City Council 1/10/23

We are recording.

Thank you, IT.

Thank you, Madam Clerks.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Today is Tuesday, January 10th.

Welcome to the meeting of the Seattle City Council.

Will the meeting please come to order?

My name is Deborah Juarez.

Please call the roll.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council President Juarez.

Here.

Seven present.

Okay, well, I'm sure our other colleagues will join us and just let us know when they join it.

So, with that, I'm going to presentations.

There are no presentations today moving on to public comment.

My understanding Madam clerk is that we have 14 people in chambers and 14 people on the line.

Correct?

We now have 19 people in chambers and 17 people online.

So, if we got 19 in chambers.

And how many remote?

17. Okay, so we will give each speaker one minute, and we will start with the in-person folks first.

And before we begin, Madam Clerk, I know I'm going to hand it over to you to do our recording.

I'm going to ask that people please be respectful, that we want to hear what you have to say today.

that you allow people to have their opinion and their voice, that we do not have any disruptions.

If anyone is disruptive, they will be removed.

And so with that, Madam Clerk, can you start the recording?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and use the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Madam Clerk, before we begin, let me just, I understand that Council Member Lewis has joined us.

He's out on the dais.

Is that correct?

He has.

Great.

Yes, Madam President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

And again, particularly for the folks that will actually, for people who are in chambers and people who have called in, please listen for that chime when you have 10 seconds.

I don't like to cut people off, but the burden is on you to kind of listen for that chime, so knowing that you have 10 seconds.

Councilor Mosqueda.

Thank you, Madam President.

I didn't get a chance to announce myself at roll call either, so I just want to let you know I'm here.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So we got Councilor Lewis and we got Councilor Mosqueda here.

Great.

Okay.

With that, Madam Clerk, can we start with the first name?

Our first name is going to be Alex Zimmerman.

Sieg Heil, dem Nazi, Gestapo, democracy, fascist, a mob, and psychopath.

My name Alex Zimmerman.

I want speak about group of Iranian here who defend their right for constitution.

This is exactly why you cut by one minute.

You know what this mean?

Because you, by definition, I talk her thousand time, you are real Nazi.

You cut people right for speak.

Two minute is not too much.

Why you so busy?

Who busy here, you know, for $150,000?

And you always cut us from two minute to one minute.

You never show us faces.

You make right now us look like a slave.

$750,000 Seattle slave.

That's exactly why you don't show us faces.

So nobody recognizes good for your reelection in 23. So this is exactly what is I speak again.

And I ask this all the Iranian who support constitution, you know, what does mean in the Iranian constitution?

Freedom of speech.

Stand up, America.

Cleanse this dirty chap.

Thank you, our next speaker is going to be Sahar Amini.

Yes, you'll be allowed the two minutes, thank you.

I just want to add that Ms. Amini, we will accommodate so you can have two minutes to speak.

So go ahead.

Thank you so much.

Council President Juarez and Council Member Strauss, thank you.

Thank you for hearing your constituents and sponsoring the resolution in support of the Iranian people both abroad and here in Seattle.

Change does not happen.

Justice does not happen if we only do the things that are comfortable and convenient.

Although this may seem like an international matter, it is not.

Unfortunately, Iranians aren't only fighting inside Iran, because those of us here are fighting against litigious organizations with political power and influence on both domestic and international U.S. policy.

Their efforts are often spreading misinformation and disinformation to the public, and to the leaders that may not completely understand the nuances of our culture and history.

And they normalize inhumane actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

We will no longer allow them.

Through educating our community and leaders, we hope to show who the real representatives of the Iranians are here in America.

Winning a war is more important than winning a battle in life.

And yes, we must choose our battles.

Regardless of the next steps on this resolution, I believe we have reached our goal of getting the attention of necessary stakeholders by just having that first draft on the agenda.

A petition created in support of this resolution, the original resolution, has received over 36,335 signatures in five short days, which only goes to show that by supporting this resolution, you will be on the right side.

on the people side, standing up and standing by your constituents right here in Seattle.

Thank you for this council for considering this resolution, and thank you for standing up for us.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, our next speaker is Nagin Kamkar.

Thank you, Council President and members of Seattle City Council.

My name is Nagin.

I'm Iranian-American and a Seattle resident.

I support final passage of the original text of Resolution 32078 in support of the Iran revolution and women of Iran leading this fight for regime change.

The purpose of this legislation was to take a public stance with the people of Iran and to send a message to national leaders that the U.S. must step in.

The U.S. historically plays a strong role in the geopolitical landscape of Middle East politics, but for some reason right now remains dangerously silent.

However, here in Seattle, Iranians are not silent.

People have taken to the streets since September.

Thousands showing up across Puget Sound region in support of regime change and justice.

I'm here with the right to free speech and expression, but my own relatives do not in Iran.

That's why I'm here today.

Thank you for consideration, and I urge final passage.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, our next speaker is Naseem Ghazanfari.

Naseem Ghazanfari.

Jodi, is it possible to turn the volume up on the microphones?

My volume?

Of the public comment.

Well, when there's clapping, you can't hear me.

My name is Nassim Ghazanfari, and I am here to say NYAC is not my voice.

I am here to urge the council members to pass 32078 without removing NYAC's investigation part.

NYAC has tried to affect the votes of the council members by sending intimidating email to members last week.

They have called us far-right extremists.

We are here to say, unlike what NYAC said in their email, we are not extremists.

I'm a physician.

We are right here.

We are right here to say we are real human beings and active members of your society.

We are your neighbor, your doctor, your lawyer, your teacher, your student, your coworker, and NIAC is not our voice.

I want to urge the council members not to be scared of NIAC because we are not.

And we are not public officials.

They should not be able to intimidate you.

They have been intimidating us for years.

They are attacking us on social media.

Be the voice of Iran.

Don't be scared.

Pass the resolution.

Our next speaker is Arazu Bagan.

Hello, my name is Arezoo Bagan.

I'm here.

Last Tuesday, I was here, and then I just said all my word I wanted it.

I had my task written.

I practiced it.

But today, I'm not going to take the whole full minute, one minute.

I'm just going to say, please pass the original resolution to show that you are really actually want to stand up for Iranian, for the human rights, for women, life, and freedom.

NIAID are not representing us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

MS. MCDOWELL Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sarvana Shikh.

Hi, my name is Sarvana Sheik, and I wanted to write something and be a little bit more practiced, but I just wanna say that as a Seattle Iranian-American, I am here today because I would like to get this resolution passed.

And when I came last week, I was very excited that our community and just the Seattle people came and brought this resolution.

It really meant a lot to me.

But I'm standing here because I'm very upset that Nayak came and wrote an email telling us that we can, wanting to silence our voices.

And I do not wanna be silenced.

And Nayak is not my voice.

And I feel that it's in my right to speak whatever I would like to speak and believe what I would like to believe.

And I'm always standing in for justice.

And I believe that passing this resolution will do just that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tara Hediati.

NYARC is not my voice.

NYARC portrays itself as a non-profit organization that prides itself in its transparency.

They are defined as a 501c3 and 501c4.

However, their power to threaten, harass Iranian Americans is nothing new and is expected.

The truth is, how come we are letting a non-profit organization overstep its authority in silencing Iranian constituents who are simply practicing their freedom of speech in solidarity with their Iranian brothers and sisters, and who have been fighting and endlessly advocating for their loved ones?

I urge you to support original resolution 923078. Thank you, Council President and members of the Seattle Council.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, our next speaker is Kea Maradi.

Kea.

Kea, thank you.

Kea Maradi.

Sorry, I got surgery, so I'm a little slow to move.

And when should I start?

Just now.

Okay.

Hi everybody.

How's it going?

I'm here for the same reason that all of you are here, that I give you, every single one of you credit.

Sarah, Andrew, Lisa, Daniel, and everyone else that's streaming this.

I think we're all, one of the reasons we're all here is because we believe that we should be transparent with the people around us, and we should have accountability.

I think that's part of the reason why all of you are in politics, regardless of your various points of views.

And so we are here to push that with the original Iran resolution because we want there to be transparency.

If you never did anything wrong, then you wouldn't have anything to hide.

You wouldn't be wanting to take out sections of resolutions.

Uh, there's a genocide going on in Iran right now.

And this issue is connected to that 20,000 protesters arrested the women and children, women and children, uh, getting sexually assaulted with impunity and a whole lot of other things.

Zanza and the girls are the woman life freedom.

Our next speaker, our next speaker is Michael Hershenson.

Michael Hershenson.

Thank you.

I'm Michael Hershenson.

I'm with the Queen Anne Historical Society.

And I'm speaking here on behalf of the Queen Anne Historical Society.

I urge you to vote in favor of Council Bill 120312, Amendment B. The soul of a city lies in the preservation of those landmarks that tell its history.

Pursued conscientiously It can share space with the urban density that addresses housing needs and climate change.

Removing controls and incentives from the parking lot of the Seattle First National Bank reflects such creative solutions while respecting the time-tested landmarks, ordinance, and process.

We thank the City Council for considering this amendment and strongly encourage you to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Eugenia Wu.

Eugenia Wu.

Good afternoon, I'm Eugenia Wu, and I'm from Historic Seattle.

I'm joined by my colleagues Taylor Roden, Evan Bew, and Jeff Murdock.

Our message today is simple.

Please adopt Amendment B for Council Bill 12312, introduced by Council Member Herbold yesterday.

We'd like to thank Council Member Herbold for her creativity in coming up with a solution that supports both preservation and housing for the Seattle First National Bank building in Uptown.

I watched the Council briefing yesterday and was pleased to hear that both Councilmembers Morales and Lewis support Amendment B, which Councilmember Morales referred to as a friendly substitute.

We hope their support has not changed and that the entire Council joins them in voting for this amendment today.

I know a lot can change in 24 hours.

Central Staff's analysis of the parking lot development potential basically boils down to this.

We get more housing with the landmark I'm in support of 32078.

NYAC claims that we have spread disinformation.

They have called us a bunch of right-wing extremists.

I'm going to ask my fellow Seattleites that are here supporting this resolution, that have voted Democrat, please raise your hand.

We are not a bunch of right-wing extremists.

We are just unhappy and disappointed at the performance of this organization spreading misinformation, and the proof of that is in the letter they sent you, and I just stated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tom Rasmussen.

Good afternoon.

I'm Tom Rasmussen here speaking in support of amendment B to council bill 120312. The development capacity for housing at this site will be significantly increased if the council bill is passed with the amendments.

Reuse of the building supports both housing and climate action goals.

While a few similar buildings still exist, this is the only one that is landmark.

The building meets an extraordinary four of six criteria to qualify as a landmark.

As I was preparing my remarks to you, I thought of today of Johnny Mitchell's song, Big Yellow Taxi.

Do you know it?

It has a refrain that says, don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

Because of your questions and concerns to revise controls and incentives as amended will be more likely to help the uptown neighborhood and the city achieve its goals for more.

More density and even schools are some cultural facilities.

I certainly sincerely hope that you approve the amendments I know that would make the neighborhood happy and possibly even Joni Mitchell.

Thank you our next speaker is Deb Parker Deb.

Good afternoon.

My name is Deb Barker.

I'm a former member of the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board, and I urge the City Council to approve Amendment B to Council Bill 120312. That removes the parking lot from the Historic Preservation Controls and Incentives Program while maintaining the integrity of the landmark Seattle First National Bank building with controls and incentives.

This allows housing or other development that the owner should choose.

on the parking lot with a supporting landmark to serve the community.

You know, it's been done before, and it can certainly be done again.

Yesterday, Council, you received a very thoughtful letter from the sitting members of the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board.

Did you know that this board actually is able to remove elements such as the parking lot from the landmark designation?

As the applicant's council is very aware, I urge you to pass Amendment B, and if not, send this back to the Landmarks Board where it belongs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Benitez.

Patrick.

Hi, my name is Patrick Benitez, and I'm a renter in Capitol Hill.

I'm here commenting on agenda item number two, the ordinance related to the preservation controls on the Walgreens at Sixth and Denny.

For this Walgreens, I respectfully urge this council to enact a full no controls ordinance and remove preservation controls from the entire site, including the former bank structure.

Furthermore, and respectfully, it is false that this council would allow for more new housing by selectively decontrolling the Walgreens parking lot First of all, the parking lot is too small to support cost-effective construction.

Second, it is likely also too small for the kinds of buildings that would qualify for the regulatory relief that some have asserted.

That qualification, moreover, would pose as yet unquantified costs on what is much-needed new development.

In closing, I hope that this council can act to facilitate new development here as if you believed that housing is a human right.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carla Motashemi.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Carla Motashemi, and I'm here once again to support the Resolution 32078. I'd like to specifically address what feels like a bullying tactic, as I've noted that NIAC bragged on social media that they stopped the resolution, saying that the resolution urges the FBI to target them on allegations that are wholly false.

I've heard of a defamation lawsuit where they were forced to pay the blogger because the judges say a large proportion of the documents were modified shortly before production and or their computers were hidden.

So these false claims, let me just tell you something.

I was a Girl Scout leader for 12 years.

Every two years, fingerprinted, investigated.

I never stood up and said, I don't want to be investigated.

If somebody were to say that I was a part of a regime that murdered these children, I would immediately say, no, investigate me, please.

I have nothing to hide.

So I'd like to ask you, I would beg them, wouldn't you stand up for that?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kat Vivarelli.

Hello, my name is Kat Viverelli.

I'm an Iranian-American born and raised in Seattle, and I'm here in support of Resolution 32078 in its original form.

Iranians are an overlooked minority in the U.S. that has not been given a voice.

This is why it is so easy for groups with money, influence, and support to step over us and speak for us.

Nayak is not our voice.

Some of us have stayed silent for years out of fear for our families, ourselves, and our communities.

This revolution is our first tangible hope of change, and we have risen together despite threats and fear used against us.

We need you to stand with us.

Each of us wake up every day to a new atrocity, from children's murders in the street, innocent citizens tortured and raped, public hangings.

These are real people.

These are our friends, our family.

There is no reform for sadists who would condemn these crimes.

The regime must fall, and it is time for Seattle to take a stand.

Pass Resolution 32078. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gulban Miranavaz.

Is Gulban Miranavaz?

G-U-L-B-O-N, Gulban?

Thank you.

My name is Goldwyn Miranda.

I am an Iranian American.

We may not be in Iran, but we all breathe and live this revolution.

NIAC is not my voice or the voice of any Iranian here or anywhere.

NIAC's silencing tactics are similar to the Islamic Republic's.

NIAC not only tried to intimidate council members before last Tuesday's meeting, but took it to their Twitter to call Seattle Iranian activists divisive.

A direct step we can take in the states against the regime is investigating the lobbyists that work for them.

Please pass Resolution 32078 as is, in support of the Iranian revolution, your consentuance, and call for the FBI investigation on NIAID.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hamid Jamshidian.

Hamid?

I just wanted to say to you guys, thank you for listening to us.

But it's shameful.

It's very shameful that with this history of this government of Iran, after 42 years killing, torturing people, and the last four months publicly hanging innocent kids, we have to come here and remind everybody that this is not a legitimate government.

This is a terrorist government that is terrorizing Iranian people.

And whoever was aiding them, like Nayak or other lobbyists around the world, are also aiding them.

We should stop them.

We should let Iranian people speak their voice.

Thank you.

MS.

MCDOWELL.

Thank you.

Council President.

Council President, that concludes our in-person sign-up sheet, and we now have approximately – we're down to 14 present remote speakers, and we may want to extend the time a little bit.

Okay, so we are at 14 remote?

Yes, we're ready to move to remote speakers, and it looks like there's 14 that are signed up and present.

Okay, good.

All right, let's do that.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

How long would you like to extend the public comment to?

Well, let's see.

If we have 14 and they're admitted each, let's go till 2.50.

Okay.

Just to be safe.

Our first remote speaker is Colleen McAleer.

Colleen, and please remember to press star six if you're calling in remotely.

Good afternoon, City Council.

This is Colleen McAleer on behalf of Laura Horst Community Club, and we ask today that Council approve Council Bill 120312 and adopt Council Member Herbold's Friendly Amendment B. Together, they will preserve the historic landmark building and its controls and incentives, which allows developmental rights for the owner.

And in addition to that, also allows the Walgreens owner the right to build more housing units on the adjacent parking lot.

This creative package is consistent with the Department of Neighborhoods and City Council's unique ability to balance several interests in the city's landmark process, and also to be consistent with the national standards for preservation implemented 56 years ago.

Seattle has missed some opportunities in the past, like to preserve Africa Town is gone, and the Wallingford Historical Guild 45th Theater is just hanging on by a thread, owned by billionaire Mark Cuban.

So it's great the council will step up today, and we ask that you please pass CB120312 with its controls and incentives, and adopt the amendment by Council Member Herbold.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mojan Shavadi.

Hi, I'm Marjan Javadi.

I'm a longtime Seattle resident and a proud Iranian-American.

I'm here today to respectfully request the Seattle Council to pass the original Iran Resolution 32078 in support of a free Iran and to stop the humanitarian disaster in Iran.

Thank you, Seattle City Council, for your attention to this matter, and I hope you support this resolution and take immediate action.

Women, life, freedom.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next present remote speaker is Austin Johnson.

Austin Johnson.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

This comment is related to the First National being coordinated.

I follow all of the emergency calls for traffic-related incidents in the city of Seattle.

I've noticed that many pedestrians and cyclists hit by cars are in areas of poor urban design, setting historic preservation controls on elements such as deeply setback buildings, poorly located drive aisles, or substandard sidewalks.

In the U.S. a council member are effectively enshrining a dangerous and hostile urban environment for citizens who most need high-quality physical environment.

This includes families with kids people who use mobility.

It's like walkers or chairs.

The elderly multi-generational household people who are blind or deaf people with lower income the list goes on and on.

It seems to me that the only thing this property honors in its current development state of the history of the car.

Right now we have a surplus of public spaces dedicated to the car.

We've all identified that Dakar has contributed massively to climate change and racial inequality in our city.

We can let this building go.

Nobody wants to preserve it except for the folks who are deeply embedded in the city's historic preservation status quo.

Please decline to set historic preservation controls on this property and allow its future highest and best use to be decided by the open market.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council President, I'm sorry, I missed one in-person, our last in-person speaker.

I'm going to call on him now.

Thomas Dagley, please.

I apologize.

That's all right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And to be honest, we have time.

We have plenty of time to discuss that.

It was stupid of me to think about that coming in and talking about a building that a board is overseeing.

They can make that determination later.

You can kick it back to them if you want, if you don't think you have the entire story.

But a resolution on people who are being murdered by their government, there's no time for that.

You have to do something now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker.

We'll now move on to Doug Trum.

Our next remote speaker, Doug, please.

Hi.

I'm Doug Trum, Executive Director with Urbanist, and I'm urging you to reject the amendments to the Walgreens drive-through bill.

It's just not – drive-throughs are not something we should be preserving, especially in the lock shed of rapid transit, and there's going to be many millions – billions of dollars worth of I don't know how this results in more housing for more you know, that's not going to have more people because it's going to mostly be singles.

The mix of units in the larger building would house couples and families.

On top of that, the MHA would be $3.5 million in the original proposal.

It'd be cut in half in the alternative.

Just go with the original, please.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alice Lockhart.

Is Alice Lockhart here?

I'm sorry, not here.

Remote speaker, Alice Lockhart.

We lost the caller.

Okay, we'll go back if she comes back on.

Then our next speaker is Jed Jahani.

Go ahead, Jed.

I'm Jed Jahani.

I am Jed Jahani.

I support Resolution 32078 in its original form.

I testified at the organization known as National Iranian American Council, in short, NAIC, lobbyist for the Islamic regime and mislead the U.S. government.

I knew the daughter of the regime's top member in Seattle who organized events on Microsoft and Amazon to help NAIC with their misrepresentation.

President Obama recently admitted his mistake when he hadn't sided with the people of Iran during the Green Movement.

His mistake was driven by NAIC and it cost the Iranian people thousands of innocent lives.

as well as the continued loss of human rights until today.

NIAC should be immediately investigated.

I also express that any act to legitimize the Islamic regime is betraying the people of Iran.

Any deal with the Islamic regime is supporting the lack of human rights for the people of Iran.

It hurts when we see the U.S. government as an institution to deal with them.

Thanks.

Free Iran.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jesse Simpson.

Jesse?

And please press star six.

Hi, I'm Jesse Simpson, Government Relations and Policy Manager for the Housing Development Consortium.

I'm speaking today about Council Bill 120312 concerning preservation of the Walgreens at 6th and Dane.

I urge you to follow the work the Neighborhoods Committee has done, remove landmarks controls from the building and reject Amendment B. Seattle faces a housing and climate crisis.

Fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to landmark a one-story drive-thru Walgreens in the center of Seattle.

The proposal to allow redevelopment of only the parking lot may theoretically allow some new housing to be built on the site.

However, in practice, such a small and constrained site will be extremely difficult to build on, with elevators, stairs, and hallways taking up much of the developable space.

Even if someone can find a way to fit a tower onto the parking lot, preserving half of the lot will reduce buildable square footage and mandatory housing affordability fees by about half, costing us more than $1.5 million in affordable housing funds.

From a housing and climate perspective, these benefits far outweigh any benefits of preserving this auto-centric relic of the 1950s.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gudars Egdutari.

You may have to press star six.

I'm looking for his tile up here.

Okay, we are going to skip that one.

Our next remote speaker is Ian McLeod.

Ian?

And again, you may need to press star six.

So our last two people need to press star six.

Right.

Right.

Let's see if they can get that done.

Okay.

While we're waiting, we can move on to Sanders.

Oh, wait, Ian McLeod.

I see you're available now.

I see you, Ian.

All right.

I'll take it away.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Ian McLeod, and I'm a proud second term member of the Landmarks Preservation Board.

I'm calling to reiterate my written support of Council approving a version of Bill 120312 that preserves the controls on landmark at 566. Anyway, sidestepping the established landmark process and removing controls, I feel jeopardizes the independence and authority granted to the board and the future of historic preservation in the city.

Late last night, I learned Amendment B of this bill was drafted to preserve those controls on the building, not the parking lot, and I want to add my support to this amendment as a compromise.

As a 10-year resident of affordable housing, I appreciate the Council's concern over this issue, but as Eugenia Wu said, it's both and and not an either-or proposition.

And I implore the Council to explore broadening incentives over weakening preservation protection.

Again, I ask the Council respect the integrity and the vote of the Landmarks Board and vote in favor of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sanders Latour.

Hi, my name is Sanders Latour and I live in District 7. I'm speaking about Council Bill 120312. The one-story building currently located next to a newly built 18-story apartment building and the busy transit corridors of Denny Way and 75 North.

This one-story building should have the least amount of protections applied to it so that the most amount of housing can be built upon the lot.

housing potentially hundreds of people is more important than this single story building.

I do not want to live in a city where the pit next to City Hall becomes a landmark just because it's old.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll try it one more time for Goudars, Igtatari.

Oh, nope, looks like we lost, possibly.

Can you press star six?

I don't.

I'm looking for his tile up here.

I see it up at the top of my list, but it's still red.

So we will move on to Chris Moore.

Our next speaker is Chris Moore.

Mr. Moore?

Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello?

Yes.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you, thank you for the opportunity to comment today on Council Bill 120312 relating to controls and incentives on the Seattle First National Bank building.

I'm Chris Moore.

I'm the executive director of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation.

We're a statewide advocacy group supporting preservation and cultural resources.

Failing to adopt controls and incentives or adopting an amendment that places no controls and incentives on the First National Bank building will result in demolition of this landmark structure.

The noted council opposition to controls and incentives is based on the perceived potential to develop housing at the site.

But unless some deal has been reached that the public is unaware of, there is no requirement for the current owner to build housing.

This is a risk the council should not take, especially as such a vote would go against decades of precedence in policy.

We support amendment B as offered by Councilmember Herbold, an amendment that would allow for increased development on the site itself while retaining and preserving the landmark building.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Peterson.

David.

Hi, this is David.

Hi, this is David Peterson, and I'm calling to support amendment B for agenda item 123.12.

several callers and I'm afraid city council members may misunderstand the really cool TDP, TDR program, Transfer Development Potential.

If you imagine a volume of space above the one-story building, that is the potential developmental area, volume rather, that can be used or sold to someone else and must be used within the neighborhood.

So it's not a one-story building.

By landmarking the property, you're allowing the owner to sell that volume to be developed next door or two blocks away or wherever the market will take it.

So this way we get landmark protections and housing or additional development.

So please support Amendment B. Thank you.

Thank you.

It looks like our connection with Alice Lockhart is back.

Alice, go ahead, please.

Press star six if needed.

Go ahead, Alice.

Star 6.

Okay.

We will move on to Ruth Danner.

And after Ruth, we'll try Alice one more time, and then we'll be complete.

Okay.

Go ahead, Ruth.

Ruth?

Hi.

Can you hear me now?

We sure can.

Thanks.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ruth Danner.

I am president of Save the Market Entrance, a community advocacy group.

I am calling to talk about BC 120312. Landmarks give Seattle its unique sense of place to help us find our way and then remember how we got here.

Preserving landmarks also provides a mechanism for incentivizing construction of housing that will be more unaffordable without those incentives.

Please approve controls and incentives for the Seattle First National Bank building on 6th and Denny and thank you for your commitment to our community.

Thank you.

And we will now try our last speaker, Alice Lockhart, who's remote, and please press star six if you're on the line.

Alice?

Okay, that concludes our public comment.

All right.

So we didn't get to a few people that didn't get a chance to speak to star six, but we should always remind people that we always take written public comment as well.

Okay, so we have reached the end of public comment of those that came into chambers today and those that have called in.

I want to thank you all very much for your comments and your passionate remarks about items on today's calendar.

So with that, moving on to our agenda, I'm going to go on to the adoption of the IRC, which is the introduction referral calendar.

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

Will be adopted.

Not hearing or seeing an objection, the IRC is indeed adopted.

Moving on to the adoption of the agenda.

Are there any amendments to the agenda?

Councillor Strauss, I see you.

Thank you, Council President.

While this resolution is not ready for Council to review at this time, and I will request an indefinite hold, there should be no question about this fact, that the City of Seattle supports Iranian women, girls, and people who are showing extraordinary courage by fighting for their fundamental freedoms.

I'll just say that one more time, that the City of Seattle supports Iranian women, girls, and people who are showing extraordinary courage by fighting for their fundamental freedoms.

in this world.

But with that said, Council President, the resolution is not ready for review by our body at this time, and therefore, Council President, I request to remove item one from today's agenda.

I move that resolution 32078 be postponed until the sponsors provide notice to the Council President that it is ready for placement on the City Council agenda.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Strauss has moved to postpone item number one, resolution 32078. Is there a second?

I will second it.

I can do that.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the postponement of Resolution 32078?

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Councilmember Nielsen?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Aye.

Council President Ores?

Aye.

All in favor?

None opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and Resolution 32078 is postponed.

Sponsors provide notice to the Council President that it is ready for placement on the Seattle City Council agenda.

Are there any other amendments to the agenda?

Hearing none and seeing none, the agenda is now adopted.

I'm going to move to the consent calendar now.

And so when we consider the consent calendar, these are the items today, the minutes of January 3rd, twenty twenty two twenty twenty three.

Sorry about that.

Didn't change the date on that one.

On the bills, we have payroll bill, council bill one two zero four nine zero.

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

Not hearing or seeing none.

I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

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

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

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

All right, in favor, none opposed.

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

And before we get going, Council Member Sawant, I see your hand is up.

Yes, my apologies, Council President Juarez.

I was not fully alive to the fact that the motion on the Iran resolution was for an indefinite hold.

I intended to vote no if it was going to be an indefinite hold.

So I would move to reconsider the adoption of the agenda because I intended to vote no on that amendment.

And- Okay, so are you making a motion to reconsider the vote?

your vote?

Yes.

Okay.

So it's been moved by Council Member Shawant to reconsider her vote.

Madam Clerk, do we have to have any more comments on that, and how do we move forward on that?

I don't believe we have to have any more comments on it.

I believe we take a vote on it, though, to see if we are going to reconsider it.

Okay.

So what we'll do then is then basically call the roll on reconsideration of the vote, correct?

Correct.

And if it's voted down, then it's not reconsidered.

Sorry.

President Juarez, can I just briefly explain why I wanted to claim that vote and then you can call the roll?

Yes.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

would agree to a hold on the Iran resolution for maybe another week or so for council members if they needed to work on the language.

But I fear that an indefinite hold means that this resolution will probably never come to a vote and not see the light of day.

And so that is why I wanted to vote no on holding it indefinitely.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the reconsideration of the vote?

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Council Member Strauss.

Sorry, is this the vote to reconsider?

This is a vote on the reconsideration, Council Member Sawant.

You may want to vote yes.

You may want to vote yes on that.

Sorry, that's what I was clarifying.

Yes, yes to reconsider.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Chair, point of clarification.

Yes.

I think people are confused.

We're voting to whether or not we reconsider.

So if you do not want to reconsider your vote, then you should vote no.

So that's what's going on.

So Council Member Sawant voted yes, saying, I would like all of us to reconsider our votes.

She voted yes.

If you do not want to reconsider your vote and stay with your original vote, then your vote should be no.

Madam Clerk, correct me if I'm wrong.

that's correct.

Go ahead, Sanchez.

Deputy Kirk Sanchez.

We've already surpassed that, so it is going to be reconsidered, and what we're reconsidering will be the original motion by Councilmember Strauss to hold it until the sponsors have brought forth a different version.

Okay.

We already started.

I think we have two more Councilmembers to call vote.

Right.

So I'm going to let us, I'm going to let us finish the count, the vote, and then I see Council Member Mosqueda has her hand up.

So finish the count, Madam Clerk, and then I will go to Council Member Mosqueda, then Council Member Peterson, and then we'll go from there.

Council Member Nelson.

Can I just clarify one thing, Council President Juarez, just in terms of what you were saying?

The only clarification I'll make is that council members can still vote yes to reconsider and still vote the same way on it as they did before, but the reconsideration will just allow me to change my vote, that's all.

Right.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

Councilmember Nielsen.

motion to postpone until the sponsors bring something back.

So do we do Grand Hog Day and Council Member Strauss reintroduces his motion to postpone?

No, now that we're back to the reconsideration, we are reconsidering exactly as it was voted out.

Okay, so now we're back to the original voting.

So let's call the roll.

Madam President.

Council Member Sawant.

I'm sorry, Council Member Mosqueda had something.

I'm sorry, Mosqueda, I didn't see you up there.

councilmember Sawant.

I don't know where you are.

I wanted to also add just for the purposes of explaining what we are doing to support councilmember Sawant's comment, having that councilmember voted on the prevailing side, she made the request of the body to a motion to Now we can vote again.

And you don't have to reconsider your own vote necessarily, but we were supporting Council Member Sawant wanting to make sure that the record accurately reflected that she wanted to be a gnome.

And I want to also say that I appreciate that Council Member Sawant is bringing up the concerns around the resolution not coming back again.

I too want to stand in support with the women and the protesters and the revolutionary movement in Iran.

I believe that the final version of the revised resolution that came back today was more accurately reflecting our desire to stand in solidarity and moving away from what others had intended to make a political stance against certain organizations.

I appreciate the work that went into it.

I will still be voting to support pulling it from the agenda, as the sponsor and the council president have noted today, and do hope we continue to send messages of support with the revolutionary movement in Iran.

but just wanted to express my support and also further articulate what the motion for reconsideration was all about, given that she was voting on the prevailing side.

Right.

And I just want to thank you, Council Member Sgaita, for clarifying that and putting it in context.

We had hoped that this would be a vote about women and children violation of human rights in Iran.

not a forum in which to even a score against any organization.

And that's just where we're at now.

So let's go back and do the vote.

And I will again be voting yes to postpone.

With that, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you moving on on the agenda to committee reports.

There are 4 items on today's calendar.

So, with item 1, I'm just going to make the statement for the record.

Madam clerk that agenda item 1 was postponed.

So, and again, that item was addressed when we talked about adoption of the agenda, and it passed and be postponed.

So, with that, Madam clerk, can we move on to item 2?

The report of the neighborhoods education civil rights and culture committee agenda item two, council bill 120312, an ordinance relating to historic preservation imposing controls upon the Seattle First National Bank building, a landmark designated by the landmarks preservation board of the Seattle Municipal Code and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends I'm sorry, this came back from last week being postponed with a recommendation not to pass from the committee.

Thank you.

Before we begin, again, we're going to have some procedural issues here.

We worked with the clerks, so we understand the base legislation.

Council Member Morales will introduce.

My understanding is a substitute, and then I understand that Council Member Herbold has a couple, an item teed up as well as Council Member Lewis.

So what I'm going to do is all of us bear with us, so make sure we do this right.

Now that the clerk has read the item into the record, Council Member Morales, as chair of the committee, you are recognized to provide the report.

Thank you, Council President.

And just to clarify for myself, my understanding is that I need to get the bill before us first, then I will move the substitute.

Right, you will move to pass Council Bill.

OK.

You will move it, Council Member Morales, you need to move.

I am on mute, my apologies.

I move that we pass Council Bill 120312. Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to pass Council Bill 120312. Are there any comments?

Yes, Council President.

I move that we amend Council Bill 120312 as presented on Amendment A as shown on the agenda as a proposed substitute.

Second.

And we got a second.

Okay.

So Amendment A is the proposed substitute by Council Member Morales.

And we had a second.

So at this point, council member Morales, do you want to speak to your substitute?

Yes, please.

OK, good afternoon, colleagues, as we've noted last week and yesterday briefing.

This bill, the original bill came out of committee with a unanimous recommendation that it do not pass the role of counsel in this landmark process is to decide whether or not to accept the controls and incentives agreement, it is not to modify the landmark designation itself.

And so, we did vote unanimously to reject the controls and incentives which would have granted the property owner transfer development rights, and would have required approval from the landmark preservation board before making significant changes to the building.

I will acknowledge and understand that a different substitute will be presented from Council Member Herbold.

I appreciate her working to identify alternatives for how we can meet our goal of increasing housing.

But after further consideration, I did decide to go ahead and move Amendment A. I believe that preserving controls on the drive-through area and the signposts would reduce the developable parcel.

So rather than reject the bill entirely amendment a removes the controls and incentives so we can pass a bill acknowledging the landmark status, which was just designated in 2006, and by adopting this substitute, we would be clarifying that there are no controls and incentives on the building.

What this means for the owner is that any development the owner seeks would function within the existing zoning which is Seattle mixed uptown.

And it would proceed without could proceed without review from the landmark preservation board.

If the owner applies.

for a development permit, it would be with a caveat that it is designated as a landmark.

If the building is proposed to be demolished, they would have to follow certain preservation provisions in Section 2812835 of the SMC.

So that's what's before us, the committee as I said unanimously recommended against the original legislation, because the building its driveway surface parking lot are not historically or culturally significant to the city.

But it is also not the role of council to rubber stamp these documents and these processes as they come in.

It is our role to scrutinize the projects that come before us.

This isn't an unprecedented conversation in council, but for this council, we have not had this kind of conversation and I think that's why this has generated so much discussion here.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Before we go, just hold up.

So Council Member Morales just put in front of us Amendment A, which is the proposed substitute.

So at this time, are there any comments on Council Member Morales's Amendment A, which is the proposed substitute?

I see Council Member Mosqueda has her hand up.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Council President.

I wanted to chime in with my support for this substitute in front of us and want to thank the Chair and the neighborhoods education civil rights and cultural committee for their thoughtful deliberation of this legislation when it was originally in committee.

I want to reiterate some of the points that the chair of the committee made.

It's the council's role to look critically and thoughtfully at proposals that come before us.

And for the purpose of the council, we need to look at the proposal and look at the suggestion to impose controls and incentives on the former Bank of America in this case, current Walgreens building, and we need to weigh those considerations about the historic significance of this building and its contribution to the city alongside other public benefits.

that this site could potentially contribute to the city's fabric, including creating housing, including the MHA contributions that could be gained by the City of Seattle if housing were to be built on this site.

And those MHA contributions would yield additional funding for more we're going to be able to provide more affordable housing and could contribute to the walkability of our city as well as maximize other public transit investments.

I don't believe we should be imposing controls and incentives on the site, so I appreciate that the substitute in front of us makes that change.

I believe that it's not necessary to impose controls and incentives on the site, both because it does not raise to the level of historic significance that would justify using controls and incentives to prevent redevelopment of the site, and because I think that there's significantly greater public benefit in allowing the maximum amount of housing to be built on this site.

With respect to the historic significance of this building, there's three points that I'd like to offer for the council in considering this amendment in front of us.

First, the drive-through building at this site is not unique.

There are dozens of examples of these types of buildings in our region and our state, which are constructed during the time of a car-centric architect and urban design sentiment.

This type of architecture and design has ultimately run counter to our current climate, our livability in Seattle, the street safety that we're striving to accomplish, and accessibility goals.

And I think it is wise and valuable for us to move forward with the renewed vision of how we want a city to be walkable and livable and safe.

I think it would be unwise for us to enshrine this fairly commonplace car-centric architecture in the heart of our city where we can have greater density and the opportunity for housing.

Second, the building has already been changed since it was the Seattle First National Bank building years ago.

Both the interior and the exterior of the building have been modified.

And as we noted earlier, it's currently being used as a Walgreens.

I don't think that there's any specific significance of that.

And I think that when we think about what this place could look like, we want to create all options and opportunity for there to be working families, mixed income, density on the site.

Finally, my third point is that unlike some of the other landmarks across the city that have a rich community, rich community history and backstories, this building doesn't hold that same type of significance in my view.

It doesn't have the same kind of community value or social significance for Seattle broadly.

And it's a former drive-through bank where folks cashed their paychecks and did their banking.

but there isn't the sense of rich community history associated with the site as there has been with many community sites that we have landmarked in the past.

So I agree with the committee.

I think that it is not appropriate.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to place controls and incentives on this site in Seattle in one of our densest neighborhoods, especially with the light rail coming to the neighborhood and with the opportunity to expand transit-oriented development I think it's a unique opportunity to meet our housing needs and go forth with the amendment that Councilmember Morales has brought forward.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Just so we can clarify then, you are supporting Councilmember Morales' substitute, correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you.

I was going to ask a question as well, actually.

Thank you, Madam President.

Is Lish on the line here?

I see his I'm going to defer to councilmember Herbold.

to be given the opportunity to describe and address her amendment, her substitute.

I want to clarify, my amendment was characterized as a substitute.

It is not a substitute.

It is an amendment to the substitute.

And I was under the impression that although it's 100% appropriate for Councilmember Morales to introduce her substitute.

I thought before we got to debate on the substitute, we clear the amendments to the substitute first.

No, each Councilmember, starting with the person bringing it forward, Councilmember Morales, may speak to her amendment, her amendment A.

amendment A, if there is a new amendment, that amendment would

I appreciate it.

We're all done talking about Amendment A now is when you would bring up Amendment B, but I didn't think we were.

I don't think we are.

No, we're not.

We're going to finish all our comments on Council Member Morales' Amendment A, and then we will move because I understand Council Member Herbold has something teed up, so we will move to her amendment, which is Amendment B-2.

But right now, I see Council Member Lewis' hand is up.

Council Member Lewis, are you going to be speaking to Council Member Morales' Amendment A, which is a proposed substitute?

I'm going to ask central staff some clarifying questions first and then I may have additional comments.

And so we're going to be looking at ways that we can really parse all of the different layers of what could be in control on this particular parcel.

And as we speak right now, the parcel has been landmarked.

for some time now.

And procedurally, we were sort of at this place where my understanding is the owner initially, although they're no longer interested in pursuing a transferable development rights regime, approached pursuing a controls and incentive agreement that would unlock the ability to engage in a transferable development rights I want to clarify the extent to which the current landmark designation has I would like to clarify that.

I don't think there's a standard under the current regime if there were no controls and incentives, even if there's no controls and incentives, the mere designation as a landmark puts some heightened process and some heightened scrutiny around demolition of the structure.

It would be easy to engage in a process to redevelop the parcel despite the landmark designation.

I just want to clarify how that works in practice.

Is that your question?

That is the question.

Okay.

Lish, can you answer that?

And I do not want to turn this into a committee hearing.

So Lish, can you answer Council Member Lewis's question?

Yes, as Council Member Morales noted, there would still be some heightened review of the demolition.

It would need to be recorded with the federal government that there was a landmark at this site, and there would not be permission granted to issue the demolition permit until the future developer identifies that they have sufficient financing to build the project.

Those are the kind of main hurdles that a future development would have to receive.

If controls and incentives are placed on the landmark in addition to those, a future developer would need to get a certificate of approval from the Landmarks Board to demolish the project.

Council Member Lewis, did Lish answer your questions and do you have any follow-up?

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Thank you, President Juarez.

I guess my question is along the lines of what Councilmember Hurdle does, and I'm not clear what the resolution was because I was under the impression that Councilmember Hurdle's amendment was an amendment to the substitute amendment that Councilmember Morales brought forward.

So procedurally, I think we need to consider Councilmember Hurdle's amendment.

We're just doing Amendment A now, which is the proposed substitute by Councilor Morales.

So if everyone's done with their questions to Councilor Morales in the issue on Amendment A, which is the proposed substitute, I'm going to hand it off to Councilor Herbold to make her motion, and then we will talk about Amendment B2.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

Councilor Luis, I see your hand is still up.

Is that an old hand or a new hand?

Thank you, Madam President.

Okay.

So with that, we finish comments on Council Member Morales' Amendment A, Proposed Substitute.

Council Member Herbold, do you have something for us?

Thank you so much.

I move to amend Council Bill 120312 as presented on Amendment B2 on the City Council Agenda.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Great.

It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill as presented on Amendment B2 on the City Council agenda.

And with that, Councilmember Herbold, I will hand it over to you.

Thank you so much.

As shared yesterday in Council briefings, this amendment, B2, is intended to meet both the goal of maximizing potential for housing while supporting landmarking of the building.

It does so by retaining the controls and incentives for the building, but not the parking lot.

This approach would allow for the use of the landmark building floor area ratio, otherwise known as FAR bonus, which allows for an additional FAR for development that preserves the landmark on the site.

Development could take place in the parking lot under this amendment.

Council Member Lewis.

will be speaking in a separate amendment if this amendment passes, as the Lewis amendment assumes passage of Amendment B-2.

If Amendment B-2 passes, I'm just previewing that I intend to support Councilmember Lewis's amendment as well as the underlying substitute proposed by Councilmember Morales.

As background, at my request for what led to this amendment, allowing for development on the parking lot and removing the controls and incentives from the parking lot, at my request, central staff examined three different options for development.

The site is nearly 26,000 square feet.

The parking area comprises 11,700 square feet.

The building itself is approximately 8,000 square feet above grade and the site is zoned Seattle mixed uptown 160. This is a mixed use zone with height limits up to 160 feet, and seven floor FAR are allowed for residential or non-residential projects.

It's important to note that all this discussion about housing development, there is no requirement that housing development occur on this site if we take actions that lead to incentivizing the removal of this property.

in the three different development alternatives included if the entire site were to be redeveloped, if the entire site were to be landmarked and development rights were transferred to another site, and if the parking area were to be removed from the designation and development were allowed on the parking lot.

The third option results in approximately 310 units should housing be to be developed on the parking lot site.

And that number is a higher perspective, very speculative number than under the two other possible development scenarios.

Again, these are all just speculative scenarios.

Walgreens is not a housing developer and there is no proposal to sell the property.

But as long as we are engaging in speculative policymaking, I think it's really important to really drill down into some of the details.

One of the questions that I've heard about this amendment from members of the public who wish to remove all of the controls and incentives is questions about whether or not the analysis that central staff has done is realistic because of the size and geometry of the lot.

During public comment, we heard a statement that this lot would be too small for development.

I have several examples in Seattle over the last decade of much smaller lots.

There's a 24-story Martin Apartments on 5th Avenue by Lenora.

It was built in 2012 on a 12,720-square lot.

This is next door to the Cinerama.

In the building where Cafe Dart was located on 2nd and Stewart, that building was torn down and replaced with a 40-story condo with 264 units on an 8,358-square-foot lot.

This is the Emerald at Stewart.

A developer has a proposal for a 14-story hotel, not housing, a hotel, on the site of the landmark Han building.

And that lot size is 6,772 square feet.

There are two towers on the same block as Town Hall that also have smaller floor plates, approximately 9,000 square feet.

And then right across the street from this particular location, because some people are identifying the look, not just the size of the lot, but the location of the lot, right across the street from the Walgreens at 600 Wall Street, there's a 40 story tower that was built on a 10,665 square foot lot.

The 11,700 square feet of the parking lot combined with Councilmember Lewis's amendment that would result in a lot of just over 13,000 square feet.

I believe this amendment is a good compromise.

and would signal the council's willingness to balance historic preservation with capacity for housing development.

Another point where people have been somewhat skeptical of the analysis that central staff has done is that although, as I've said, nothing would require any development on this site to include housing, for instance, office or other allowed non-housing units could be built.

Offices and hotels have been built within this area.

But it is important to note that the notion of that built into one of these scenarios would require building over the existing property.

This is not at all an unusual occurrence.

And there are many, many examples of buildings like this because only under that circumstance, only the facade is designated and the potential size of a development incorporating the facade can be a likely approach here.

That concludes my comments on this particular amendment.

Thank you.

Okay.

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to open up the floor for those of you that have comments to Councilmember Herbold's amendment B2.

And first I see Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Morales.

Councilmember Lewis.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.

≫ Thank you, Madam President.

So procedurally, I'm going to be voting yes on Councilmember Herbold's amendment B.

But I want to signal that that's just because the way the amendments are layered, we vote on amendment C, my amendment, if Councilmember Herbold's amendment B passes.

I'm going to speak to B and C sort of together because they are interrelated for this reason.

I would like to make a comment on amendment B.

yesterday I indicated tentative support for amendment B, but having looked into it in a little bit more detail, I am I'm going to go back to the that the landmarks preservation board might feel inclined in the process of considering such an I had considered withdrawing the amendment in the event that, and this is sort of getting ahead a little to see, that the density bonus that can be pursued if your parcel has a designated landmark on it, if that could be pursued just by the building having landmark status and not having the imposed controls and incentives from consulting with central staff, controls and incentives is one of the prerequisites.

So that was not an option in order to still unlock the ability to have that development.

I think that's a good point and I think that's a good point and I think that's a good point and I think that's a good point and I think that's a good point.

I think unduly constrains the full potential of housing.

My yes vote today is procedural to advance to C, and I just want to make that clear for people viewing, and I'll have more comments when we get to amendment C in a few minutes.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Alas.

Thank you.

I don't have a whole lot to add.

I just want to reiterate the The issue that I have, the concern I have about Amendment B is that, you know, as Council Member Lewis said, preserving these controls on the drive-through, on the signpost, on the other pieces would reduce the developable parcel It is about 25,000 square feet right now.

And if all of these other things are in there as well, it reduces it to less than half of that size.

And so that really alters the kind of building that could go up.

It alters the kind of the number of units, certainly the size of the units.

So so I will not be supporting Amendment B2.

OK, are there any customer Mosqueda?

You want to address B2?

Yes, thank you very much.

I think this is a challenge.

It's hard when we have disagreements among friends.

And so I appreciate that this amendment, I believe, is being put forward with an effort to strike a compromise.

And as I noted yesterday, even with this revised version of Amendment B, I still have significant concerns.

So I just want to explain my vote, which is to oppose amendment be here to make sure that we're being transparent about the trade offs, even within this proposed amendment that's in front of us.

While this amendment would allow housing to be built on the parking lot, I want to emphasize that it still significantly reduces the amount and the diversity of the type of housing that is possible to preserve a building that does not represent a unique character or rich history within our city.

That is my opinion about the existing building.

And it's also a fact that it is not going to create the same amount and the diversity in the type of housing that could be built.

Under this amendment, we're talking about roughly half of the housing units that could be built with some of the analysis that, yes, we have also talked to central staff about, but that we have vetted with community members who are actively working to create housing across our city.

This amendment would result in about half the amount of units.

The analysis that we've looked at is instead of 219 units, that we would be looking at around 113 units.

I know that the sponsor noted 310 and also noted that this is speculative policymaking.

But if we're going to engage in speculative policymaking, I want to talk to folks on the ground who are actively working on creating housing and density and ask what the impact would be.

And so it's 219 versus 113 from the back of the envelope estimate from the community stakeholders that I've checked in with.

It is reducing the amount of the mandatory housing payment from approximately $3.53 million to about $1.82 million.

So roughly half of the amount of affordable housing dollars could be generated back to the city under the existing proposed amendment that we're looking at.

And again, I appreciate that we may have different numbers from the sponsor as well.

We are all quickly working in full council to try to I'm not going to be able to answer that question.

I'm not going to be able to answer that question.

I'm not going to be able to answer that question.

And all of us have talked about how we want to make sure that we are not having development yield more pressure pushing people out of our city or creating additional displacement and vulnerable neighborhoods.

I believe that to be true.

And I think that this is legislation where the substitute that's been put forward.

is an effort to create additional housing in one of our densest neighborhoods.

Not changing the footprint, if that's one of your concerns, it's building near future light rail, it steps away from thousands of jobs, and it is on a site that is currently a single-story building.

So maximizing the opportunity, not just for units, but for family-sized units.

One-inch two bedrooms could be built here if they take advantage of The MFTE program, we're talking about potentially more two and three bedroom units for working families.

This is something we've all talked about wanting, and it's in an area where there's already been agreement that building that type of dense housing and dense use is really desirable.

I think that we would be sacrificing both housing diversity, family-sized housing units that are possible, the amount of housing total that we could see on the site, the amount of funding coming back in from MHA, And again, in order to preserve a site that I don't think fully reflects what the intent is for landmarking and mixed use and preserving the facade or the building for historic landmarks.

I want there to be a clear message that this council and me specifically are supportive of historic landmarks.

And I think the Liberty Bake building that was preserved, a landmark that was preserved that also complemented housing is a great example of where we have shown of course we want to preserve historic landmarks and support the preservation of community and culturally rooted buildings and places.

But in a location like what we're talking about right now, we have an opportunity to build not just density, but to build family size units of one, two, possibly three, four, three bedroom units.

And that is something that I think we don't want to miss an opportunity, especially that since we know that the comp plan you know, we only have a once in a decade opportunity to readdress that next year.

But we don't get opportunities like this to really promote density within areas that are already zoned for this type of density.

So I would very much like to be just transparent that we're all really working quickly to try to analyze the impact of the potential substitute and the amendments that are coming forward.

But the analysis that I have received would, under this proposed amendment, would significantly reduce the ability to build those one, two, and three-bedroom units under this scenario.

It would reduce, in my analysis, the amount of housing built here by about half, would reduce the MHA contribution by half, and it could add one to two years of additional administrative processes to go through, given that the additional review required that we talked about before would need to be proposed.

So any loss of time, one to two years, is a tangible loss in housing that could be created more quickly.

And again, so I'm underscoring the need, the urgent need now and the need for us to create the diversity in terms of the type of housing that could be brought forward.

I think that the committee deliberated this.

They took this deliberation into deep consideration when they looked at the historic value of the building alongside the public benefit.

That's what we're supposed to do.

Hear the recommendation from the body and weigh the tradeoffs of imposing controls and incentives, particularly the ability to add housing in our city and housing specifically on that could be possible on the site.

So I believe that these considerations should still be at the heart of our decision making today as the committee already deliberated on.

And I want to be clear that I believe that our analysis, my analysis of these numbers in partnership with stakeholders and Aaron House on my team, in partnership with some of our conversation with central staff.

I believe the analysis would yield a cost in terms of housing in our community and limit our ability to maximize creating additional housing units near transit and support our overall climate goals that I believe this full council supports.

So thank you again for helping to try to find a pathway forward.

I don't think that this is it and would still strongly encourage our colleagues to support the underlying substitute from Councilmember Morales.

Okay, so by my account, Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Mosqueda will not be supporting.

I'm just saying this now.

Amendment B2.

And so with that, I'm going to, oh, Councilmember Strauss has a comment, then Councilmember Sawant, and then Councilmember Herbold, I will let you close this out.

So go ahead.

I also have a comment.

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, I am inclined to support Councilmember Lewis's amendment, which means that I'm inclined to support Councilmember Herbold's amendment.

If Councilmember Lewis's amendment fails, I will not be inclined to retain my support for Councilmember Herbold's amendment.

What does this, what does it come down to?

It comes down to the fact that there are important ways for us to preserve our history in our city.

I will candidly say we've done an abhorrent job of preserving the things that are most important to the First Peoples of this city.

I will not say any more there, and I hope that everyone here who is as fervent about this bank is as fervent about other issues in our city.

We arrive here from, for many reasons.

I will focus my comments on the bill.

While surface-level parking lots are not historic yet, I cannot in good conscience I think I'm going to end there.

Thank you colleagues.

I will be voting yes on Councilmember Herbold's amendment.

Councilmember Morales' substitute without Councilmember Herbold's amendment would effectively reverse the decision of the Landmark Preservation Board to landmark this property.

Yes, it would still be technically a landmark, but that board would be stripped of one of of its substance.

Obviously this building is not in any way an epitome of architectural beauty or the rich Seattle history that working people and community members want to preserve.

There's nothing unique about this building that needs to be enshrined or posterity.

Many people have written to the council over the past week, urging the council to respect the decision of the Landmark Preservation Board.

And I agree with your point that the process of landmarking has not in any way been an obstacle for the creation of affordable housing.

So while I personally don't think this building has any specific heritage value, it is also ludicrous to suggest that this one property is somehow crucial for affordable housing.

There is, in fact, absolutely nothing to require or even suggest that the owner would allow building of affordable housing on the site or even any sort of housing as a public comment speaker correctly pointed out.

Council members are talking about family size housing units being built on a property based on nothing more than just these words.

As a socialist who has used elected office to fight for affordable housing, I believe that we need a massive expansion of publicly owned social housing that is automatically rent controlled.

My council office and my organization, Socialist Alternative, helped launch and build the tax Amazon movement in 2020. And with the strong support of rank and file activists in the George Floyd movement, we won the historic Amazon tax to fund social housing expansion.

What has been an obstacle to affordable housing is the Democratic Party establishment, which has upheld the interests of for-profit developers and big business as a whole.

The Democratic Party has opposed rent control both here and in the Washington state legislature.

And during the tax Amazon movement, even supposedly progressive Democrats on the city council were operating behind the scenes and using process excuses to try and undermine the movement.

Our movement prevailed and forced the city council to approve the Amazon tax only because we organized independently of the Democrats and had a credible threat in the form of a ballot initiative petition with 30,000 signatures.

Both rent control without corporate loopholes and serious taxes on the wealthy to expand social housing are needed for affordable housing.

It is a disingenuous and deflecting act when Democrats imply that preservation of the cultural heritage of working people is at odds with providing affordable housing to working people.

I want to make that general point without implying that this building somehow has heritage value, which I've already made clear.

I don't believe that it does.

We need to be very clear that for-profit housing market is the problem, not the solution.

They, by definition, prioritize profit over affordable housing.

They have filled Seattle with luxury units, luxury based on price, not always based on quality, by the way.

The idea that some for-profit developer is going to build a tower in the middle of Amazon South Lake Union, full of housing that regular working class people, let alone very low income people can afford, is frankly a joke and totally dishonest.

I support density and I voted in favor of every up zone.

I voted in favor of MHA while correctly warning that it is so small that it does not even keep up with the rate that affordable housing is being demolished, but I do not agree that giving big developers whatever they ask for will increase housing affordability because it is the exact opposite.

It is extremely telling that in committee council members voted unanimously against this landmark bill, citing the need for affordable housing, while the majority of the same council voted no on the budget amendment from my office last November to substantially increase taxes on big business to raise the funds needed to build thousands of new affordable homes.

For me, the issue is not the quality of this particular building.

And it is instead the precedent that it could possibly set, potentially set, that landmarks don't really matter if they are on a property that could be very profitable for big developers and wealthy property owners.

Because we should be very clear, if there was not massive profits to be made, there wouldn't be any pressure on the council to consider effectively overturning the decision of the Landmark Preservation Board, which, as I said, the board has not really had any track record of of being any obstacle to affordable housing.

So I will support Council Member Harbaugh's amendment to restore the substance of the decision of the Landmark Preservation Board.

Thank you.

Thank you Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

So I ran as a pragmatic progressive.

I really did.

It's on my website there.

And I took a vote for housing and committee.

And subsequent to that, I listened to a lot of folks making comment about this issue in chambers and read a lot of emails.

And I was persuaded by the comments of one remote caller.

who basically called in support of maintaining the controls and he basically said that if we wish to ensure alignment between our historic preservation processes and our policy goal of building more housing, then we should do so in a comprehensive, transparent, public process and that'll take a long time and it's not for here and I completely agree with that.

So As someone who's looking for opportunities for compromise, we've got one right before us here.

And it'll allow for residential development and preserve controls on the landmark itself, on the piece of architectural history that folks are impassioned about.

So I will be supporting this compromise.

And so that is I'm pointing myself in that direction.

I know that we're going to be discussing a different subsequent version of Councilmember Herbold's amendment.

And I just want to say this.

Here's what I've learned.

That We are not experts in historic preservation and there are many different opinions about how many units can be built on this site, whether or not the one far will be available for use if modifications are made to what parts of the site.

And I just have to say that I'm uncomfortable making sort of last minute decisions on this and I have learned, but I really appreciate that we seem to have come together for a solution that has the support of the folks in the audience and also some housing advocates as well.

So thank you very much for everybody's efforts.

Thank you, council member Nelson.

I'm going to say a few comments, and then I'm going to let council member closes off on this matter.

1st of all, thank you colleagues for the debate and discussion.

It's always positive when we can actually have conversations about things we can agree or disagree on and do it in a civil.

intellectual and kind way, so I want to thank you all for that.

With that, Council Member Herboldt, do you want to have any closing remarks before we go to a vote?

But I should say this, Council Member Morales' Amendment B2 of the Purpose of Substitute and Council Member Lisa Herboldt's Amendment B2 are mutually exclusive.

If we go to Council Member Herboldt, which we will vote on first, if that passes, then there's no need to go back to Council Member, it will be dispositive.

We will not go back to Council Member Morales' proposed substitute.

So with that in mind, Council Member Herbold, do you want to close this out before we go to a vote on your amendment B2?

Wait, wait, hold up.

I see Council Member Morales has her hand up.

Well, you may have answered my question.

I was wondering if I would be making closing remarks on the original substitute.

Would you like to do that as well?

Sure.

Okay, so we will let customer herbal make her closing remarks.

Okay, her amendment B2, then I will let you close out on yours and then we will go to the vote on B2.

So, with that customer herbal floor is yours.

Let's see here, so I feel like.

This topic has been very well discussed.

Appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion in full council for the viewing public.

Our ability as non-committee members is limited by the fact that our council rules, unlike times of the past, our council rules no longer, I'm looking at a former council member Rasmussen, our council rules do not allow non-committee members to attend and vote in committee.

So I really appreciate the graciousness of my colleagues to allow debate on this amendment.

And I think many of the policy issues have been covered.

I don't think we need to rehash them.

And I look forward to the vote and urge your support of Amendment B2.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Morales, close us out and we'll go to a vote.

Thank you.

I do want to clarify a couple of things that came up in this discussion, and I want to thank all of you for having such a robust discussion about this issue.

I think it's important to clarify that we are not making new policy here.

We're proposing to move one landmarked project into in one neighborhood without controls and incentives.

I would welcome a broader conversation about whether to make policy changes to what kind of criteria merits a landmark designation, but that's not what this bill does.

As we've had this discussion, we know there is what is theoretically possible under these different scenarios.

There's what is likely to be proposed, and then there's what might actually pencil for any given project.

But at the end of the day, this parcel has capacity and capability to provide hundreds of units of housing, and at the very least, millions of dollars For affordable housing off site, my preference would be to have that production on site, so that we can provide homes that are affordable to people in every corner of the city, including South Lake Union.

I have been really consistent in my time on council that we have to do all we can to build a Seattle within reach for every resident of the city.

One where we have affordable homes and access to an array of services in every neighborhood for every person who's here.

And I believe the substitute and the vote here are consistent with that commitment.

And I would urge you to support that effort to make sure that we are moving in the right direction.

Thank you, Councilor Morales and Councilor Herbold.

I'm really glad you two worked together.

We had a chance to discuss this.

Special thanks again to you, Councilor Morales, because this was in your committee.

And thank you for continuing it one week so we could all get up to speed on some of the more nuanced issues regarding this.

So with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of Amendment B-2 to Council Bill 120312?

Council Member Salant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council President Ores.

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries in Council Bill 120312 as amended by Amendment B2 is now before the Council.

Are there any further comments on the amended bill?

And I believe this is where you come in Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move to amend Council Bill 120312 as presented on Amendment C.

Is there a second?

Oh, great.

We got a first and a second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to further amend the council bill as presented on Amendment C. Council Member Lewis, you are recognized.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

≫ Thank you, Madam President.

I alluded a little bit to amendment C in my comments on amendment B.

I'll just briefly summarize.

Amendment C would further remove controls and incentives in addition to the parking lot, which we just voted on with amendment B.

I'm going to move on to the talk about the underpinning logic of that, and then open it up to colleagues.

But in essence, I think it makes sense to go back 17 years ago, 1st of 2006, when the Landmark Preservation Board, and I've reviewed the packet that the Landmark Preservation Board used to determine that this building warranted landmark status, and it was awarded that status based on four out of six of the criteria that they're allowed to consider.

I do agree with community members that since 2006, the presence of this structure of which there are multiple copies in the city is conspicuous, hemmed in from significant concentrations of housing density all around it, and this remains an undeveloped site.

I would note that in the 17 years it has been a designated landmark, to my knowledge, there have not been efforts to develop the site.

Indeed, we are here having this discussion, if I'm not mistaken, because the owner of the site was looking to parlay the landmark status into transferable development rights, which requires a controls and incentive agreement, there was nothing preventing the owner of this property, to my knowledge, from seeking to develop it into housing over the intervening 17 years.

So that we're here and it has the status of being a landmark, we have learned from consulting with central staff that there is an incentive that can maximize the on-site performance to build housing on this parcel through the inclusion of 35 additional units above what would be possible absent the landmark status and absence of the controls and incentives because it was designated in 2006 as a landmark.

I believe that by removing some of the more superfluous structures on the campus from the controls and incentives, it increases the chances that someone could pursue a redevelopment plan for the site that would preserve the facade of the structure.

and would then maximize the footprint of the building being put in to maximize the development potential while maintaining the facade and getting the bonus units allowed under this unique density incentive for the property.

That doesn't mean that'll happen.

That doesn't mean that it's necessarily I would point out that the landmarks preservation The city has a very, very strong track record of approving just such development plans that incorporate facades into new development.

This is not something that would be uncommon or abnormal.

Any walk in the Pike Pine corridor up to Capitol Hill can show anybody who's going up there how common it is to have redevelopment plans that incorporate historic facades So in so doing, I think that this is the best path forward given the circumstance that we're dealing with in front of us.

I mean, as we discussed earlier, just by virtue of being designated as a landmark, it is difficult and there are a lot of additional procedures, even absent controls and incentives, In order to remove the landmarks building, and that is deliberately envisioned in the SMC that that the city and property owners, you know, not demolish landmarks and that the city have a policy discouraging the demolishment of landmarks, hence their designation.

So this is the strategy that based on our guidance from central staff, I believe is best positioned to accomplish our dual goals of maintaining the historic character of the site while also maximizing the potential for housing on the site.

And for those reasons, I would propose that we pass this amendment.

Okay.

There are any other comments to amendment C?

Council Member Herbold, I mean, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thanks so much.

Okay, well, I'm obviously disappointed that the underlying legislation has taken this form.

I will be supporting this amendment, but I want to note, while I appreciate central staff's quick analysis on this to try to understand what type of development would be allowable to build on this site under the different scenarios, as I noted, we've had conversations with folks in the community who have ample examples of what they could do with this type of parcel and what type of development could take place.

And I understand there are some discrepancies between what is strictly quote-unquote allowable and what is more likely.

So what the policy permits versus what is practical on the site are very different.

For example, where there is a potential floor area ratio or FAR bonus available under this amendment, I understand that the analysis that Council Central staff have done also includes building through at least some portion of the landmark sites.

And in that scenario, you cannot get the one FAR bonus because you need to maintain the exterior and the interior of the structure in good condition.

So demolishing half of the landmark building is not maintaining the building in good condition and the potential to do so would require a lengthy review by landmark board, which again would tack on additional time and cost to the housing being built on site.

So I just want us to be really clear about the additional time that is being added to the possible creation of housing here and also the limitations that are already imposed on the site, and the additional time delay here yields less housing and possibility of taking advantage of the airspace.

I'll support this amendment, and I still think that we have a lot of work to do to make sure that this type of back-of-the-envelope analysis that is being done today is not I think it's important that we continue to make sure that we're not repeating as we take on additional, more comprehensive land use and zoning conversations that we will have in the upcoming two years.

I just wanted to share that concern about the math that's being used in today's analyses.

Thank you, Councillor Mosqueda.

Okay, so everybody has got their comments in on

Just a question, does this allow for, are we removing certainty that the FAR will be granted if future development takes place here?

Are you asking that of Lish?

Yes.

Lish, can you answer that question for Council Member Nelson?

Yeah, I don't see how this would impact that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you, Lish, for being there.

Okay, so my understanding is that we are done with discussion and debate on Councilmember Lewis's Amendment C, so I'm going to go to the vote.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the proposed Amendment C?

Councilmember Sawant?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Aye.

Councilmember Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you.

So now that we have amended it and the amendment C has passed, The motion carries.

The bill is amended.

Are there any other comments on this council bill?

And what I'd like to do is loop back to the original sponsor, that is Council Member Morales, before we go to the final vote of the amended legislation.

Anything else you want to add, Council Member Morales, before we go to final vote on the amended legislation?

I have nothing else.

Thank you.

But I do want to thank you, Council Member Morales.

I know this was a lot of work, and I appreciate all the time that you put into it.

Thank you.

All right, are there any other comments before we go to a vote?

Councilor Nelson, I see, is that a new hand or an old hand?

Old hand?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, are there any other comments before we go to a vote as amended?

Councilor Mosqueda.

All right, well, I'll just say, I think for the folks who are following along with this in community, I think the silver lining here is that the I'm going to vote on the amended version.

The amended version in front of us is still better than the status quo which imposes controls and incentives on the entire site and I will be voting on this amended version even though I would have much preferred councilmember Morales' substitute amendment because we at least gained some ability to build on this site and build housing on

Okay, with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the Council Bill, of Council Bill 120312 as amended?

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Councilmember Nielsen?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

None opposed.

Thank you.

The council bill passes as amended.

The chair will sign it.

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

And moving on in our agenda, we will go to item number three, which we have a committee report out of the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee.

And I understand Councilmember Lewis will be discussing this, but Madam Clerk, can you please read item 3 into the record?

Yes.

The report of the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee, agenda item 3. Council Bill 120489, an ordinance authorizing the city of Seattle through Seattle Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with the Arboretum Foundation for support of the Seattle Japanese Garden consistent with the non-government agreement in attachment one to this ordinance.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

So procedurally, I should move this again in front of us, right?

So I move.

It does not need to be moved because it came out of committee with a recommendation.

But thank you for asking.

Yes.

Okay, there's a lot of moving parts here.

So you're good.

All you got to do is ts all up and tell us what's going on.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

≫ Yeah, thank you, Madam President.

So as I alluded to in council briefing yesterday, we had a full discussion in committee as the clerk indicated there was a unanimous recommendation to approve this agreement between the Arboretum foundation and the city of Seattle.

This is an ongoing agreement of the city.

The city has approved the renewal of the old agreement in the arboretum.

We vetted this renewal against the old agreement in several different respects.

It is a better deal for the city in terms of revenue sharing and some of the other considerations that it governs.

The committee was satisfied and gave it a

Not seeing any, Council Member Lewis, is there anything you want to add before we go to a vote?

No, I'm ready to call the vote.

Great.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes, the chair will sign it, and Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Moving on to item number four, which is also Council Member Lewis.

Madam Clerk, will you please read item four to the record?

Item 4, Council Bill 120483, an ordinance relating to current use taxation, approving applications for current use taxation of properties located at 8240 43rd Avenue Northeast and 711 Northeast 43rd Street under the King County Public Benefit Rating System, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts the committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, this is yours.

Thank you, Madam President.

As the clerk indicated, there was a unanimous recommendation from committee for Council Bill 120483 to be approved.

This legislation deals with two property owners in the City of Seattle who qualify through the rating system for a property tax benefit for open space portions of their properties based on the property.

We also heard from I think it's important to note that the committee had an opportunity to work with the departmental staff as well as representatives of the property owners.

The committee had an opportunity to vet and talk to the and to understand the rating system by which it is awarded.

In all those respects, the committee was satisfied that these recommendations were appropriate and did unanimously recommend that the full council approve this legislation.

So with that, I have no additional comments.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Are there any questions from colleagues?

Okay, not seeing any.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Salant.

Yes.

Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council President Ores.

Aye.

All in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation.

Moving on along in our agenda on the consent calendar, obviously, no items were removed the adoption of other resolutions.

There are no other resolutions for us today for the I'm sorry for the introduction for introduction and adoption other business.

Is there any other business to come before council before I move to adjourn?

Yes, madam president.

Yes, Councillor Mosqueda.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

Madam President, I, oh, excuse me, I'm off camera.

I move to be excused on Tuesday, January 24th from full council and Tuesday, January 14th from, I'm sorry, Tuesday, January 10th from full council and Monday, the 9th of January and Monday, the 13th of February from council briefing.

Okay, well, you already mentioned some days that have gone by, so you need to, today's the 10th.

So- Let me try that again.

Try that again, one more time.

I'm so sorry, I'm looking at the calendar.

I'm looking at the calendar, I'm like, what is she talking about?

Okay, I move to be excused on the 20th and the 21st of February.

And that's it, Madam President.

Okay, well, you're certainly getting that in early.

So if there's no objection.

Councilor Mosqueda will be excused for those two days, February 20th.

What is it again?

And 21st.

February 20th and 21st, which is a Monday and Tuesday.

And I knew I had a January date.

I'm sorry, Madam President, I also have moved to be excused on the 24th of January.

And Councilor Mosqueda also asked to be excused on January 24th.

Is there any objection?

I may object, but I'll let it go.

Okay, not seeing an objection Council Member Mosqueda is excused from those dates.

Colleagues, this does conclude our business for the day and we will meet again on Tuesday, January 17. Thank you all very much and we stand adjourned.