AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation jurisdictional property located in Lot 1, Block 81, Lake Union Shore Lands, in King County, Washington, commonly referred to as 900 Broad Street (“Property”) and declaring it as surplus to the City’s needs; removing the limited access highway purposes property designation; authorizing the sale of the Property for fair market value through an open and competitive sales process managed by the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Transportation, or the Director’s designee, to execute all necessary documents to accomplish the sale of the Property; and designating the proceeds from the sale.
Please report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Agenda 32 Constable 1188 780 relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation, the committee recommends to pass. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So this item in the next item, both deal with surplus properties that are owned by the city. The specific item in front of us, the address is at sorry, 900 Broad Street. So it's if you look at the attachment one on page six, I believe you can see location map, but it's essentially between Westlake and nine. So just and just on the north side of Broad Street across from South Lake Union Park there, it's a little triangle parcel. I believe there's a small building on there that currently has, I think, a coffee shop on there. This parcel is about 7700 square feet in size. And as of 2014, its estimated value was between 1.1 million and $1.8 million. And the in public comment a committee and. And again today, you all heard concerns from folks about the process we are supposed to go through for property dispositions and whether the city did that appropriately or not. I have had since committee meeting I have had I mean, my staff and I have had conversations back and forth with both FASB and the mayor's office on this. I have been convinced that they did follow the letter of the law that the council set up. I do not believe that they did the best job of doing the community outreach that I believe was included in the intent of the law. I have received assurances that at future dispositions, FASB will be both present at committee hearings because they were the ones that could have answered some of the questions that we raised and that from the mayor's office specifically that they can do a better job of outreach and engaging community members. The the idea here being and we've seen this elsewhere when we do surplus properties is that there may be things that we miss when we're thinking about best use of these parcels before we sell them. And if the community broadly isn't aware that we're going through this process, they don't have the time to come forward with those suggestions. As you all are aware of, the the disposition process requires City to go through a number of steps. The first thing we do is, well, one of the first things we do is ask internally as to whether other city departments have need or use for these properties. And that was done here on this parcel. There was not that need. We also look at other public agencies outside the city of Seattle. Again, there was not interest in this property through that process. And so it is at the point where we are prepared to dispose of it, as is now. On. The corner. It's it's 7700 square feet. So I don't know what that is. It's I can probably find the dimensions here and. Yeah. 7700 square feet. It's zoned as some 85. I have. Thank you. Where you finish, customer Ambra. Yeah. I imagine folks have some questions here, and so I'm prepared to have a discussion with that. Councilmember Bagshaw. Yeah. Thank you very much. I'm always concerned when neighbors step up and say that the public engagement plan was not followed, that there are gaps in our process. This is a small parcel. If you said 7700 square feet. But in downtown District seven, South Lake Union, we don't have a lot of trees to spare. So I would really like to know more about what the plans are with this. And I don't know how strongly you feel or if there is a a need to move forward. But I would like to have this removed back to committee for further discussion and consideration. Okay. So I'll say that the no trees on this particular parcel in this one has some on it, but I'm open to that suggestion. Council President, City Council. We'll have some discussion and see what we how we want to proceed. Councilmember Gonzalez has a question or concern. And I don't really have any questions. I'm just going to make a note of how I'm going to vote on this one and the next bill. So I'm going to to the extent that these move forward today, I'm going to vote no on both agenda item 32 and 33 for four different reasons that have already been articulated both from the dais and from from public commentators today. So I'm not persuaded that there were necessarily procedural irregularities in the in the process. But I am concerned with what I think is a critical policy question in the context of suppressing our properties as a whole. So as we can recall from our budget process recently, we agreed to provide $400,000 in what I'm calling the Hope to Home Project, which essentially funds feasibility studies to be able to evaluate and survey all public lands that are available and suitable for affordable housing. We also funded a $29 million housing bond issuance fund, again for affordable housing, and I am concerned about the lack of synergy between those budget actions and and those budget actions and what is what we're doing here today in terms of selling what might be available land and I and I read the reports of the departments related to a what appeared to me to be a bit of a conclusory statement as to the unsuitability of these parcels for affordable housing. And I just believe that and I'm not persuaded that that's the case. And I believe that this is a loss of a potential opportunity. And while the Executive has given us some assurance that it will be taking a closer look at the surplus disposition policies, I find that those assurances are currently insufficient as it relates to timing, the scope of the work and of course what happens in the interim until those policies are evaluated and revised. Simply put, I believe there's a critical policy question here, and I believe that that question is should the city continue to dispose of its surplus properties when there is an affordable housing crisis? Acknowledgment that our surplus property policies are not aligned with the city's affordable housing strategies and apparent alignment with our recent budget actions related to city owned property that could be used for affordable housing. I think the answer to that question is no. And so I'm going to vote accordingly to the extent that these items advance in today's meeting, and I'm going to continue to vote no on the disposition of surplus properties within the city until this policy question is addressed and answered . Very good. Any further comments, Councilman Bryant? I'm sure you'll have something to say. So. Sure. Councilmember Gonzales, I appreciate you. Your points there. And the kind of centering the work around affordable housing, I think is something that we all share. And I think that's a good point. I, I believe in the conversations I've had that both these parcels were looked at for affordable housing and a variety of reasons why they didn't go forward. But I along the lines of Councilmember Baker's request, I would be more than happy to support a motion to pull this back and have colleagues have a chance to get those questions answered directly. I mean, if there's a sliver of a chance that these parcels could be used for affordable housing, in a way, let's take another few weeks and and be certain about that. I think. Can can I just add to that just if I may? I think I think the the the issue is I read it from the email that Steve Lee sent to your office. Related to this particular issue that I'm highlighting is that the existing under the existing policies related to how we surplus are, how we dispose our surplus properties and how we come to that determination inherently result in an evaluation that will lead to the to the same conclusion that we got. That's part of today's package. So I'm I'm fine with holding it. I'm just concerned that we're going to end up with the same answer because we're we're undergoing the evaluation of whether or not the suitability of this property for affordable housing is appropriate or not is under the same set and same rubric of the set of policies that that currently exist. And so I'm just concerned that we're going to get to the same answer because we're using the same policies and the facts fundamentally haven't changed. I'm flagging a bigger, broader issue related to whether those policies need to change in order to better reflect what I think this Council and what I think the mayor's commitment is to seizing on these opportunities to develop more affordable housing through our Office of Housing and or nonprofit providers. And so so I'm fine with holding it. I'm just I'm just not optimistic that holding it will yield a different answer in terms of whether or not the property will actually be suitable for affordable housing if that evaluation continues to be done under the same analytical, analytical framework that exists right now. I understood and I, I really appreciate that clarification. My interpretation of the framework, very broad interpretation of the framework on how we look at affordable housing is the types of projects that the Office of Housing is comfortable. Funding is often at the scale of 50 to 100 unit apartment buildings, which require a certain site condition, a certain lot size, and agree that that some of the criteria for these may just be that they don't fit in that rubric but may not make sense. You're not the only one that's expressed concerns. Councilmember Baker has. Councilmember Herbold had to leave, but she's had some concerns. And so I think I would support moving this, holding this till we're about to go into recess for a couple of weeks, as I think a lot of folks around here, we could do January 9th or the well, I think the third we won't have we wouldn't have a lot of time to do anything between. Be sure to describe what our options are before we make a formal motion. We can refer we can hold it for a date certain, of course, and pick that date and agree on that. Or we can simply refer back to the committee, at which point the committee could figure out the timeline, which I think would be a recommended preferred action in this situation. That may give Councilmember Gonzales some opportunity to talk about the more global issue on how we dispose of property without having to change that a few times. Katherine Burgess does want to speak. I have a question for Councilmember O'Brien, and I don't know if you know the answer, but it's my understanding that the executive represented to us that this these two parcels were were timely in front of us to be disposed of and had budget implications. Do you know about that or. And I'm sorry, I just haven't. Yeah, no, that's fair. In the background, we did ask the question, there was a strong sense of urgency we received on moving this forward, but I did not hear a specific I believe the funding that would generate from this is intended to go towards paying back a loan. I don't know if it's an interphone loan or other type of loan on work in South Lake Union. I believe on Mercer my sense was, but I can't speak specifically was that without this there are other mechanisms, it's just kind of a hassle. Okay. And I think I think if I may. I also believe if I'm not wrong, Councilmember Brown, that both of these were purchased using gas tax funds. And therefore, it's a requirement that the money go back into a road usage expenditure that we can't use these resources for things like homelessness or affordable housing or other issues. We've got to put it back into the roadway account. Yeah, that is accurate. I mean, no insight about the revenue side of this, but it is it is heavily restricted to what's the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1818. Thank you, Councilmember. So if it's not, if, if we don't know of a specific time sensitive reason that we have to act today, then I would favor sending it back to committee, which then gives the committee flexibility as to when to bring it forward or how to address these other issues yet. And again, you know, I think I acknowledge the 18th Amendment issues. We may end up with the same answer I am flagging, not necessarily a policy question specific to these exact pieces of property in these parcels. I am flagging a broader policy question and I know that the mayor has already announced an intent to look at. And our policies around how we surplus property based on the city's value and priority of affordable housing. I just I'm a little nervous that we're advancing this these this this question today without giving ourselves the opportunity, without giving the executive the opportunity to really take a look at what those changes should be and how those changes could impact either these parcels or much more importantly, future parcels down down the road. And and because I don't I didn't see a sense of urgency around acting now. I would I would strongly favor holding these and giving ourselves the time and the executive the time that they need in order to be able to take a take a harder look at those policies in and equip us with the ability to make more strategic decisions. So if I can just quickly follow up, you said to hold them. My recommendation is to refer it back to committee so we can spend some time there. Are you okay with that? I'm sorry to refer to refer back to the committee. I'm fine with the referral. So it's a closed debate. I will move to refer. I'll take them separately. 32 and 33. I'll move to refer agenda item number 32 Council Constable 118790. Back to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. All those in favor of that motion say I, I, those opposed. Well, no, the ayes have it. I'll also make a motion to refer agenda item number 33. Constable 118791 back to the Transportation and Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Any comments? All those in favor of the motion. Vote I, I oppose vote no. Okay, so we'll send those back to committee and we'll also do some work around Councilmember Gonzalez's larger issue. And thank you for flagging that and bringing that up, Councilmember Gonzalez. I just want to thank the bank councilmember, Brian, for being receptive to to to my concerns. I really I really do appreciate your willingness to work through it. Yeah. And if I could just say a couple more things. I know I'm the one standing between us and recess at the moment here, but the I believe there there was some urgency for it, but I don't think it was like this has to absolutely happen today. And frankly, a committee, the executive wasn't there to make that case known to us or to the public. And so we're going to operate on the assumption that it's not ultimately critical. And so I think this is fine, but we can send the signal that in the future, if these are really timely, please be explicit on that