Neighborhoods, Education, Civil Rights & Culture Committee - Public Hearing 12/9/22

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

The December 9, 2022 regularly scheduled meeting of the neighborhoods education, civil rights and culture committee will come to order.

It is 9.36 a.m.

I'm Tammy Morales, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Vice Chair Sawant.

Council Member, or Chair Morales.

Present.

Or present.

Thank you.

If there's no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

Well, good morning, everybody.

We have several things on the agenda for today.

We will be hearing two appointments for the LGBTQ Commission.

We have two appointments for the Landmark District Board, Ballard Avenue Landmark District Board.

We will be hearing Council Bill 120312 regarding the Seapers National Bank Building.

And we will have a hearing and briefing on Council Bill 120456, which is amending certain procedures for Historic Preservation Review.

We will not be voting on that bill today, but we do have a public hearing.

So with that, I'm going to go ahead and open public comment.

We will open the general public comment period.

This is going to be virtual and hybrid.

Just because we do have a public hearing today, this public comment period is for agenda items one through five.

The public comment period for the public hearing, Council Bill 120456, will be held prior to that discussion for Agenda Item 6. So if you are here to comment on Agenda Item 6, please wait until we get to that point in the agenda.

So I'm asking everyone to please be patient as we operate this hybrid system.

It does remain our strong intent to have public comment during meetings.

However, we do reserve the right to modify these public comment periods at any point if we deem the system as being abused or is unsuitable to allow our meetings to continue.

So we will be, we have, let me see.

Sorry, I have my sheet here somewhere.

A few people who are signed up on electronically, virtually, and so we will begin with them.

And then we will have folks who are here in chambers.

I'm going to give everybody two minutes.

And I thought we had a group signed up.

Is that no longer the case?

Everybody's signed up individually.

Okay, so we're gonna start with the people who are signed up online.

I'll call each speaker.

You will have two minutes.

When I call your name, if you are online, please unmute and hit star six so we can hear you.

You will hear a chime at 10 seconds, which means you've got 10 seconds left to wrap up your comments, and then we'll move to the next speaker.

Okay, so we're going to begin with the folks who are online because we only have a few of them.

We will start with Howard Gale.

Howard, please go ahead and start by pressing star six.

Good morning, Howard Gale with Seattle stock.org.

This morning, you will be making appointments to the commission to oversee when you do this is important that you make clear to these volunteers, whether their expected role is to make independent decisions or instead, for them to bend to the will of the council and the mayor.

On April 7th, the Seattle Human Rights Commission voted overwhelmingly to take an active role in informing the federal court of the continuing police abuses and the failures of police accountability in Seattle.

Less than 24 hours after this vote, the city attorney's office successfully threatened and bullied the Human Rights Commission into inaction and silence as documented by Carolyn Bick at the South Seattle Emerald on April 29th and May 12th.

Bix articles detailed the inappropriate and illegal nature of the city's actions and the complete silence from the council and the mayor.

Then on September 29th, council members Morales and Herbold held a non-public meeting with human rights commissioners, along with the community police commission's executive director, Brandy grant and their co-chair Reverend Walden.

The human rights commissioners reported that quote council members and Reverend Walden who met the night before to discuss the human rights commission.

proceeded to chastise, insult, and bully the human rights commissioners.

Two weeks later, on October 14th, four highly active human rights commissioners and co-chairs resigned as a direct result of the city's hostility and threats directed at their attempt to take action on the fundamental human rights issue.

Along with three other commissioners who resigned earlier, this marks around half of the commission resigning over the last eight months.

The failure of council members early in the year to support the human rights commission is shameful.

But the latter participation of council members, Morales and Herbold and actions to suppress the commission should truly shock the conscience.

The human rights commission is a charade.

If they're well considered and debated decisions made in a fully transparent public and democratic manner are simply overruled by politicians and bureaucrats in the most untransparent non-public and undemocratic manner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have Eugenia Wu signed up next.

Eugenia, you are signed up to speak to two bills.

I'm gonna ask you to hold your comments for the public hearing for Council Bill 120456. But if you'd like to speak to 120312, please go ahead by pressing star six.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Chair Morales.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

So good morning.

Good morning, this is Eugenia Wu, Director of Preservation Services at Historic Seattle.

I'd like to comment on Council Bill 120312 relating to historic preservation of the Seattle First National Bank building.

Yesterday, I submitted a joint letter to this committee on behalf of Historic Seattle and the Queen Anne Historical Society, asking you to recommend adopting controls and incentives for the Seafirst National Bank building in Uptown and move it to the full council.

We greatly appreciate central staff's thorough memo on this issue.

The former bank building now owned by Walgreens was designated by the landmarks board way back in 2006 under four of the six designation standards.

A strong statement on its significance and landmark worthiness.

The owner has signed the controls and incentives agreement and the board approved it in 2021. There's actually no controversy here, which is great.

As a landmark in the uptown neighborhood, it is also eligible as a spending site for transfer of development rights.

This means the owner will be able to sell TDRs and use the money to maintain the landmark building.

And a developer who owns a property in Uptown that qualifies as a receiving site can purchase TDRs to benefit their housing project by increasing FAR and therefore additional units.

This is a win-win for preservation and housing.

It's both and, not either or.

We respectfully ask you to recommend adopting controls and incentives for this designated landmark.

That is a sound decision that respects the landmark designation process and would be consistent with other recently approved controls and incentives agreements.

Amending or rejecting controls and incentives could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious that the reasoning for such a decision is not documented and justified.

Thank you for your support of this landmark and others in Seattle.

Historic preservation is a public benefit in and of itself.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We've got a few other folks signed up, but they look like everybody's here for the public hearing.

Except for Susan Williams.

Susan Williams, are you with us?

I assure you is not present.

Susan Williams.

Okay.

Everybody that I have signed up here.

Is this, there's only four people signed up in person?

Okay.

And everybody here is signed up for the public hearing as well.

So in that case, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So we're going to move on then.

I will close public comment period and we will move on to our next item.

So Devin, will you please read item one and two into the record?

I don't have you signed up, Mr. Zimmerman.

Just a moment, please.

We're trying to clarify what's happening.

Okay, please go ahead and put two minutes on the clock.

Thank you.

They call my dirty, damn Nazi fascist mom, bandit and psychopath, a criminal.

It's exactly who you are.

And let's talk about people who you want right now appoint for LGBT civil rights.

From May, for seven months, I come to this meeting every day.

And every day, I ask simple question.

Why don't show people faces like you did before for 35 years?

This exactly unique situation.

I go speak around everywhere.

You're only one in America who don't doing this.

And look, this Slavcok here.

Hundred people come in, everybody quiet.

Why are you so quiet, you freaking idiot?

You don't understand, they criminal.

They broken law.

They broken book.

They don't doing this for seven months.

Why?

Because this election go for 23. So when they don't see people who care, they only see their faces.

You know what it means?

So you can elect them again because they don't know who good candidate for 23. Exactly.

Look, civil rights crooks, they are criminal.

A Nazi, that's exactly what's happening.

But there's not a point, point wise of 750,000 idiot and slept very quiet, except everything what is they doing, legally or not legally.

So I speak right now in these people who are in this room, 30, 40, you have one hero who will explain to them, so they're broken law and they're criminal because they're doing this not by book.

Nobody, everybody quiet.

Why?

Because you're born like a slave, you will die like a slave.

Sorry.

It's under God, under me.

So stand up America, stand up freaking idiots, 700,000 people.

Bring this council out in 23. In return, see you.

Okay.

Devin, will you read items one and two into the record, please?

Agenda Items 1 and 2, Appointment 02425 and Appointment 02426. Reappointment of Nathaniel Higbee and appointment of Brat Popowski as members Seattle LGBTQ Commission for terms to April 30th, 2024 for briefing, discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

Okay, we've got Janet Stafford here from the Office of Civil Rights.

Janet, if you will come on and join us to tell us about these appointments.

Absolutely.

Good morning to you all, council members.

Today, I would like to share a bit on our reappointments for the LGBTQ Commission.

I'd like to start out by sharing some of the work that they've done this year.

Some of their event collaborations with city council and the mayor's office has included the annual pride flag raising event at city hall and other involvements in pride events this year.

They have connected and have gotten to know the new mayoral staff administration as well as meeting with members from our council and sharing their work plan and priorities for this year.

Today, I would like to recommend and share background on Nate Higbee and Brett Popowski.

I will share a little background on Nate.

Since 2019, Nate has been serving as a commissioner for the Seattle LGBTQ Commission.

Nate started with the commission as a Get Engaged Commissioner, and after that, continued to serve two-year terms.

as a regular commissioner.

He graduated with a bachelor's degree in sociology and works at Virginia Mason, where he continues to support and be an active member of the LGBTQ staff committee.

He has spent time advocating for both LGBTQ rights and disability rights.

He's currently the co-chair of the Social Media and Engagement Committee, as well as the co-chair of the LGBTQ Commission.

The commission does support his reappointment and looks forward to having his continued leadership this next year.

Shall I continue with Brecht?

Yes, please.

Great.

Just a little background on Brett Popowski.

Brett works as a data analyst for housing and clinical services nonprofit, volunteers for overnight camps for queer youth and youth of nontraditional families and volunteers backstage for the local gay symphonic band.

Brett joined the commission in 2021 and currently co-chairs the social media and engagement committee with Nate.

Brett has led much of the work this year in the presence the commission has had in pride.

Brett has also led much of the efforts in providing recent budget recommendations to city council.

As the commissioner, Brett does hope to continue to raise public awareness of issues and government action affecting the queer community and to increase local access to quality, affordable housing and healthcare.

The commission welcomes this reappointment and Brett's continued work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Janet.

And Brett is not here, is that right?

Okay, so I have, I just want to clarify, I have, I think it's on the listed on the agenda and in the paperwork that this is an appointment, not a reappointment for Brett.

Can you clarify, please?

Yeah, so Brett's is a reappointment.

They are both reappointments.

Okay, terrific.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

Glad to know that they are both interested in continuing to provide the service.

I did meet with some of the LGBTQ commissioners I think it was right after budget.

It's all sort of a blur.

But I know they will be coming before this committee in the new year to provide an update on their work plan and to talk to us about the things that they'd like to see.

Colleagues, any questions for Janet about the reappointments?

Great.

Okay.

In that case, I am going to move that the committee approve appointments, recommend approval of appointments 2425 and 2426. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the motion?

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Chair Morales.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Terrific.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the council approve the appointments will be sent to the January 3rd, 2023 City Council meeting.

Thank you very much, Janet.

Good to see you again.

Thank you.

Okay.

Devin, will you please read items three and four into the record?

Agenda items three and four, appointment 2420 and appointment 2421. appointment of Miriam Hinden as member of Ballard Avenue Landmark District Board for a term to June 30th, 2024, and appointment of Anthony R. Salazar as member of Ballard Avenue Landmark District Board for a term to June 30th, 2023, for a briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And I'm going to welcome Minh Chau Lay from Department of Neighborhoods to join us to talk about these appointments.

Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Chairperson Morales and all Council Committee members for this opportunity.

Department of Neighborhoods is grateful for the opportunity to bring before you two current appointees to the Ballard Avenue Landmark Board for your consideration.

If it's okay with you, Chair, may I provide a brief overview of the Ballard Avenue Landmark District and its work, and then individually describe the two appointees in the order presented?

That sounds great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The Ballard Avenue Landmark District Board was established in 1976. Its work is to provide historic preservation in the Ballard Avenue Landmark District, which is protected by local city ordinance and also has recognition at the national level.

being on the National Register for Historic Places.

The primary function of the board is to review and approve proposals for physical alterations visible to the public within the district.

Within the district, what that amounts to is work in the right-of-way, the district's one park space, and building exteriors.

The board as a whole is seven members, five of whom are elected via an annual community election process, and two of whom are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by council, as we are doing today.

Each member serves two-year terms and collectively the makeup of the board is quite dynamic.

It is two property owners, two property owners or business persons, one resident, and then finally those who we are presenting today, one historian and one architect.

The last thing I'll say about the board.

Second to last thing is its advisory to the director makes recommendations subject to Department of Neighborhoods Director of Approval.

And the last thing is this year the board enthusiastically embraces them.

Some current very interesting work related to providing some assessment and feedback and guidance as the city moves forward out of the pandemic into a post pandemic phase with the very successful cafe programming that has appeared over the past couple of years in historic Ballard Avenue.

So that concludes my brief summary of the board.

And now I will proceed with a brief description of each of the candidates in the order they were provided by Devin.

So, first, we have Miriam Hinden for position number 5, which is the architect.

Miriam brings nearly two decades of background as a practicing licensed architect, has served in a design capacity in major projects in all of Seattle's historic districts for which there is significant building intensity, such as Columbia City, International Special Review District, Pioneer Square Preservation District, and the Ballard Avenue Landmark District.

Miriam has also served as a board member in the past on the Pioneer Square Preservation Board, which very much like the Ballard Avenue Landmark Board, is the Department of Neighborhoods Administered Preservation Board, which is advisory to the department director.

Miriam has experience in adaptive reuse as well as rehabilitation, and these are the particular preservation practices that are favored within Seattle under the ordinance.

And finally, Miriam is a resident of the greater Ballard community.

With that, I will proceed to the second candidate, Anthony Salazar, for position number one, the community historian position.

Anthony comes from an extensive career at the University of Washington in academia, where he focused on history, particularly social and urban history.

He's a long-term member and an officer of the Quidan Community Council, and is a Ballard resident as well.

And that concludes my presentation regarding the two candidates to the Landmark District Board.

Terrific.

Thank you very much.

I do see Miriam and Anthony here.

If either of you would like to comment, I'm happy to give you the opportunity to share a little bit.

I don't see any.

Oh, Miriam, there you are.

Good morning.

I'm Miriam Hinden.

Please go ahead.

So I am an architect and principal at Atelier Drome.

We're located in Pioneer Square, and I have a broad range of experience in historic preservation, rehabilitation, and new construction projects, including restaurants, some in the Ballard Preservation District, and also in Pioneer Square.

And I'm really excited to be on this board and have this opportunity.

I think it will be a really great experience and a great way to work with the residents and business owners.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Anthony, did you want to say anything?

Hi, good morning.

I did notice that you have a history of baseball knowledge, so I'm very excited to have you here with us.

Thank you.

Oh, Anthony, I'm sorry.

It's really hard to hear you.

Sorry.

Can you hear me OK?

OK, there we go.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, and I chair its Latino Baseball Committee as well and have done extensive research in baseball as well.

And I'm also a beer historian.

So I've been doing some work with the Ballard Brewery District and the Ballard Brewed Coalition as well.

And it's just an incredible opportunity to be able to provide this service with the Ballard Landmarks District.

I've got a background in urban history from the University of California, Santa Barbara and the University of Oregon, where I was able to study the evolution of our great American cities.

And growing up in San Francisco, it provided me that curiosity and wonder about how cities work and how San Franciscans contributed to the success of the city.

I see a lot of of these similarities with Seattle and Ballard in particular.

Ballard Avenue, as you know, is a very charming area.

And I'd like to be able to, you know, work with our district and work with others in maintaining that charm and to be able to provide this educational and advocating for history in that area.

There's just a lot that, you know, there's a lot that to be offered here.

And as a Chicano, you know, studying in DEI spaces, you know, there's a lot of work to be done there as well.

And I really appreciate this opportunity to provide this platform and working with the district and the city, as well as later on, if we can find some ways to collaborate with the Ballard Historical Society, the Ballard Alliance, I think it's a win-win for all of us in Ballard.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you both for being here.

Colleagues, are there any questions or comments for appointees?

Yes, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Minqiao.

It is always wonderful to see you.

Colleagues, you may or may not know I've been working with the Ballard District, Ballard Landmark District, regarding our street cafes and our outdoor dining to bring this up to be able to meet historic district guidelines.

And so Miriam, reading your, seeing that you worked on Gracia, I think this is going to be an amazing connection.

And Anthony, I've just always been so impressed with your level of history of our space, of our city, of our neighborhood, and your work in the Brewery District already.

I guess I don't have any questions for you, since your resumes are already blowing me away.

Just to say you know we've got really important work coming up in the next couple months.

To really figure out how do we make our outdoor dining spaces meet historic district guidelines and that we are, you know, at the last historic district meeting.

It became very clear we have three buildings under construction within half of a block of the historic district that will each have about 200 new units on top of the density that we already have.

And this is really changing how our historic district operates and, and what our needs are.

And it's very different from 1976, you know, nearly 50 years ago.

when the Boeing 747 was first rolled off the production line.

So here we are in this new world, and I'm just so very excited for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

These are excellent candidates.

So Miriam, the one thing, not the one thing, but I noticed that in many of your jobs, you were a project manager, and that's really important because you understand every step of a project from the permitting through the construction, et cetera, and design, of course.

So I think that's really important to have an understanding of on the ground, complexities and challenges of building in Seattle as well as preserving in Seattle.

So I really appreciate that.

And for everybody's information, one of the projects that she led on did get an award.

It got the SHPO Award for Outstanding Historic Building Rehabilitation, which was the Publix Hotel and Warehouse.

So congratulations for that.

I think that you're a fabulous pick and thank you for your service.

Anthony.

You and I graduated from UCSB the same year.

Go Gauchos!

Anyway, I really appreciate the nexus between industry and history.

The fact that you are focused on the Ballard Beer District is, of course, something that I'm especially attracted to, but I think that it really is important, yeah, that we keep in mind what industry what the industries are in our historic districts and how those industries might change and evolve through time.

And I just really like that nexus that you bring to this.

So thank you very much for being willing to serve.

Absolutely.

And I hope you picked up on the word nexus that Santa Barbara, if you recall, it's the daily nexus.

Always a favorite word of mine.

Great, well, thank you very much.

Colleagues, if there are no further, oh, Council Member Strauss, did you have a follow-up?

Yeah, just, Claire, I was speaking off the cuff.

The 747 first took flight in 1969. The Bowery District Historic Landmark District started in 1976. I was just making the comparison with the last one left Boeing just earlier this week or last week.

And so things have changed in our world.

Just clarifying my previous comments.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks very much.

Historical accuracy is appreciated.

Okay, well, colleagues, if there are no further comments, then I'm going to move that the committee recommends approval of appointments 2420 and 2421. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of the appointments.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Nielsen.

Aye.

Chair Morales.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Great.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the council approve the appointments will be sent to the January 3rd, 2023 city council meeting.

Thank you for being here, everybody.

Thank you so much, Minqiao, and we will see you all soon.

Okay, let's go ahead to agenda item five.

Devin, will you please read that into the record?

Agenda item five, 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 under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 in the Seattle Municipal Code for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Terrific.

Thank you very much.

So we have Lish Woodson from Council Central staff is here.

And I'm sorry, can you introduce yourself?

Good morning, Jessica Rowe here on behalf of the owner.

Okay, terrific, thank you.

Okay, so colleagues, this is, as you'll recall, a bill that we began discussing last spring.

I had delayed a vote at that time because I was struggling to understand, candidly, the benefit that accrues to the city for protecting this building.

So I am gonna start by asking Lish to provide an overview, and then I'll open it up for discussion.

Sorry, I'm also looking for my scripts.

Do I need to move this first before discussion?

Sorry, it's already open.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Lish, I'm gonna hand it off to you.

Please go ahead.

Good morning, Lish Whitson, Council Central staff.

And I'm gonna share the presentation that you saw last.

April.

So, this is the designation.

This is this bill.

Sorry.

This bill would approve controls and incentives for the Seattle First National Bank Ranch building in the uptown neighborhood.

It's a modernist building built in 1950. It's located at the northwest corner of Denny Way and 6th Avenue North.

The Landmarks Preservation Board designated the building in 2006 and approved Controls and Incentives Agreement negotiated with the property owner last year.

The Landmarks Board's designation was based on four different criteria that are included in the Seattle Municipal Code.

The first is designation criteria C, which is that the building embodies important aspects of the city, regional, national history.

In this case, there are three interweaving histories that the board identified as important as part of this building.

First is the history of the Seattle First National Bank, which had its roots in Seattle's first bank, the Dexter Horton Bank.

And at one point was the largest bank in Washington State.

The second is the history of banking practices.

This is a fairly early representative of local branch banks where banking was moving away from large imposing edifices in the hearts of downtowns and moving towards branches that were better designed to serve the public in their neighborhoods, and in particular, more welcoming to women.

And finally, the history of the neighborhood.

This is one of the first buildings built in the area after the Denny regrade.

Um, so it is, uh, involved in the history of the South Lake Union Uptown, um, Denver Great Neighborhood.

Uh, the second criteria that the, uh, Landmarks Board identified was that this building embodies, um, modernist architecture.

Uh, criterion E that the, um, Landmarks Board, uh, identified were the importance of the architects of the building.

W.

Lister Holmes and W.

Maloney were important modernist architects in Seattle.

Finally, they looked at the location visibility in contrast with surrounding development in order to designate based on criteria F.

As you know, Denny Way has a number of diagonal streets that intersected, and this bank is sort of at the corner where two of those diagonal streets meet anyway.

It's a very prominent location.

Once the Landmarks Board decides to designate a building, the staff of the Department of Neighborhoods negotiate controls and incentives agreements with the building's owner.

In this case, controls are placed on the building and the site.

and standard incentives are provided.

Flexibility under the land use building and energy codes, special property tax valuation if the building is rehabilitated, and the ability to transfer development potential are all incentives that the legislation would provide to the property owner.

The ability to transfer development potential will allow planned growth in the neighborhood even as the building remains PB, David Ensign — He, Him, Hiss, Hes.

Hes.

And the Seattle mixed uptown zoning, which was adopted in 2017 considered preservation of this building and developing the transfer of development potential program that applies in that neighborhood.

The Council has authority under the Code to adopt, amend, or reject controls and incentives agreements, but has never rejected a controls and incentives agreement and has only once amended a controls and incentives agreement.

And I'm happy to answer questions and Department of Neighborhood staff is also on the line for more technical questions.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you very much, Lish.

Colleagues, are there questions for Lish or staff?

I'm sorry, can you restate your name for me, please?

Of course.

Thank you.

Jessica Rowe.

I'm with McCalla Hill Leary.

I'm here on behalf of the owner, and I'm also joined by Heidi Martinez from Walgreens.

She's on Zoom.

Okay.

Thank you.

Colleagues, are there questions or comments about this particular bill?

I will say that, as I said before, you know, I was struggling to understand what benefit in particular accrues to the city for protecting what is a one-story building in the middle of a very dense neighborhood.

And, you know, I realize as Lish said that our options are limited here.

We can modify the controls in the agreement.

But we can't change the designation that's already been granted by the landmarks board.

This project received its landmark status in 2006. The agreement is very different from recent agreements that, in the chair's opinion, align more closely to our city's priorities right now around housing and true community benefits.

I will also say it is the opinion of the chair that the statement of significance strains to explain why this building warrants protection.

I understand what benefits would accrue in the transaction of selling development rights.

What I don't understand is what benefit accrues to the city for protecting a building that is not unique.

There are four other buildings that are similar.

That doesn't retain its original purpose.

It is no longer a bank.

nor has it retained the original interior.

And as I said in our discussions last spring, preserving this particular one-story building doesn't make sense given the housing crisis that we're in and that the neighborhood has changed dramatically since 2006. before, you know, South Lake Union and the areas around there changed so dramatically.

So I, you know, have been giving this a lot of consideration.

It is my belief that this building, you know, would be better served, we would be better served as a city if we were able to use the site differently.

So I can't support this project and will be voting no.

I am going to ask my colleagues to comment and then we will move forward.

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Chair Morales.

Similarly, as the Councilmember who represents District 7, where this project or where this building is located, I don't believe based on similar criteria that the chair just addressed that this is an appropriate designation and appropriate controls for the given property.

South Lake Union is one of the fastest growing densest neighborhoods in the city.

We're going to have sound transit going through this neighborhood with light rail sometime in the near future.

And we're going to want to realize the highest best use of parcels for transit oriented development and frankly those kinds of considerations way.

on me making decisions around historic protections and designations in the one side of the scale versus the other side of the scale of the merits of protecting a given building.

I don't know that the characteristics of this, well, I mean, I do not believe that the characteristics of this building outweigh the alternative potentials of this site in the future of how we grow and expand as a city.

So for those reasons, I similarly will not be supporting this legislation this morning.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you very much.

I think it was April 22nd when we discussed this last time and I did mention that my concern was that this is in a growing neighborhood echoing what has already been said today, but that housing is our first is is core priority right now.

And I was concerned about the.

The use of this space and also the transfer of development rights and how that would all work, but it's better to actually build housing on site than even transfer those development rights, so I will be voting.

know as well.

But I do have a question first, which is that, is there any housing specialist, I did read the membership requirements for the Landmarks Board, and I think historian, and we just approved a couple of them, but is there any housing specialist or housing policy person on the Landmarks Board?

I guess that would be for Sarah Bells or somebody that knows.

Yeah, for Sarah, can you?

This is Sarah Sote.

We don't currently have someone who's specific to housing on the landmarks board, but we do have a developer position.

And I also see the urban planner.

I just think, okay, sorry.

Nope, that's all.

Because these decisions have to be made within the context of overarching policy needs.

That's all I'm trying to get at.

So thank you very much for bringing this forward, Chair.

I appreciate it.

OK.

So I do want to give Lish and the Department of Neighborhood opportunity to comment if there are other issues or I don't see any other remarks that you have about this particular project or the process here.

Council, your decision is on the controls and incentives and not the designation of the structure which is the purview of the

I'm sure, and this might be for staff is there are a number of these buildings throughout the city that look like this.

I find them to actually be quite useful I like them a lot.

We have one here in Ballard, I believe there's one on First Avenue in if staff is available to share, I believe the one on First Avenue is already landmarked and has controls and incentives, could you confirm that for me.

I believe that it does.

But I would have to get back to you on that.

I think this might be the only one.

I'll have to look into it.

Yeah, I did look into that and it has not landmarked.

You know, I'm just torn.

I love these buildings, but this is just a place of incredible opportunity for density and housing and economic vitality.

And I don't want our decisions to be hampering that.

So, a little torn this morning.

I appreciate everyone's work.

Okay.

Are there any other comments on this bill?

Okay, colleagues, I'm going to ask if somebody would like to move that we recommend this bill.

Madam Chair, a point of order for this.

My understanding is we We do need, well, maybe this is a question for the clerks.

Does the council have to take action on this and do a recommendation, or if it's clear from our statements that the committee is not inclined to recommend this, can we just decline to take action on it?

I guess what would be the chair's preference?

Because I'm happy to move the legislation so it sounds like we can all vote no on it, if that is the preference.

I do suggest you move it, vote on it, even if it's to vote it down.

That way we can bring it forward for consideration under full council at a later date.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

So I do so move the underlying ordinance listed under agenda item five.

Okay, I will second it.

So it has been moved and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Lewis.

No.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

No.

Chair Morales.

No.

Four opposed.

Okay, so we will not be moving this forward to full council.

Yes.

We will be moving, I'm sorry, this is a new situation for me.

We will move that the committee not recommend passage of this bill to full council, and that will be at the January 3rd, 2023 city council meeting.

Jodi, can you confirm that that is the correct course of action?

Yes, that is correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much, colleagues.

We will take this up again at the January 3rd full council meeting.

Yes, please.

I was waiting.

I thought you may call on me and I should have intervened.

I just wanted to say we, on behalf of the owner, we prefer this also not be a landmark.

Just wanted to clarify that.

So we support the comments that you made.

The building was designated before the owner acquired this building, and we were just going through the process to do TDR.

But at this point, we're also supportive of the vote you just made.

So we appreciate it.

We're here for other questions before the next meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Nielsen?

Yeah, I just have a point of clarification.

So you just said that you prefer it not to be landmark.

Lish made a point of, I think, saying that we're deciding upon the controls, not the landmark status.

So I know that Tacoma can, the city council in Tacoma can undo a landmark decision or the landmarking of a building.

So what is it exactly that we didn't- Yes, sir.

not forward the landmark.

Council Member, I'm so sorry.

I was, um, Devin came to talk to me at the beginning of your question.

Do you mind restating it?

Well, I think it's more, um, we are not, uh, un-landmarking.

We are simply not approving the controls.

Is that correct?

That's, that's our action, but yes, I think.

Yeah, so I think that can be a question for your city attorney.

In our opinion, you have the authority to or repeal a designation.

So this is something that you can discuss with your city attorney.

I've just told you ours.

And we're happy to follow up on it.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Lish, did you want to make a comment?

I saw you come off mute.

No, we can dive into that a little bit more between now and January 3rd.

Terrific.

Okay.

Okay, thank you, everyone.

We will move on to the next agenda item, which is Council Bill 120456. Our final item is the public hearing on this bill.

This department-generated legislation would extend administrative historic preservation review processes for some of our boards.

Devin, will you please read the item into the record?

Sure.

Agenda item six, Council Bill 120456, an ordinance relating to historic preservation review procedures, amending and making permanent certain temporary procedures, amending sections 23.66.030 to 5.12.1.

.320, 25.12, .720, 25.16, .100, 25.20, .090, 25.21, .110, 25.22, .110, 25.24, .070, and 25.30.

of the Seattle Municipal Code for public hearing, briefing and discussion.

Okay, next time I'll ask you to read the short title.

Sorry about that.

Okay, so prior to discussion, I will open the public hearing.

And we do have lots of folks signed up to speak to this.

So each speaker will be given, I'm gonna say a minute and a half.

We've got several pages of folks here.

We do have a few folks who are signed up virtually, so I'm going to start with them.

There's only two folks present at this point anyway, so we'll start with them and then we'll move on to the folks who are here in person.

I'll call on each speaker by name in the order that you signed up.

You'll have two minutes to speak.

If you are calling in, please dial star six to begin speaking.

As a reminder, public's testimony should relate only to Council Bill 120456. You will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of your allotted time.

Once you hear that, we ask that you please wrap up your testimony so that we can move to the next speaker.

If you are listening online and want to continue listening, please do so on Seattle Channel and hang up your line.

Okay, the public hearing on Council Bill 120456 is now open.

Oh, yeah, definitely.

Yeah, thank you.

So the first speaker is Robert Messina.

Robert Messina, if you will please push star six.

You have a minute and 30 seconds.

Thank you, my name is Bob Messina.

For the last 11 years I have been attending meetings of the Pike Place Market PDA and its committees, including those of the Market Historical Commission.

I'm speaking today in support of the Pike Place Market Historical Commission in their efforts to keep their role and authority over certificates of approval in the market.

To be specific, I urge you to amend Council Bill 120456 by removing Section 8 from the text of this bill.

Section 8 removes powers from the commission and transfers them to the Department of Neighborhoods where they will be decided by a city staff member without the deliberation of the 12 Pike Place Market Historical Commissioners and without public comment And this means without an open public meeting.

The Pike Place market that you see today is not a random free-for-all collection of shops, colors, and scale.

The Historical Commission recognizes the smaller scale of the available space in the market, as well as the opportunities for small startup businesses to thrive.

These decisions over design and use in the market have been successful in preserving historical character, as well as ensuring a successful and sustainable market.

These 12 commissioners have been doing their jobs well, and there must be no encroachment by the Department of Neighborhoods into their long established roles.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Irene Wall.

Irene, please make sure you press star six.

Irene Wall, I show you present.

You might be muted.

Push star six to begin, please.

Hello, this is Irene Wall.

The role of Citizen Volunteer Market Historical Commission should not be diluted as this bill would do.

Regardless of any possible good intentions behind this proposed change, the results would be wrong.

The pandemic emergency is over and the temporary adjustments made in that extraordinary time should also be over and not made permanent.

The matters identified for administrative approvals are not trivial or without potential negative impacts on the market.

The commission has the background and the expertise to ensure that these physical changes are made sensitively and this requires a deep understanding of the guidelines and the physical context of the diverse areas.

that make up the market.

Dawn's staff does play an important role in supporting the market by helping businesses prepare complete applications so the commission can make timely decisions.

But the approval should be made by the deliberative body, not the staff.

The city's official messaging, particularly for the Department of Neighborhoods, is to encourage citizen involvement in all aspects of our shared city life.

This is evidenced today by your appointment of two highly qualified persons to serve on the Ballard Board.

Don't discourage the citizen responsibility for historic preservation.

No historic district in the city is more significant to us than Pike Place Market Historic District.

Remove section 8 of the law.

Thank you.

We have one last speaker signed up virtually.

That's Eugenia Wu.

Eugenia, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Hello again.

This is Eugenia Wu.

Director of Preservation Services at Historic Seattle.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

As someone who works for an organization that owns multiple landmark properties, and as someone who used to staff two historic districts when I worked at the city, I see the potential benefits of the legislation from both the applicant's perspective and from the regulator's perspective.

Dreamlining the process for some scope of work is helpful to property owners and business owners.

As a preservation advocate, I am also aware of concerns about this legislation as expressed by some community members.

Transparency and an open public process are very important to everyone, particularly to community members in historic neighborhoods and those interested in the stewardship of individual landmarks.

Historic Seattle often follows and comments on proposed changes to landmarks and buildings in historic districts.

Having the opportunity to review applications and comment on them at a public meeting is important.

If this legislation passes, I hope the city continues to engage with community members and certificate of approval applicants to establish procedures that are more transparent and provide clarity on the administrative review process.

It's my understanding that this legislation does not do away with board and commission review of all certificate of approval applications.

The administrative approval is not the same for every district and for the landmarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I know this is not an easy legislation to review, but thank you.

Thank you very much, Eugenia.

OK, we're going to move to in-person speakers.

The first person I have is Destiny Sund.

Destiny Sund is not here.

I don't have you first on my list, but I will get to you.

The next person I have is Gina Caraba, followed by Miranda Arney.

Gina Caraba and Miranda Arney.

I think we got the list mixed up because that was very far behind other people.

Exactly.

Yeah.

It's a quote part of the BS.

Anyways, I didn't really prepare anything to say, but I just my comments.

Basically, I've been involved with the historic commission doing the pavilion and waterfront.

of the market and we did work with city council quite a bit, but we really had to make sure with the commission that we kept the flavor of the market, kept the architectural design consistent, and also made sure that we reached out to the constituency and the people who actually make their living at the market to make sure that it worked for everybody.

And I think that if city council had had a undue influence that we wouldn't have the amazing structure that we have now, they really wanted to just put a bunch of condos up and things like that.

And I just think it's really important that the historic commission still has oversight on any kind of new construction or renovations at the market.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It is entirely possible that all these sheets got mixed up.

So I will go with Miranda Arnie since I did call you.

And then we'll start with Alex Zimmerman next.

Hi, thank you for your time and attention today.

My name is Miranda Arnie.

I am a community member.

and advocate for the market for over 20 years.

I strongly recommend that you amend Council Bill 120456 to remove Section 8 concerning the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.

Decisions about the Pike Place Market must continue to be made by the Market Historical Commission with public oversight in order for the market to continue to maintain its unique flavor.

Every seemingly small decision about the market can affect so many people who live, work and shop there, which is why for over 50 years, the market has trusted the stewardship of the Market Historical Commission to carefully make these decisions, while inviting input from community members about the decisions that affect them directly.

There is absolutely no good reason to turn any of these decisions over to the Department of Neighborhoods simply because it has been that way for the past two years due to COVID emergency.

We are no longer in COVID emergency and we would like this decision-making process to return fully to the Market Historical Commission as it was before.

Please remove Section 8 from Council Bill 120456 and allow the Market Historical Commission to fully engage with any proposed changes to Pike Place Market so that it can remain the Pike Place Market we all know and love for years to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alex Zimmerman followed by Haley Land.

Thank you.

Yeah, and a reminder you this is about a particular bill, Mr. Kyle.

Behild my dirty, damn, Nazi, Gestapo, democracy, fascist, mafia, cartel, and psychopath.

My name Alex Zimmerman, yeah.

I love this circus.

I love this clown, and I love the 750,000 cretina, degenerate, idiot, and slave who elect this.

It's very nice.

I love you for 35 years.

Yeah, you're doing good.

Circus.

I lived before in many cities with 5,000-year history, and I never see one small city, civilized city, who will destroy downtown.

You did this.

You're a freaking degenerate idiot.

In every civilized city, you know what it means, downtown not touchable.

That's history.

This history, you don't have history.

You have idiot, 750,000 idiot who elect you.

You know what this mean?

So you destroy everything.

And for last 10 year, you never one word from consulate here stopping Amazon.

No one word.

Taxes, taxes, taxes.

Who freaking care for a hundred million when they have a hundred billions?

You freaking idiot.

Downtown not supposed to be touchable.

That's it.

This history, you destroy history.

You, by definition, not only criminal, you are psychopath.

I'm mentally sick.

Stand up America, need clean this idiotic chamber.

Uh, the next speaker is Haley Land followed by Leslie Booker.

Hello.

I've worked at the market for 37 years, and I've been active in market politics.

Moreover, it's not unknown for me to speak up critical of market decisions.

But having said that, I want to explain why 120456 is a bad idea for the market.

One of the reasons the market is beautifully governed is because when mistakes are made, when passion spills, we know how and where to direct our energy.

Because the people who make good and bad decisions are right there.

And we know where to find each other.

And the elected and appointed officers aren't sitting on a throne eating hummingbird wings or behind a locked door.

We can and do attend meetings and we see them on the street and they recognize us.

And we do stop to talk about what's on our minds.

And sometimes speaking to our officers creates shifts of understanding.

You know what this is?

Small d democracy, small g government.

And it can only happen when governance is on this scale, and it should be the envy of Seattle and the pride of City Hall for placing their faith in the public.

As I understand it, that's why the PDAs were formed.

Taking this wholly unnecessary and unexplainable action will leave a very sour and cynical taste in our mouths.

Frankly, I don't believe this bill is the council's idea.

I think it was brought to the council by the Department of Neighborhoods.

So right now the council can be our heroes and strip the Market Historical Commission for the reasons I've stated from this bill.

It's not just the popular action, it's the responsible action.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Leslie Booker followed by Joan Paulson.

Hello, my name is Leslie Buecher and I'm a member of the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.

I encourage you to exclude the market from CB 120456 in order to protect full public oversight, a preservation of the market's authentic character, a role delegated to the volunteer Pike Place Market Historical Commission.

The commission is made up of members of the community and is in commission meetings where decisions are made on design changes.

These meetings are open to the public and always provide the opportunity for anyone to share a public comment.

The group of up to 12 commissioners publicly discusses as a group to determine if proposed changes align with established guidelines.

It's a process not unlike that of the Seattle City Council.

However, CB120456 transfers jurisdiction over some design changes to the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods staff which would not require public meetings or involve the historical commission in any way.

This excludes the public involvement and it loses the benefit of debate and discussion among commissions of individuals.

As the Seattle City Council, imagine if suddenly some council bills were to be handled by a single person from an office in Olympia without your knowledge or input whatsoever from public.

That is alarming and it's terrifying.

It's confusing.

It doesn't make sense.

Why would that happen?

Why would this happen?

I don't know.

For these reasons, I encourage you to exclude the Pike Place Market Historic District from CB10456.

So we do have several folks signed up.

We have two mics, so I'm going to call the next person and then two more, so please be ready and feel free to come and just wait at the mic.

So we have Joan Paulson, and then you will be followed by Koldez Mohamed, Lauren Ruddick, and then Christine Vaughn.

Please go ahead.

My name is Joan Paulson, and I've been involved in the Pike Place market since 1970. I wish to express my concern about the proposed Council Bill 120456, which will have an adverse impact on the public market and all other historical Seattle neighborhoods.

I also believe that the powers that are being requested by the Department of Neighborhoods will undermine the State Open Public Meeting Act, giving the oversight to the Department of Neighborhoods.

Since the Pike Place Market 1971 initiative, this public market has remained strong and continuing the market character and for all visitors and the market community and organizations.

The proposed changes as being considered by Council Bill 120456 are steps backward for preservation and the Open Public Meeting Act, bottom-up decision-making, base decisions, making progress, and the efforts to keep the market public.

This proposed power to be granted to the Department of Neighborhoods should not occur for the public market and other Seattle neighborhoods.

Thank you for this time.

Next, we have Goldness Mohamed.

I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that.

Oh, okay.

Sam, then you'll be followed by Lauren Ruddick and Christine Vaughn.

Good morning.

I'm Sam Farazano with the Allied Arts Representative on the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.

The citizens of Seattle saved Pike Place Market from city decision-making 50 years ago and have stewarded the market successfully ever since.

Now the city, again, is trying to take decision-making back from the citizens, back behind closed doors, back into the hands of the few, out of public meetings and public process without being asked and without listening.

The Pike Place Market Historical Commission is required by the founding ordinance to adopt rules and regulations for its own government, and DON is required to provide staff assistance and other services as requested.

To be absolutely clear here, the Pike Place Market Historical Commission has never requested the Department of Neighborhoods pursue any of these amendments to the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for administrative review.

Not during the state of emergency and still not now that it is ending.

In fact, the commission has repeatedly asked on not to pursue these amendments unless and until comprehensive community engagement can be achieved.

We have received many public comments.

None of them have been in support of administrative review.

All of them have been distinctly opposed to these changes.

Since the Department of Neighborhoods is not demonstrating that they are listening and the commission's letter to the mayor and council members has gone unanswered.

I am here now to ask you directly to not accept these amendments to the ordinance and to honor the commission's autonomy and authority as created by the citizens.

We as a city can and should do better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lauren Ruddick, followed by Christine Vaughn and Grace Leung.

My name is Lauren Rudek.

I'm an architect and the owner of Robot vs. Sloth in the Pike Place Market.

I'm also vice chair of the Market Historic Commission.

I've been a commissioner for over six years.

I'm standing before you to ask you to remove the Pike Place Market from this legislation.

The Market Historic Commission, when fully staffed, is made of 12 diverse people from different backgrounds, different educations, different careers and expertise that serve with term limits.

When applications come before the MHC, the process is transparent, open to the public, and often consists of helpful conversations to better a project.

Under administrative approval, the decisions go behind doors with no public involvement and increased chances of bias and are made by one person with no term limits.

During the past few years of administrative approval, decisions were made that violated the guidelines.

There were no public notices of decisions until after appeal time, so the public could not appeal them.

Department of Neighborhoods has said that administrative approval would help the time of Don coordinator and the commission.

But since administrative approval has been in use, the Don staffer for MHC has repeatedly told us she's too busy to enforce any of the historic guideline violations.

Adding administrative approval to Don's plate means they haven't neglected enforcement of the guidelines.

You can see this with how many A-frames and remodels have happened in the market without MHC review.

I would like to ask you to remove the pipe place market from this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christine Vaughn, Grace Long, and Jillian Sherman.

This is Christine Vaughn.

I'm 32 years craftsperson at the market.

I served on the PDA Council for eight years.

And most recently, I was seven and a half years on the Market Historical Commission.

The Department of Neighborhoods plays an important role in the work of the commission.

The Department of Neighborhoods keeps minutes of the commission.

They're not always presented in a timely fashion.

The Department of Neighborhood vets prospective nominees and forwards their names to the mayor.

Although in the times that I served on the commission, the commission was rarely at full strength.

There are now seven members on what should be a 12 member board.

And one seat in particular has been vacant for six years.

The Department of Neighborhoods facilitates for formalizing changes to the guidelines when the Commission wants to make those changes.

However, the currently the The changes most currently recommended by the commission have been stuck in the Department of Neighborhoods for over four years.

And those recent changes which have been written and approved by the commission include a statement of commitment to racial equity that city council required that the commission add to its guidelines in 2015. There's no doubt that COVID exacerbated these problems, but they all predated COVID.

May I respectfully suggest that a better use of Department of Neighborhoods time is improvement with the responsibility that it already has, rather than inserting decision-making authority that the voters of Seattle granted to the commission when it voted to save the market in 1971. Please amend this bill to remove section eight.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Grace Long, followed by Jillian Sherman and Cynthia Mounts.

Hi, thank you.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Grace Leong and I am a community member, a member of the Market Historic Commission and an architect.

And I do not have prepared comments, but I just want to note that there are many people from our community at this meeting who have taken time out of their days who are not working right now and really feel that this is an important issue.

And I really urge you to consider this amendment as described by my fellow commissioners and by members of the public.

Thank you.

Jillian Sherman followed by Cindy Mounts and then John Chaney.

Good morning.

My name is Lillian Sherman.

I'm the executive director of the Pike Place Market Foundation.

40 years ago, the Market Foundation was established to fulfill the market's historic charter to preserve and enhance the traditions and diversity of the Pike Place Market community.

We take our purpose of nurturing this vibrant, one-of-a-kind community very seriously, supporting our neighbors who participate in the social service programs, the farmers, the merchants, Daystaller artists, residents, and the families who make up the market, the soul of Seattle.

Working in this community takes diligent commitment to collaboration and communication.

A silent community is not ever what this market has been.

And as the community's foundation, it is our job to elevate and amplify this very active community voice.

This council bill discards the deeply held value of active community participation in the Pike Police Market.

And I strongly urge you, the council to listen to what this community is telling you loud and clear and allow their voice to continue to be heard.

Thank you.

you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

really would like to keep this in our hands and we would appreciate your support.

Thank you.

John Chaney followed by Elaine Spencer and Maggie Haynes.

50 years ago, the people of Seattle got organized under the leadership of Victor Steinberg to save the Pike Place Market from gentrification.

The Pike Place Market is a Seattle treasure.

It is for everyone.

The senior citizen living on a pension might go there to a thrift shop for a hat.

A matron living in the highlands might go there for buying 20 artichokes for her dinner party.

The good thing about the five-place market is that it is for everyone, and we need to keep it that way.

The market is the soul of Seattle.

To ensure that the market stays that way, we need Careful planning and long-term planning.

The Pike Place Market Historical Commission must be a part of this and must approve a decision being considered.

Without this, I fear the market will be lost.

We need our city council to be fair and inclusive of Seattle residents.

No secret meetings.

This needs to be open to all of us.

It's not a secret that a lot of people feel that three quarters of the city council are not doing a good job.

Proves to them they're wrong.

May have this market historical commission approval.

Thank you.

My name is John Chaney and I will always give deference to age.

even though I'm getting there.

I was for 10 years administering historic districts in the city of Seattle and another 15 years as Executive Director of Historic Seattle.

I believe in looking at this legislation that it has not achieved the required transparency that is needed for the decision making that would be given to the Department of Neighborhoods.

The easiest thing that you could do is to do nothing because the current process would just expire because it was under COVID, which hopefully we're moving out of.

However, if you choose to move forward, I think that the issue of transparency needs to be thoroughly addressed and is not in this bill.

Two areas are really important.

One is the changes to right-of-way.

The biggest single property owner in a historic district is the city of Seattle.

owning land, streets, parks, and all of a sudden we have moved the decision-making away from the volunteer commissioner board to folks within the city family.

I think that's a mistake.

The second one is the issue of seismic, which is not a part of the current COVID regulations.

Seismic can make huge impacts on historic buildings and therefore needs to be carefully considered and how it is included in the ordinance today makes no allowance for historic fabric.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Elaine Spencer, Maggie Haynes, then Johnny Han.

My name is Elaine Spencer and I am here on behalf of the Friends of the Market.

We ask you to remove Pike Place Market from CB 120456 and leave the Pike Place Market Historical Commission with the authority it has had since 1971. Ask yourselves, why are we even thinking about messing with success?

For 50 years, the Pike Place Market Historical Commission has guided the market through two major structural renovations, through the creation of 336 units of mostly subsidized and senior housing, through the Market Front Project, and through the evolution of dozens of vendors and merchants.

all while maintaining the original character of the market and its status as the most visited attraction in Seattle.

Alone in downtown, it emerged from the pandemic essentially unscathed and is today the most vibrant part of Seattle.

But you may ask, well, aren't decisions like seismic retrofits and handicapped access issues that are specifically suited to staff?

In the market, the answer is no.

The market has undergone significant seismic retrofit.

And what we've learned is that that can be either enormously disruptive or virtually seamless.

Relegating the commission to signage, wall colors, approval of new vendors would have gutted the heart of the commission's work in past projects and risks doing so again.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The market was saved in 1971 and the Historical Commission was created at that time by initiative, by the vote and the will of the people of Seattle.

It seems it would be egregious to remove this from what the people have said and what they wish to continue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Johnny Han, Christopher Martin, and Duncan Thiem.

My name is Johnny Han, and I've been a Market Street performer for 36 years.

Concerning Council Bill 120456, I have to ask, why are we even here today?

What is the constituency that will benefit by this legislation that will strip the Historical Commission of its role in preserving the market's character?

It certainly wouldn't include any of us who work or live in the market or who have grown to love the market over the years.

What could possibly have prompted City Council Excuse me, Seattle city officials even consider such an offensive power play.

Is there an emergency in the functioning of the historical commission that none of us know about?

I don't think so.

More to the point, there have always been and always will be individuals, be it city council members, mayors or other government officials who are driven by the need to carve out fiefdoms for no reason other than that of satisfying needs to control.

I have no doubt where he's still alive, where Victor Steinbrook would stand on this issue.

It was all about preserving the market for the common good of the region, for the living, and for future generations.

He was about citizen participation and citizen oversight.

He was an exemplar of small d democracy.

And we here in 2022 can do no less than to follow in his footsteps and continue to stand up for preserving the market's character and to do so in broad daylight.

I call on the city council to reject this attempt at codifying a secretive decision-making process for the market's future.

Let the historic commission with no fanfare continue to effectively coherently and sensibly carry on its mission.

Christopher Martin.

My name is Christopher Martin, and I live at the LaSalle Apartments in the Pike Place Market.

I'm here to add my voice in favor of allowing disabled residents and the visitors of the Pike Place Market provide input to the ADA upgrades at the public meeting of the Market Historical Commission to help make the area more inclusive and equitable for everyone.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry, I'm losing track of where we are here.

Duncan Thiem, followed by Sarah Patton and Evie Dornfeld.

Thank you for the time to speak today.

My name is Duncan Thiem and I serve on the board of the Friends of the Market.

With my firm SRG partnership, I was also honored to be the architect in charge of the renovations of the market that were approved by the voters in 2008. With that bill, with that proposition, the city of Saddleton trusted our team with $73 million.

to improve and modernize the infrastructure of the market, to seismic upgrades to its core buildings, and to improve the accessibility.

All of these matters are now proposed only for administrative review.

I think everyone would agree with me that our project deserved to be in the full light of day.

And I believe the Market Historical Commission needs to retain that power.

Through almost five years of design and construction, I met almost weekly with the Market Historical Commission.

and their input was essential to the success of our project.

The briefing for this bill suggests that administrative review will only be for minor matters.

There's nothing in the language that actually says that.

As an architect, I can say I have no idea what a minor seismic improvement to a building would be.

That sort of work always involves tearing up the structure, digging up the foundations, heavily invasive work.

The Market Historical Commission has done a brilliant job for 51 years, almost as long as I've been alive.

Let them keep doing the job.

Thank you very much.

Sarah Patton followed by Evie Dornfeld and Sam Farzano.

Thank you very much.

My name is Sarah Patton.

I started as a volunteer for Friends of the Market when I was 15 years old in 1964. Many years later, I served on the Historical Commission for most of a decade and chaired the commission during the seismic retrofits in 2013. I'm here today to urge you to take the market out of Council Bill 12456. The council bill would allow city staff to make decisions on applications in numerous categories behind closed doors.

These categories may appear on the surface to be minor, but you have heard how such apparently minor changes can be crucial to the preservation of the market.

If these decisions are made behind closed doors, no one will be able to challenge them.

Market Historical Commission guidelines prohibit franchises and chain chains in the market, unless of course the chain originated in the market, hence Starbucks.

But the Commission is responsible for keeping out chains, so no Burger Kings in the market.

Saying no to a big business is a serious responsibility.

The Market Historical Commission has handled that responsibility efficiently, effectively, and publicly for more than 50 years.

Please take the market out of this council bill.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dornfeld, please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Ernie Dornfeld.

I'm president of Friends of the Market.

I'd like to give an overview of the Friends view on Council Bill 120456. This bill affects the authority of the Pike Place Market Historical Commission and transfers its authority on certain matters to the Department of Neighborhoods.

I want to talk about the commission, where it came from, why it works well, and why it should continue to have regulatory authority in the market.

The Market Historical Commission was established by the Citizens Initiative that established the Market Historical District in 1971. It was designed as a way to establish democratic community control of the character of the market.

The market regulates, makes binding regulations on changes in design and use in the market.

It does its work in public.

Its members are appointed by the mayor from people who have demonstrated sympathy with the purposes of the historic district.

The various interests and experience of Commission volunteers have enabled the Commission to be successful in regulating changes during two large-scale renovations of the market, first in the 1970s and 80s and later in 2008 to 2010. The Commission's work has kept the market maintain its character as a place where you can still meet the producer.

With the necessary robust staff support from the Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program, the commission can continue to be a success if we do this job.

Please amend Council Bill 120456 to remove Section 8, which reduces the authority of the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.

Thank you.

Sam Ferrazano?

You're done, okay.

So that's one sheet down.

Okay, the next three speakers are Larry Eaton, it might be Carlton, Nick Sutton, and Brooks Kolb.

Are any of those people here?

Okay.

That would be Larry Barton.

Barton, my apologies.

Handwriting's not as good as it could be.

The mission of the community development is the community development mission advises the mayor, the city council, the city department, and neighborhoods on equitable and public engagement and strategies with a focus on under represented communities.

The vision is the, of the community involvement commission is to give Seattle communities, especially historically underrepresented communities, a trusted voice in the city of Seattle.

Clearly the market does not fit in these parameters.

The proposal to include the market historical district in the council bill 120456 adds another level of review involving city staff injected into the process.

Currently the market historical commission works in tandem with the PDA to review proposals and requested additions and changes and provide feedback on the development of city developments.

Creating a redundant infrastructure with added city involvement would dilute the streamlined process, concurrent management structure, and with additional costs and delays without benefit.

Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it applies.

The current system is wholly balanced.

And importantly, it has steered clear of potential political interference as it is currently organized.

And it adheres to the vision of the original Save the Market.

Save the Market initiatives and philosophy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nick Seaton, followed by Brooks Kolb and A.D.

Skip Knox.

Hi, my name is Nick Seddon.

I'm an advocate, storyteller, and resident in the Pike Place Market.

I work for the Pike Place Market Foundation, and I serve on the PDA Council.

These opinions are my own.

For over 50 years, citizen volunteers have managed and mitigated changes and developments in the Pike Place Market Historical District.

The proposed council bill flies in the face of this tradition of public accountability with the historic commission and would remove a key layer of citizen oversight and governance from a neighborhood that is characterized by, among other things, as you've seen here today, a unique environment of self-determination and citizen governance in small d democracy.

Do not remove this layer of public oversight and self-determination under the auspices of saving time.

I got more.

In multiple Market Historical Commission meetings this year, many members of the Commission, both past and present, have clearly expressed a desire to continue to provide the clear public oversight in preserving the historic character of the market, including infrastructure and accessibility improvements, and have made it very clear that they do not want their authority eroded by a rubber stamp behind a closed door.

My message today is simple.

Listen to the people of the market.

listen to this community, and make the right decision for this vibrant and engaged group of people, and remove Section 8 regarding the Pike Place Market Historical Commission from Council Bill 120456.

Thank you.

Brooks called, followed by Skip Knox and John Brink.

Is Brooks here?

Hello, my name is Brooks Kolb.

I'm a member of the Executive Committee of the Allied Arts Foundation, and I also sit on the Columbia City Design Review Committee.

As you know, our parent organization, Allied Arts, was right there at the beginning of the fight to save the market, and so I support all of the comments that I've heard this morning.

And we very much believe in those.

And I think they've been stated very well.

I will also say that I represent the opinion of former city council member, Peter Steinbrook.

I just want to finish by saying that the other name for the Pike Place Market is the public market.

I think that really says it all.

That it's all about public involvement both to enjoy the fruits of the market, to work there, to be a citizen who is involved with the market on a daily basis, as so many of us are.

And I also want to add to that, I know from personal experience, how important seismic upgrades can be as a design as a design feature.

They can either make or break a historic building, as I once had an office in a historic building that had a seismic upgrade.

So thank you very much.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Skip Knox, followed by John Brink and Carla Becker.

Skip.

Good morning, council members, and I hope the mayor's listening to our commentary this morning.

I'm gonna claim seniority with a spiritual connection to the market.

My mother told me stories of, I shouldn't have said that word, pardon me.

I was raised in the end of a dirt road in Olympia and my mother told me stories about going to the market with her grandmother to buy groceries every Saturday morning from Alki Point.

So when I came to Seattle, I had to come to the market and I've been associated ever since in some spirit.

Other speakers, eloquent as they have been, don't need me to augment what they've said about this piece of legislation, it stinks.

I'm not so charitable as they have been with regard to the Department of the Department of Neighborhoods in regard to this piece of legislation.

They've obstructed the Market Historic Commission, they've stalled appointments to the mayor's office and run at half staff for too long, so that six members are doing the work of 12. They've been disrespectful, and that's the best I can say about the Department of Neighborhoods.

They've also been deceitful.

When asked if they had legislation drafted, the answer was no.

Had it gone to the law department?

No.

Had it come back from the law department?

No.

Had it gone to the mayor's office?

No.

And yet you all folks know what a pipeline memo is.

Pipeline memo shows clearly that that legislation was existing and was not given to me as a public disclosure request.

This department should be cut off and get a haircut, frankly, from the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.

Thank you.

John Brinks, followed by Carla Becker.

Hello, my name is john Brink I operate a tour business in the Pike place market I've been in the market since somewhere around 1989 I've done a lot of things in the market, as you can see, our whole community is here and I hope the Council and the mayor can see that from every corner of the market is here because we're very concerned about.

uh, changes to this delicate ecosystem and that, uh, certain changes to it can ruin it.

It's like a coral reef.

And, um, we're really concerned about, um, um, the proposals.

We don't need people who are outside the market to come in and make a closed door decisions on our behalf.

We're good gardeners of the market.

I think we're doing a good job for the past 50 years.

And, uh, this is a total unnecessary step, big overreach.

The pandemic is over.

and I think the market's been here before us and hopefully it'll exist after us and like I tell my guests to come it's one of the magnificent seven markets in the planet and we want to keep it this way public markets it's unique to Seattle and we want to maintain its character and I agree with everybody else it's one after another said the same things so I agree make sure the historic commission maintains its oversight please thank you very much.

Carla Becker, followed by Kathy and hey, sorry, Carla Becker, Catherine Henning, and Kurt Dammeier.

Carla Becker?

Is Carla Becker here?

No, okay.

Catherine Henning?

Please go ahead, Catherine.

Hi there.

Let me talk as fast as I can.

My name is Kathy Henning.

I'm a 35-year market artist and community advocate and a Pike Place Market groupie.

I'm quoting from a lot of the foundation of the PDA.

The Pike Place Market has been a defining Seattle icon for more than a century.

It is the soul of Seattle and spans more than nine beautiful acres.

It's a vibrant, strong, and thriving neighborhood comprised of over 220 independently-owned shops and restaurants, 150-plus craftspeople, 70 farmers, 60-plus permitted bus crews, 450 residents in the markets, affordable housing, foundation preschool, medical clinic, food bank, market commons, and so much more.

We're internationally recognized as a top example of how many various groups can contribute constructively and work together following an evidence-based model for a healthy community to support access to health, housing, healthcare, nutritious food, education, stability, and community connections.

This model is critical to our ability and we responded very well during the pandemic.

We are stronger and thriving and better than ever now.

During the last number of years, our country has seen politics and politicians power-grabbing and using dishonesty and hate to make self-determination that take away the rights of many, many decently hardworking and uniquely talented human beings.

With all due respect to this council and the city of Seattle, I ask you to provide transparency and don't reject this.

You have a lot of recovering to do and we are very successful.

We will help you in any way we can.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, two more speakers.

We have Kurt Dammeier, followed by Sharon Shaw, and then that will be it.

Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Kurt Beecher Dammeier, and as you can probably tell by my name, I'm the owner-founder of Beecher's Handmade Cheese, and also the owner of the building that Beecher's operates in.

I'm really proud to stand here and tell you that Beechers is gonna be celebrating its 20th anniversary this coming year as a centerpiece of the market.

As a business person and a property owner in the market, I can tell you that in the beginning, I found the market commission structure somewhat frustrating because it kept me from doing what I wanted to do.

However, over the 20 years that we've been operating, I've come to see the market commission and historical commission as really genius for keeping this asset unique on a worldwide basis.

And so I am in complete support of maintaining the existing structure for managing the commission, the market.

And I wanna say, please don't fix what is working very, very well.

Good morning.

I'm Sharon Shaw.

I have the title of the mother of the market.

Most of what you see here today was organized in less than three days.

So it's a very, very small example of what this community can do and will do should this right be taken away from the historical committee.

Not a threat, just saying that you will hear from us if this doesn't work properly.

The market has an incredible community that supports each other, that takes care of each other, and has done an amazing job of taking care of this entire community during that pandemic.

In that time, you gave that right to make the decisions for the Pike Place Market to somebody that knew nothing about the Pike Place Market, knew nothing about the community, knew nothing about what we do.

we need to be able to maintain the ability to have public comment.

That is how the market works.

That's how we take care of each other.

And we will continue to take care of each other in that same manner.

So please consider this as a very bad idea.

Basically, we need our historical commission to have all the say that's necessary.

Thank you.

Okay, so we are going to that this is concludes the public hearing period, we will move into discussion.

I am going to ask Sarah bells and Sarah Stout from Department of Neighborhoods.

I want to thank both of you for walking us through this.

And I am going to allow Councilmember Lewis as the City Councilmember representing the market to make a few comments.

But I do first want to acknowledge that we clearly have passionate advocates for the market here.

We've got a lot of concerns expressed.

I do want to ask you not to impugn the motives of our city staff.

We have a lot of very dedicated public servants who are here to do their best for community members, for commissions for the organizations that are here in the city, and calling them deceitful is really inappropriate and not welcome in this chamber.

So I'm going to hand it to Council Member Lewis, and then I'm going to hand it to the Department of Neighborhoods.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Council Member Morales.

I actually had a couple of clarifying questions and it's good that we have Department of Neighborhoods here to participate in that.

As the council member who represents the market, any policy that has a potential impact on the market is something that my office takes a great interest in.

This might be for Department of Neighborhoods or for LISH, but I do just want to start in talking about the scope of the legislation in front of us, because there's been some conflicting things in what has been reported and what has been discussed.

There was a November 22 editorial alluding to the role of the Historic Commission, particularly in keeping the character and keeping out chains.

I think the example given in that was Burger King can't go in the market, and the Historic Commission has been ineffective.

barrier on that.

That was alluded to a little bit in public comment.

I want to just kind of establish before we get deeper in the discussion what the scope is of the currently proposed changes so that we limit the discussion to what the changes actually are.

So why don't we start with that and then I have some additional follow-up questions.

So thank you, Council Members.

Yes, that will be addressed in our presentation, but use is not proposed in our administrative review legislation here today.

So if there was an application for a chain in the market, that would go to the commission.

So that would not be reviewed by staff.

Does that clarify?

Given that me having the floor right now seems to be holding us back from the Department of Neighborhoods presentation, what I might recommend, Madam Chair, if this meets with your approval, is that we have the presentation.

And I would like to ask the chair if I could maybe be recognized first after the presentation, because it seems like my questions might get answered in the presentation.

So I would just.

Yeah, let's go ahead and have the department present.

I think we probably have similar questions, especially given some of the comments that were made today.

So let's hear from Department of Neighborhoods, and then we will move to discussion.

Thank you.

Sounds good.

And just as background, Sarah Sotnay, we're We're dealing with some IT challenges this morning.

So we're gonna be sharing her screen with the presentation and then using the camera on my computer to discuss the presentation with you.

So my name is Sarah Bells and I'm the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods Community Assets Division.

And I'm the city historic preservation officer in the Department of Neighborhoods.

And I think we'll just move right into the presentation.

So here today to discuss Council Bill 120456, which would implement some administrative review procedures for the Historic Preservation Program.

Just as some quick context and baseline setting for council members, In 2020 two pieces of legislation were passed as part of the city's response to the coven 19 pandemic that provided the Department of Neighborhoods with temporary authority to process certain types of minor certificate of approval applications administratively.

And these temporary provisions will expire on December 30 of this month.

So we are advancing this legislation to allow some of those temporary procedures to become more permanently enshrined in the municipal code going forward.

Also as a bit of context, even prior to 2020 and the pandemic, the Municipal Code provided some administrative review authority for certain minor application types that would have otherwise gone through the Landmarks Preservation Board.

Applications that would both applied to landmark sites as well as to properties within the Fort Lawton and Sandpoint Landmark District.

The city does have some historical background and experience managing certificate of approval applications administratively prior to 2020.

So I'm just going to quickly go over some examples.

So examples of minor alterations that are currently eligible under the COVID legislation.

are signage, awning, storefront renovations, and building systems upgrades.

Currently, no, the administrative review does not cover new construction, demolition, and major redevelopment proposals.

And I like to point out that regardless of whether a CFA is handled administratively or reviewed by a board or commission, all of the SMC requirements and adopted guidelines are adhered to.

CFA or certificate of approval, submittal requirements and review timelines are the same regardless of whether an application is subject to administrative review or board and commission review.

So I just also wanted to point out that this is administrative review is something that is pretty standard across the United States and municipalities that are similarly sized and urban to us here in the city of Seattle.

So the city of Los Angeles, San Antonio, San Francisco, Denver, and New York City all have administrative review processes that are conducted by staff.

So some of the benefits that we see of administrative review is that minor certificate of approval decisions can be made more quickly by staff without the need to schedule a public meeting.

And then it really simplifies and makes less expensive the process for applicants because of time savings.

And then the boards and commissions can really focus on those more complex applications like the demolition applications or large new construction projects within historic districts.

So in late 2021, after the temporary COVID procedures had been in place for about a year and a half, DON engaged a consultant, Broadview Planning, to collect some feedback on the temporary administrative review procedures.

And, you know, ask them to, to, to connect with board members applicants, you know community organizations just to get a real sense of what was happening and on the ground and how people were responding to it.

And so, broad view.

did a series of stakeholder interviews did some case study analyses and also created an online community center, a community survey as part of their engagement efforts to collect input.

And when they wrapped up their work.

there's sort of two general takeaways from their efforts.

The first was that support for making the temporary administrative review procedures permanent was generally strong across all of the city's historic districts and boards, with the exception of the Pike Place Market, where there was a more muted response.

And the other takeaway was that more clarity and transparency are needed from D.O.N. in terms of our business practices for administrative review.

And the next slide.

It's a graphic that was created by our consultants so you can sort of see sort of the overall level of satisfaction that was expressed by folks with affiliations with the city's various historic boards and I'll know.

But affiliation with historic or does not just mean a board member.

It could be an individual that had an application that came before that board or representative of a community organization within the historic district.

Just respondents were asked to select a board that they were sort of most most closely associated with.

And so you'll see in the graphic that So the averages sort of range from one to five.

Those were sort of the weighted categories that respondents could select in terms of their overall satisfaction, with one being the lowest and five being the highest.

And you'll see that with the exception of Pike Place Market, the average responses across the various boards and districts was generally in around the four range.

And it was Pike Place that had had the lower sort of average response at two point six.

So, taking all of this information into account, we drafted Council Bill 120456 which is before you today, and the proposed legislation would permanently codify Many, though not all of the temporary administrative review provisions that are currently in place for historic preservation.

We really tried to take a tailored approach to administrative review across the city's historic districts to better reflect their unique circumstances and character.

Attached to the central staff memo, Lish created a really helpful and detailed graphic.

It's a matrix that shows how administrative review is proposed to be applied across each of the city's historic boards and districts.

So you'll see, for example, with the Landmarks Preservation Board, Pioneer Square Preservation Board, International Special Review District, the boards that have, you know, a much higher level of comfort with with administrative review, and that also tend to see more applications and larger scale applications for things like redevelopment and new construction.

We're proposing a broader range of administrative review that would be permitted in those districts in order to allow those boards to focus on the larger and more time consuming applications that come across that come to their plates, whereas for the smaller boards like Pike Place Market and Ballard where they're not seeing as many of those sort of larger scale applications, we're proposing that only a small number of application types still be eligible for administrative review.

And we wanted to dig in a little bit on Pike Place since we anticipated that that was where the majority of the public comment was going to come from today.

And so the slide that's up now really just pulls out the specific code language that would apply to Pike Place Market with regard to administrative review.

So there's only four application types that we are proposing be subject to administrative review for the Pike Place Market Historical District going forward.

So the first is applications relating to basically building systems, changes and alterations or installations.

So things like mechanical and electrical elements, HVAC systems, things like that.

The second is improvements for accessibility compliance.

So these are including, but I guess not limited to your ADA type enhancements.

installation and alteration of fire and life safety equipment, and the fourth is alterations or changes to seismic improvements.

And our interest there is to try to have this core set of technical application types handled consistently across the city by city employees, our thought being that that can provide a greater, I guess, sense of sort of predictability and consistency for applicants and to have all of those applications handled by a core set of city staff.

So that includes our historic preservation specialists within DON, but also staff within SDOT, the utilities, the fire department, SDCI, that they work with when processing these technical types of applications.

So all other application types, signage, awning installations, use review, new construction, all that stuff would still be referred to the Pike Place Market Historical Commission for full board review.

Oh, I just wanted to give a couple of examples of administrative or of items that would be reviewed administratively and then would not.

So this first is a sign application that was reviewed administratively at the standard building.

on First Avenue and it was for new business signage.

And it was a new business tenant coming in and they applied for signage basically in the same location where the previous tenant had had signage.

So it was switching out the signage for the old exiting tenant with the new tenant.

So you'll see some applied vinyl signage on the transom window and then a blade sign that was installed in the same location as the previous sign.

So they were basically just switching out signed faces.

So that was reviewed administratively and is a pretty typical example.

And then here's an example of a project that went to the landmarks preservation board for review.

And this is the Pacific telephone and telegraph Garfield exchange.

And it, it's a building that was a telegraph exchange but it has been converted to housing and a part of that conversion was adding a penthouse so some additional units.

on the upper level of the building, as well as replacing some windows in the entry.

So this was reviewed and approved by the Landmarks Preservation Board at a public meeting.

So another thing that we've been thinking a lot about is transparency and some business practice improvements that we can make thoughtfully and not in a response to an emergency.

like during COVID.

So because transparency is definitely a concern of ours and we want to be able to expand that and make the processes accessible to folks as possible.

So one thought that we had was publishing notices of decision by email on our website.

And I've already started talking to IT about how we might go about doing that.

And then also updating our instructional materials for applicants with more clarity around what it means to be administratively reviewed and what it means to have full board review.

And then something that we've already started is having a standing item on the board commission, board and commission agendas, especially for those boards and commissions that haven't had a history of administrative review.

So there's a standing item where their regular staff reports, where staff reports back as to what they've reviewed administratively.

And then that is it.

Any questions?

Thank you, Sarah and Sarah.

I appreciate that last slide because that was one of my questions is what kind of changes are being contemplated to try to increase transparency for the process so people are more aware of what's happening.

Council Member Lewis, I will hand it back to you.

We probably have the same questions.

Please go ahead.

Okay, well, let's see, we can compare notes later if my questions are the same.

So thank you for that presentation.

So I do have my question satisfied as to the scope and that was very clear and I appreciate Department of Neighborhoods making that clear.

Do you know about what percentage of the current caseload of the Pike Place Market Historic Commission these changes represent?

It would be maybe my first question.

How much of their work is taken up with things that would fall within these areas for administrative review?

So I don't have the statistics for what the proposed legislation would, how that would impact what goes to the board or what is reviewed by staff.

But I can give you 2022, so this year's like what under the COVID legislation went to the commission versus what was reviewed by the staff.

And for the Pike Place Market Commission, I believe there were thirty one applications that were reviewed by the commission at a public meeting and then four applications that were administratively reviewed by staff for this year under the covid rules.

So it sounds like it's a fairly de minimis amount of administrative reviews relative to the total caseload of the commission.

Yes, that's what we anticipate, particularly given that the proposed provisions are more limited in scope than the temporary provisions.

One thing that I feel like I should point out too is that if there's an application that staff feels doesn't meet the guidelines or the rules, they will forward that to the commission.

So there is that flexibility too.

Has there been, moving to an additional question, has there been a request from the Historic Commission as an institution to have these particular areas continue to be reviewed administratively?

Is this something that they've asked for?

Does this pose a burden on their current operations?

Because if it's de minimis, if it's for applications in 2022, it doesn't really sound like an essential reallocation of labor for the viability of their caseload.

So I just want clarification on if they have weighed in.

They have weighed in.

And I think it's safe to say they didn't want any administrative review.

Right, so I guess that where it sort of comes down then for me is.

If it's a fairly minimal level of things that would go to administrative review.

And the institution is not requesting it.

And the community clearly is not requesting it.

Then this would be an appropriate area to be carved out of the underlying legislation.

I think during the presentation.

panel indicated that there was a more muted response from the pike place market community and canvassing the historic districts.

I think that's a colossal understatement of the concern that folks in the neighborhood are feeling and I'm not.

I'm not imputing ill intent to the Department of Neighborhoods on this I do think that seeking areas for streamlining and administrative review is a good policy and it seems like in most of the historic districts where this has been crafted.

It is a viable policy.

But the market is a very, very unique community, as we all heard a lot of today.

And it's a great privilege to represent that community.

And while I have a lot of respect for the work that went into crafting this, as a council member, I'm guided by what is being requested by constituents and not necessarily what is being promulgated from departments as is where I weigh in in my preferences.

And given the confirmation that this is a small part of the overall caseload and that the commission itself is not requesting this change and doesn't think they need it to operate effectively.

I'm just announcing right now today and I want to give instruction to Lish that I will be seeking an amendment to carve the market out.

I do think that that's the appropriate course of action to take.

It's not a comment on the Department of Neighborhoods, but I think it's something that as we'll see how this works in these other historic districts where this proposal will go through and where it is being gratefully accepted.

that the market community can perhaps look at the example of how it is applied in those other places and at a future date, consider extending this practice to their work.

But it doesn't sound like there will be an undue burden in carving them out.

And it is notable that in our public comment today, we didn't hear from any other district concerns about the impact.

We did overwhelmingly hear from the Pike Place market community that this is, something of great concern and something that they would rather at this time not have applied to the Pike Lakes Market Historic Commission.

I do just want to flag that for the viewing public and for central staff that when this comes up again in the new year, I am based on the answers to these questions today going to seek an amendment to remove the market from this legislation.

I do thank the panel for their answers.

And on the whole, thank them for legislation that does seem well tailored to the needs of the other districts where it is anticipated to apply.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

My questions were along the similar vein, but maybe the flip side of the coin.

And I can follow up later, but I would be interested to have a little bit more information about the four items.

So staff referenced a table that LISH had created, which I would encourage everybody to look at.

It's attachment two, which lists the 28 different categories of potential change.

of the 28 boards and commissions.

fire and safety, as has been mentioned, accessibility and seismic, which not being an engineer, I will say seem fairly, you know, seem like these are typical things that buildings must have in order to address safety in a building and safety for the people who are inside the building.

So I would just like a little bit more information about how those relate to the historic nature of a market rather than simply getting the safety improvements necessary for the building and more quickly, presumably through an administrative process.

So more discussion.

We will not be voting on this bill today.

And so there is time, especially if Council Member Lewis will be bringing an amendment for us to continue discussing this.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Thank you very much.

First, I want to thank Department of Neighborhoods for stepping up during the pandemic to move forward these applications at a time when public meetings could not take place.

And so I really appreciate that you stepped up during the emergency, and that was really important for all of these districts.

So, and I really appreciate, Chair, that we're not making a decision right now because there are a lot of other questions that I might have.

But just because so many people came out today, I really do feel compelled to tell you where my mind's at and what will be influencing my decision.

And basically, first of all, the mayor ended the state of emergency and I am, I think that it's good governance to go back to pre-pandemic policymaking because of the end of the emergency.

So that is sort of my perspective across the board on all of the pandemic era legislation that changed processes.

So, secondly, second of all, This is always my fallback.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And other people have said this, and it's clear that the capabilities represented in this room for making sure that the market is seismically sound and the other technical changes that this would influence have been handled very ably by the people In this room in the community and then finally most important to my decision is basically what constituents want.

And sometimes that's hard to get at right because who can come to a meeting and who's really paying attention but in this case it's clear that there's unanimous support for.

removing this district from this legislation.

So that's what's influencing my decision and I respect that Council Member Lewis has signaled that he will be putting forward an amendment and I'm likely to support that.

So that's where I'm coming from and I appreciate the slide of the graph showing satisfaction with the Department of Neighborhoods work during the pandemic or the administrative services that the department has provided.

I'm wondering if, and we can talk about this offline, but it is striking to me that only one district has really voiced some opposition to this.

And I'm just wondering if the question was put to the others, do you want administrative review to be, do you want the emergency legislation to carry forward when it comes to administrative review?

Because that's different than saying your satisfaction about how well the Department of Neighborhoods has served these districts.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

I don't see any other questions.

Department of Neighborhoods, any final comments?

Lish, is there anything you wanted to comment on here?

Okay.

Okay, as I said, we won't be voting on this today.

The next meeting of this committee will be January 27th.

We have had to cancel our January 13th meeting.

So that will be the next opportunity for discussion.

And at that point, I do anticipate we'll be voting on this.

So Okay, if there's no other business before the committee, this concludes the December 9th meeting.

As I said, the next scheduled meeting is January 27th and we are adjourned.

Thanks everyone.