.

And I believe that we did a good job of that.

And I look forward to us being able to meet our goals as we go forward, but also be able to pivot when things happen and where it's kind of thrown into the mix.

So that is our presentation.

And with that, I'd like to open it up and ask if there are any questions of us.

Director, thank you so much for that presentation and everyone here on the panel and team and really appreciated the highlighting too of the adaptability of the Seattle Center campus throughout the COVID crisis and just the ability to really step up and really be a source of providing space for public health interventions, for homelessness sheltering, for all of the critical services that we were able to support for non-profit and arts organizations, particularly those run by and staffed extensively by BIPOC folks, has been just a really great service to the city.

And as the presentation indicates, having a strong and dynamic team able to implement has just been such a great asset for us throughout some of the hardest years the city's ever known.

So I'm really looking forward to hear some questions from other council members, starting with Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Chair Lewis.

Well, I want to thank all of you for all the things that you do.

Seattle Center is quite a jewel for us in the city, and I think in part because of the nature of your work trying to acknowledge and celebrate all the different cultures of the city, you're, you know, working with artists and cultural organizations sort of uniquely situated to understand how important this work is.

And so, you know, part of the work of RSJI, of the folks at OCR, is to support you in understanding this, in training, and really implementing solutions when you find that there are things that might need some adjusting within either your own culture or just some of the practices that you have.

And so I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about how you manage when you've identified an issue.

For example, you were talking about the stay-at-home I forget what we called it, but the additional support and the kind of disparity that that had for frontline workers.

So I wonder if you can talk a little bit about how you respond and mitigate or change when you've identified something that is having a disparate impact on members of your team.

Well, thank you for that question, Council Member Morales.

When we looked at dealing with some of the things that were happening.

And I'm spacing out right now.

One of the things that we do is we have a lot of people in our staff and our change team.

They start to ask questions of each other and they identify something that's coming up.

Our exec staff will embrace it.

Our leadership team will embrace it.

Then they will start to figure out, okay, how do we do things?

So one of the things that we did was that we said, and during COVID, for instance, we need to have a couple of support teams.

We need a support team for our frontline staff.

that if they have questions, they have things that come up, if they have things that they want to address, that we have a support group that can address that with them.

They can go online, they can do this, and they can do that right away.

And we also created a support group for our supervisors, because supervisors are put in different circumstances, situations, et cetera, and they need to be able to support their workers.

sometimes if you're supporting their worker, no one's supporting you.

And we understand that.

And so we had to put together a couple of things that we had two different teams that were working in two different areas of our organization to make sure that people were being heard and their issues were being addressed.

On top of that, we had both of those teams here at the center because the majority of our staff are still going to be coming to work.

because to keep this campus and all of these things working.

And so we had a subset of those two things working on site to make sure that that happened.

And then we bring all of those things together.

Now you start to see what is happening in the supervisory realm.

Well, we had a lot more things to talk about in the supervisory realm than we did in our frontline staff realm.

In fact, frontline staff said, You guys are telling us most of the things that are going on.

You're keeping us informed.

You're keeping things going.

And we're doing OK, for the most part.

Our supervisors were saying, we got a lot of issues because we got staff that's at home.

We got staff that's here.

We're trying to figure out how all this stuff works.

And it becomes part of our, in our culture, when somebody has an issue, We wanna address it and we wanna address it in the way that works for the most of us.

And we wanna do that in a way that honors and respects them.

And so that we're not pointing fingers, we're not doing anything, we're trying to bring people along.

And I can't say enough about the way this organization and Jackie and Chelsea and the staff work to make sure that people know that we not only have their back, but we care about them, and we want them to be successful, we want them to be whole, and we want them to feel like what they're doing is important, not just for them, but for our entire community.

Thank you so much.

Oh, Tammy, do you have a follow-up there, Council Member Ross?

Okay.

Any other questions from committee members?

Well, great.

It was a thorough presentation.

Council Member Herbold?

Oh, you're on the phone, so you, yeah, okay, if anyone else is on the phone, speak up.

I'm so sorry, I'm off camera.

Yeah, go ahead, Kelsey.

Sorry.

I was interested on slide four, the two points that I wanted to just learn a little bit more about.

You talked about a new, campus tenants and collaborators.

Just would be really interested to know how that partnership came about.

And then the other item there is about supporting campus resident organizations to advance equity and inclusion.

I'm just wondering what form does that take?

Thanks.

Well, hopefully one of you, I asked Chelsea or Jackie asked the first question.

The second question with the resident organizations is we have kind of a multitude of ways that we connect.

We have a resident directors meeting that I host each month, and we bring all the resident directors together.

We talk through issues, we share concerns, and we present from Seattle Center side what we know that's going on, and then each resident director will present from their point of view what they're doing and what their concerns are so we can get all of that into the same room and we can all hear that.

We have found that the more that we are able to communicate openly, honestly, and directly, the better we can work together and move things along.

The second piece of that as part of our monthly Resident Directors Meeting, the group that we mentioned, the Seattle Center, the SACA, they come, they have a standing part in that meeting to raise race and social justice issues, issues on policing, whatever, and they have a forum That allows them to have space in that meeting with us on a monthly basis and then.

as they develop programs and or things to work on or to work with, they will have activities, et cetera.

They have a separate invitation list that brings a lot of the resident organizations and Seattle Center folks together to talk.

So it's not just the resident directors, but it's actual staff talking to actual staff.

So she mentioned the first question.

Jackie or Chelsea, could you take that one?

I think you addressed the partnerships with resident organizations.

The partnerships with new BIPOC campus tenants and collaborators is a prominent goal in our strategic plan.

And we're midway through the 2021 to 2023 period of our strategic plan.

And as we've all been returning to the workplace and Seattle Center has been opening up and we've been reactivating programming, we're having more and more opportunities to work on this goal.

So we got a bit of a slow start on that as a result of COVID delays.

Chelsea, anything you'd like to add to that?

Oh, I think you both of you said it all.

But, you know, as we're going into the new year where we realize that our our resident organizations went through this pandemic with us, and of course, that they are working and struggling to to get back to 100 percent.

So one of our primary goals is to incorporate everything that we do, figure out a way to involve them.

And so that as we're growing and as we're building and coming back, we're recognizing that we're not moving at it alone, but we're trying to support each other.

And if I could add, I think Chelsea's being a little She's very engaged and passionate about bringing BIPOC people and different resources to the campus so that our whole community can take full advantage of the grounds and the events and the spaces at Seattle Center.

Well, thank you so much for this presentation, everybody.

It's always good to get these departmental RSGI updates, and I really appreciate everyone taking their time and answering committee members' questions.

Given the late hour and that we have a couple more agenda items, I do want to move on.

But thank you so much, especially for being patient through the previous agenda item that went longer than we anticipated it would.

We really value you guys coming here, so thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you for having us.

Okay, moving on to our final agenda items.

Mr. Clerk, will you please read the last agenda items into the record?

agenda items 3 and 4, appointments 02168 and 02169, the reappointments of Gloria Connors and Will Ledlum to the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you so much.

We are joined now by Jeff Blosser.

And Jeff, I'll just hand it right over to you.

Mr. Chair, Jeff is here for the next agenda item, which is the two appointments.

He went off camera, so I just do we have a department representative for these agenda items?

It was Director Nelum's.

I believe he may have just left.

How about this?

Why don't we take these out of order?

Since Jeff is here and on, why don't we go ahead and consider the presentation for the appointments to the, for the appointments to the convention center.

And then when Director Nellams is back, take up the appointments to the Seattle Center.

Agenda items five and six appointments 02166 and 02167. The appointments of Katie Garrow and Tian Taylor-Huang to the Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District Board for briefing discussion and possible vote.

And Mr. Clerk, while we go through these items, could you work on getting Director Nelms to come back for those other agenda items?

Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

So we will now consider those appointments for Katie Garrow and Taylor Hwang.

And we are joined by Jeff Blosser from the Washington State Convention Center.

So Jeff, I will let you take it away.

Thank you, Chair Lewis.

Appreciate it.

And committee members.

My name is Jeff Blosser.

I'm President and CEO of Washington State Convention Center.

We are here to recommend Katie Garrow as hopefully one of our board members.

Katie brings a wealth of knowledge related to labor issues, and as you all probably know, we have nine unions here that are in our operation.

She would be our board labor representative, which is one of our positions, to help the board and the staff in this area, as well as her experience with Workforce Development Council.

So we're excited about that.

And Katie would be a great addition to our board.

And the WSCC PFB board would recommend the approval of Katie Garrow's appointment to the board of directors.

And I don't know if Katie got on.

She was trying to.

But we would recommend that approval and answer any questions if there are any.

I don't see her on yet, so.

Very good.

Thank you.

And sorry, is Taylor a reappointment?

No, these are both new appointments.

Oh, both new appointments.

Okay, you're introducing one at a time.

Okay, excellent.

I do not see...

I do see Katie on here.

I do see Taylor.

So why don't we go ahead, oh, sorry, Council Member Muscata, are you aware of Katie's whereabouts?

Yeah, unfortunately, she did message to say she might miss it, but I would be happy to speak, of course, and echo Mr. Blosser's incredible comments and the agenda packet that you put together, Mr. Scherr, that highlights her expertise.

But she's not able to be with us any longer, and I just wanted to underscore my support for her as an appointee as well.

Thank you.

Yes.

Similarly, Katie Grose, excellent reputation and leadership in the community is well known to me as well.

And I think to several committee members.

So her reputation certainly precedes her.

And I would be honored to support her nomination in this hearing.

Given that, Mr. Blaser, why don't we go ahead and proceed to introducing the other nominee in front of us today.

Great, thank you.

Taylor Wong is our recommendation as well.

Taylor's public affairs and business ownership knowledge really works well with our need to try to operate the Convention Center like a business as much as we can.

Her experience with the Small Business Advisory Council, Table 100, Mary's Place, will really help the Convention Center connect with small business and shape our ability to work with the community going forward.

So we are, Taylor would be a very welcome addition to the WSCC board.

And the board again would request a recommendation of approval for Taylor Wong to be appointed to the WSCC board of directors.

And Taylor is here, so I believe she's on.

I do see her on here.

Taylor, go ahead, take it away.

Thank you.

Nice to see you too.

Well, thank you, Jeff, and thank you, council members, for considering my appointment to the Washington State Convention Center Board in my personal capacity.

As a longtime advocate of the hospitality and small business community, I've appreciated the work that the convention has done to bring economic vitality to the city.

And the convention has been the Northwest premier meeting and events facility where it has welcomed thousands of visitors from around the globe.

to our city each year, and the contribution that it has made to the economic benefits and growth of small businesses and the hospitality sector.

As such, the convention's move towards taking actions towards creating diversity, equity, and inclusion in its work.

And so my interest in joining the board is to ensure that the convention equitably distribute economic growth and benefits across the region and positively impact the lives of those in our region.

So I look forward to serving on the board and I thank you council members for your consideration.

Taylor, thank you so much.

It's really good to see you and appreciate your willingness to serve in this new capacity.

We really are looking forward to what you'll be able to do in this position and to help us out to really have the most impactful convention center we can.

Thank you.

So are there any questions, I guess, just for Taylor, because I don't see that Katie has joined us, from committee members?

Okay, seeing none, council members, I move the committee recommends confirmation of appointments 02166 and 02167. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of the appointments.

Are there any comments on the appointments?

Hearing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the appointments be confirmed?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The motion carries and the committee recommendations that the appointments be confirmed will be sent to the February 22nd city council meeting.

Sorry.

This is an outdated committee outline.

The next full council meeting will consider these appointments, not the February 22nd one.

We're not going to go back in time.

You do not need to attend the full council meeting, though you are certainly more than welcome to, for the final vote on your appointment.

And I look forward to voting in favor of these nominees again at that time and appreciate, Jeff, the excellent quality of nominees that have been sent for this really important position.

So thank you so much.

Okay, I do notice that Director Nellens is out here.

So why don't we go ahead and go back to the appointments for the Seattle Center.

Council Member Lewis, I apologize.

I got a little ahead of myself and ran to another meeting then realized I had one more thing to do.

No worries, we were able to, we had some other business so we were able to diligently move to take care of that while eagerly awaiting your return.

So just to get us back up to speed and for members of the public, we are now going back in the agenda to consider appointments 02168 and 02169. reappointments of Gloria Connors and Will Ludlum to the Seattle Center Advisory Commission.

So Director Nellums I will turn it over to you to learn a little bit more about these reappointments and we will duly consider them.

Well thank you.

These are two reappointments and I was going a little crazy because these are two very large members of our commission.

Gloria Connors is someone who works in the event business.

She is known throughout and has worked for literally everyone from Bumpershoot on to the Climate Pledge Arena to whomever and whatever.

She is a great resource for us because she's providing us the viewpoint of what the people that we're our clients that are coming here are people that we're working with to produce something.

She's providing that aspect for us as we go through the work that we do.

She is very opinionated.

She lets us know what's going on.

She makes sure that we're aware when we're not doing things in the right way.

But she's also deeply, deeply, deeply in love with Seattle Center.

And she is someone who cares about this place.

And every time that her term comes up, she's been with us since 2013. She is someone who she will always ask me, I would love to do this, but I only want to do this if you think that I can be helpful and that I can move things forward.

And she provides a great deal of of feedback for how the customers that are coming here perceive and are treated at Seattle Center.

And it gives us a great deal of insight into how we can change, how we can improve, how we can make this an even better experience for them and ergo for their patrons who are our customers.

And so I just want to, I couldn't say enough about how Gloria would help us.

And Will has 30 years of experience in the communication business.

He's currently the president of Weber Janwick West, and they have offices in LA, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Seattle.

Will is someone who is very, very important to us because he's offering us a perspective of how the world outside of of our little bubble sees us, how the world could perceive us, how we can communicate better with that world, how we can bring them into Seattle Center and make them feel that they are part of the community that we're trying to engage in, and they are part of the community that is being created here at Seattle Center.

So Will is is is a good strategic thinker.

He's a really good person that and Gloria and will they whenever we have subcommittees or anything they jump right in.

They help and they make sure that we are going to get the best that they have to offer.

And the last thing I'll say about these two and it's not really these two.

It's more about the Commission.

I use the commission pretty.

Regularly, I take virtually every one of our of our tough decisions or our business decisions that may have some risk or whatever.

I put it in front of them and say this is what we're thinking.

This is how we're approaching this.

What do you think about this and Gloria and will will almost always give me some aspect or some thought that we hadn't considered as we go through our process.

And I just, I couldn't be happier that they both want to continue to be Seattle Center Advisory Commission members.

Director Nelms, thank you so much for that overview of these reappointments.

I am I don't think we're being joined by either of them today, but that's fine for reappointments.

We certainly don't need the commissioners to be present.

And given your representations of their record and leadership, I think that's enough for us to go on for a recommendation.

So thank you so much.

I move to approve the appointments of Gloria Connors and Will Ludlum.

Is there a second?

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Aye.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.

These appointments will be considered by the full council at the next full council meeting.

Just for the record, similar to the committee, the commissioners will not need to be present at the full council, though their presence is certainly welcome.

That concludes our items of business committee members.

Hearing no further business before, whoa, let me ask, sorry, is there any further business for the committee?

Hearing no further business, the committee is hereby adjourned.

you