Petition of WSA Properties, et al. to vacate Occidental Avenue South between the north margin of South Holgate Street and a line parallel to and 30 feet south of the centerline of South Massachusetts Street.
The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3431295 Petitioner WSC Properties at all to vacate Occidental Avenue South between the north margin of South Holgate Street, any line parallel to and 30 feet south of the central line of South Massachusetts Street. The committee recommends the petition to be granted as condition, with a divided report with council members O'Brien, Johnson, Burgess and Harrell in favor and Councilmember Bagshaw opposed. Councilmember O'Brien. And before you start. Good luck. Sorry. Say that again. Good luck. Thank you. Council President Harrell. So we have before us the street vacation. It's obviously integral part of a much broader discussion around pro basketball, pro hockey arenas and all sorts of other things. But I wanted to just focus specifically on the the actually action before us today and remind folks that the street vacation policies have a three part test for the public's interest in the right of way about the public trust, land use impacts and also public benefits. We had three different committee meetings on this over the last couple of months. In addition to an evening public hearing here, we've heard a lot of feedback from a lot of folks over the course of this action in multiple previous actions related to this. The President Herald there, I believe, seven of least seven different amendments that were prepared in a timely manner today. And I would suggest taking up those amendments first, and then I would speak to the bill wherever it ends up after that, if that's okay. That's a great idea. So I'm going to start with the amendments. And sir, they were presented this morning at council briefing. So, Councilmember Burgess, I believe you have three amendments you'd like to walk us through. Yes. Amendment number one relates to scheduling at the city council's urging a couple of weeks ago, some of the key stakeholders involved the Mariners, the Seahawks, the two stadium authorities, the Sounders and Arena Co. Mr. Hansen's group came together to discuss scheduling conflicts, and frankly, they discovered that they had a great deal in common and they were able to work out a language that they all agreed to regarding scheduling should the new arena be constructed? Some of the highlights I'll go through. No major event can be held at the arena between 4:00 and 7:00 on a weekday, with rare exceptions. No major event at the arena can overlap with major events at the other two facilities that are nearby. And events that occur on the same day but do not overlap, will have to be at least 3 hours between the end time of the first event and the scheduled start of the second time or the second event. There's a lot more detail on the scheduling amendment, but colleagues, you you have that. And so I would move the amendment number one on scheduling. Second Amendment number one. Councilmember Burgess amendment relative to scheduling has been moved in second. Are there any other further comments? I'm going to ask that you vote by raising your hand and expressing it verbally. All those in favor of amendment number one, raise your hand and say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Next amendment. Amendment number two relates to the access road along the east side of the proposed amendment. And this amendment makes certain that this access access road be available basically 24 seven for access to CenturyLink Field, the CenturyLink Event Center, Safeco Field Sites. It also grants an easement to make sure that that is recorded with the property and is therefore enforceable. I would move amendment number two related to the access road. Has been moved in second and the second amendment relative to the access road. All those in favor of the second amendment. Vote I and raise your hand i. I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number three. Amendment number three relates to South Massachusetts Street. This amendment makes certain that Massachusetts Street cannot be completely closed during construction of the proposed arena or during operation of the arena. If built, I would move amendment number three related to South Massachusetts Street. Second has been moved in second to Third Amendment relative to South Massachusetts Street. All those in favor say I and raise your hand. I, i opposed the ayes have it key. Now we're going to move to another set of amendments proposed, I believe, by Councilmember Herbold with support from Councilmember Bagshaw. Councilmember Herbold, I'll turn to you. Thank you. The first of the three amendments relates to the street vacation not being able to go into effect. Basically, the street cannot be closed to vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles until Arena CO or third party under contract with Arena CO has obtained ownership rights to an NBA franchise. The reason being, as currently drafted, the street vacation legislation would allow Hansen to build an arena, provided he meets the conditions of the street vacation. Under the current conditions, he would not need an NBA team, an NHL team or any team. As long as it's paid for with private funds, it would allow for a sort of build it. And maybe they will come approach in the in other cities. In Kansas City, for instance, the spirit arena was built without any team, but with the hope that it might bring teams. And that's not what we've been discussing. But this legislation would allow it. The issue of the NBA coming back, our Sonics coming back has been the primary public benefit associated with the street vacation. The five year duration of the street vacation under the current legislation is three and a half longer, three and a half years longer than the EMU, which ends in November 2017. And I think without expressing an intent like this, that we do not intend the street vacation to take effect until the Arena Co has an NBA team. We are basically asking for a request to extend the MCU beyond 2017. This may include not only an extension of time, but a renegotiation of the financial terms according to law. As it is written, this amendment would allow for things like core samples to be taken, but not relocating utilities, for example. That's all for me. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are any further comments on Councilmember Herbold amendment number one. Should you second it? I'll certainly second it. But any further comments, Councilmember O'Brien, please. Thank you for bringing this forward. Councilmember Herbold, I was thinking through how this would play out. I think one of the as you mentioned, that the timeline difference between the MCU expiring about a year and a half from now and if the street vacation were to pass, that that authority would be granted for five years. That three and a half. Half year window, as currently anticipated, would not allow for anything to happen with public funds, but it would allow them to build an arena without any public funds in that period. And I actually think that that would be a a good thing if if someone were to build a arena without the use of any of the public financing. And so I'm going to oppose this amendment just because I think that that opportunity is one that would be welcome. I don't know how realistic it is if someone's going to do it. We've been told that that's a fairly high lift, in which case none of this would really matter. But I would love to see an arena built without any public funds at all if that were an option. Thank you. I support this proposed amendment in no small part because what we've been talking about is the NBA coming and people are enthused. I as well am enthused about having the NBA come back. But unless and until we actually can get a team, it seems unreasonable to me for us to be proposing and agreeing to have a street vacation at this point. The last amendment that Councilmember Burgess made a week ago said we must be consistent with the M.O. you what this does, in my mind is to highlight the fact that it's an NBA team for which we are building this. If we can get hockey, that's great. But I think it's disingenuous to say we're going to be consistent with the M.O. You are not call out specifically what it is we're trying to accomplish. Councilmember Burgess. So I'm also going to oppose this amendment. It is not consistent with the M.O. you. The reason we focus so much on the Sonics and the NBA, in addition to wanting our Sonics back, is because as it relates to public financing, the NBA is the most viable option that protects the city in King County. If Mr. Hansen in the three and a half year window after the IMO you expires and there is no public financing available. Wants to build an arena for a hockey team in hopes that he will later get an NBA team. I don't think we should stand in the way of that at all. So I'm going to vote no. Any further comments? I have a quick question, Councilmember Gonzalez. So I just want make sure that they don't understand the impact of Councilmember Herbold proposed amendment. Councilmember Gonzalez, as you answer your question, I want to let everyone know that I do have Councilor Central Staff Dan Etre and Liz Whitson on hold. Or I could suspend the rules if we need their input. If we do, just letting you know. Please proceed. Okay. Thank you. My understanding is that on in in the Kirk file which would approve the street vacation condition number one discusses that the vacation is granted solely to allow the petitioner to build a project substantially in conformance with the project described in the Memorandum of understanding approved by Ordinance 124019 and reviewed by the City Council and for no other purpose. So my understanding is that under the existing conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding, the street vacation would not be able to be triggered unless they get an MBA, unless Mr. Hansen gives an MBA team team by November of 2017. Is it is one is my is my understanding accurate based on your reading of the MSU and that particular condition? And then if you could just tell me what your intent is around the public financing piece, because like Councilmember O'Brien, I too would much rather prefer that this not get public money to move forward. So we did check with the law department and found that that language that you're pointing to right now has more to do with the physical the physical form of the of the project and not the other requirements contained in the MRU. And if we indeed wanted to make sure that this street vacation did not go into effect until other terms of the memo you like the acquiring of an NBA team. We would actually have to spell that out within the street vacation as it relates to your second question. For me, it's less to do with whether or not the stadium gets built with public or private money, has more to do with a belief that the that the potential that the street vacation has and in helping the city acquire an NBA team is the main public benefit associated with the street vacation and without it. And this is one of the reasons why I was of the position that we should not be discussing the street vacation before Arena had a team without it. This street vacation does not have the public benefit associated with it that I would like to see. Okay. Councilmember O'Brien I agree with the clarification that the council member Herbold made. And one thing I believe that language does speak to Councilmember Gonzalez is that this street vacation is only could only be used for an arena. It couldn't be used if the applicant wanted to build commercial office space. Now they can build commercial office space on the property they own, but they couldn't vacate that street to do something like that. Any further comments before I'll make a I guess perhaps the last comment and I won't be supporting this amendment. I don't I don't think we could ignore certain political realities that are occurring with the decision that we're making. The fact of the matter is, is I was supportive of a will you which sort of signal to this country that we want a team back here. And I think the net effect of this is sort of suggesting, will you get the team and we'll vacate the the the street. And I'm suggesting that if it's acceptable, then it's acceptable to sort of lay the groundwork for a team. And again, looking at the. Impact on the port and the impact on jobs and not to revisit that entire issue, but having thought of all of that and read an enormous amount of data on that issue, I think that at the end of the day, we are trying to support getting a team back and that what and this particular amendment sort of works against that. So that's where I'll be coming out. Any further comments before we do a roll call, I'm going to ask again for a roll call and a vote. So amendment number, I'm going to start over with one again or sure. I go for I go for one instead of four. Amendment number one proposed by Councilmember Herbold relative to the Accidental Street vacation. All those in favor vote I in raise your hand. I I all those are. I actually I'm I'm sorry the brought us up, but I just wanted a clarification. I think it would help everybody on the dais without this amendment made by Councilmember Herbold could really vacation. Maybe tomorrow. More can clarify this. I was just asking him privately without passing this amendment. Is it possible to use this Ali vacation for anything other than an arena? And before we answer that question, I'm going to turn to the clerk a little bit that I want to make sure that wasn't a vote, that because I was like 80% in that vote. So, again, okay, I haven't announced the vote, so ignore what you saw or heard. And we're going to, as the kids say, we're going to do a do over. And so Councilmember Swan, is you're asking are you asking the question? Councilmember O'Brien And I would I can answer it, but I council president here. I would suggest you suspend the rules and bring in the central staff just so that everyone is clear. And yes, why is advice. So I'm going to unless there's objection, suspend the rules and ask central staff Dan Etre and Liz Whitson to come from the audience. And for the viewing audience, please identify yourself. And then Councilmember Swan, would you be so kind as to just repeat the question again? Go ahead and introduce yourself, please. Alicia Whitson Council Central Staff. Danny Daughter Council Central Staff. Councilmember Swan, can you please restate the question? Yes. Thank you, Lucian Dan for being here without passing Councilmember Horrible's just stated amendment. Would it be possible for this alleviation work to be voted yes on by the Council? Would it be possible for this allocation to be used for any other development other than an arena? The only development that could take advantage of the street vacation. That's in front of you is one. That is an arena that's consistent with what's been presented to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. So it can only the street vacation is only applicable for an arena. Regardless of the amendment or not. Right. Councilmember O'Brien. So what this amendment would do would say you couldn't vacate that street to build the arena until an NBA team were here. Whereas without it, someone could, without public money, vacate the street and build an arena. Correct. Is that a distinction? Is that fair? Councilmember Herbold, to you? Okay. Can I just ask how of just a final clarification? And I think our member, O'Brien spoke to this, but I just want to make sure if this amendment passes, does that preclude somebody using only private money to build an arena? I mean, because that's what seems what you seem to be suggesting. That that's I don't believe it precludes that they could get an NBA team and build an arena and choose not to use public financing. But at that point, they would have assuming it's within the 18 months, there's a couple of scenarios there. One is they could get the team within 18 months and choose not to use public financing, and I think that's somewhat unlikely. But maybe that would happen. Or they could get an NBA team three years from now after the end of use expired and then could have the street vacation but would not have public financing because the more you would have expired. So if it's not too much trouble, more horrible, can you given all of that, please for me clarify what your amendment would accomplish? The amendment would prohibit work being done. The amendment would prohibit work being done for an arena, whether it has public financing or not, that does not have. And a team accompanied with an NBA basketball team. A basketball team. Okay. So thank you. Let me ask a clarifying question. Just so I understand the net effect of this amendment that hasn't been voted on yet, by the way, isn't. Isn't the net effect that it really does not vacate Occidental Avenue? Because you're saying. You can't do it unless ownership is done. Isn't that the same effect of voting the vacation down today? Isn't the net effect the same? I think there is a distinction in that if if a team is acquired, then the vacation would go through. An NBA team is if an NBA team is not acquired, then the vacation would not move forward. So if this amendment passed. Today. There's no further legislation, no further process. This the actual avenue is automatically vacated. Based on this vote today, if this amendment passes. Well, they need to meet all of the conditions before they can actually gain ownership of the right of way. But, yes, they could start to move forward. With meeting those conditions and constructing a project once they get permits from the Department of Construction and inspections to actually build the project. So the last question I have is, is the term obtained ownership rights sufficiently clear to trigger the vacation? I'm not sure. What does that mean, that he's actually owns it or he's negotiating to obtain it? Is there a certain legal trigger that would make that point in time crystal clear? That's the term that's used in the memorandum of understanding. So we used consistent terms between both documents. Okay. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Let's call for the question. Someone says call for the question. Okay. I'll call for the question. So let me describe the amendment. All those in favor of Councilmember Herbold, First Amendment. Vote I in. Raise your hand. All those oppose. Vote nay and raise your hand nay. So the amendment fails. Councilmember Herbold, you have a Second Amendment? I do. So I'm going to pass out the proper map and also the excerpts from the piece that describe both the issue, the problem and the suggested mitigation for folks, too. And there's a little pink X that would show where this particular amendment would would affect the project. And specifically, you can also see across the street there's a similar staircase. But in short, Amendment two would require a staircase for the north south cross crossing of Atlantic. That act accidental the is identified to mitigation measures for pedestrian improvements for increased pedestrian safety and connectivity between the arena in transit and parking. One was a pedestrian bridge at Holgate. The second was a staircase on the south side of Atlantic. You can see that from page four for that. Those those recommendations are identified to address two different issues, as not included only the bridge at Holgate. This would add a staircase on the south side of South Atlantic Street again, where you can see the pink X on the map. And to answer a question that came up earlier today, central staff did chair all three of these amendments, including this one with DOT, and she had no comments on this particular amendment. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any further comments on the Second Amendment? I'll second this amendment and then I have comments on the Second Amendment. Okay. It's been second. Councilmember Bryan. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. I also had a conversation with Scott, and my understanding is that this is something that they had anticipated to use. This is a little more complex, but as part of a mitigation for a master use permit, this is be one of the next steps after we get to this process, if we get through it, but that it's consistent with what they hope to do. I want to acknowledge and I think your amendment does this, that there are some challenges about right away in fitting a staircase on this side. And so it may be that it's not physically possible to fit something there, in which case I think your amendment also addresses alternative measures, too, which is why I'm supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Comes from Brian. Are there any further comments on councilmember verbal Second Amendment? Councilmember Johnson. I just want to reiterate that, you know, the I think the public benefit that we saw during the course of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee had a pedestrian bridge to the south side of the arena. And I think the expectation is that if it were to go through today, we'd have a lot of folks going both directions on First Avenue, exiting a game. And to get to Atlantic Grove Martinez Drive, there's some good pedestrian access on the north side of the street as you get into that curlicue to get down to the Soto bus way. And this offers another opportunity. It's not the greatest pedestrian environment going up the hill there with a lot of traffic trying to go quickly to get onto the freeway. But I think it'd be interesting to see if there's some opportunities for us to make it a little bit safer for folks to be able to get down to the important bus way access down there. So I'll be supporting as well. Great. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to cover the question has been moved on. Second Councilmember Herbold, Second Amendment, all those in favor of the Second Amendment. Vote I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Councilman Herbold, you have a Third Amendment. I do. Thank you. This is my last minute. And it incorporates language from the MRU, and it is intended to make the Plaza available for public events. Specifically, it would make public access a condition of the street vacation. It's very similar language that we use in other public private agreements with entities that the city will potentially fund for capital improvements in exchange for making those facilities available to the public at for free, free of cost. This applies only to public events that are approved by the city. I think that gets to some of the questions that we had during briefings this meeting this morning. And so that would mean that the onus would be on the city to approve up to 12 events, not on a RICO. And it would also ensure that we don't have scheduling overlap, concerns and difficulties. Implementation would be carried out in a final suite vacation ordinance that the Council would vote on after the arena was built. I'd second that. Okay. It's been moved in second and Councilmember Herbals, Third Amendment, are there any further comments? I, I had some questions at the council briefing this morning and with conversations Councilmember Herbold and others afterwards. I really appreciate you bringing this forward and support it. It's it is consistent, as you mentioned, with other things we do with public these types of facilities to try to make sure that there's public access for these types of events. And so if it goes forward and this is built, I think it would be outstanding to have these types of public events there. Okay. So it's been moved in second. And Councilmember Herbold, Third Amendment, all those in favor, vote I and raise your hand. I opposed. Congratulations. Councilmember Herbal. Two thirds is a great batting average. Doing well. You'll go. Oh, my God. Too many. There you go. Council member Gonzales, you are on deck. They're just going to keep coming from you. And in spite of the subject, I commit to not using a sports analogy. So I have proposed an amendment to the conditions. The first one is consistent with what we have recently done in other street vacations and vacations as it relates to free speech and First Amendment protections. So I have included the same language that we imposed upon or approved for the BLOCK 21 Amazon Alley vacation. It will be a provision in the property use and development agreement that will require that the public plaza be accessible 24 hours a day, with the exception of a few limited circumstances related to private functions or maintenance for safety reasons. It includes describing the plaza as a public benefit. And thanks to Councilmember Bagshaw flagging this for me in the morning, I have included a provision that would also require the public restrooms available in the plaza to be open 24 hours as well, consistent with the availability of the Plaza. An additional amendment that I am proposing today is to make sure that we infuse equity for communities of color and tribal communities into the arts program that is described as one of the public benefits in the conditions. I want to thank Councilmember Juarez for making sure that I included our tribal communities as part of the folks who could either be consulted during the art acquisition process and of course, during the the anchor art project effort as well. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez, do. I need to move it? Yes. So I, I move for adoption of my amendments to condition 17. Second. It's been moved. And second, Councilmember Gonzalez's amendments. Are there any further discussion follows? Sorry. Councilmember Bryant. I comment. I think that this has come up before, as you mentioned, in previous free vacations and vacations. And as we're working through revisions to our overall vacation policy, I think the right to free speech in any place it's public or perceived as public, I think is critically important. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward. Thank you. I also want to make sure that we're infusing our recent social justice efforts and initiatives when we're talking about our public arts program and what we expect developers to provide us in terms of a commitment to race and social justice equity as it relates to the public art that they intend to install. And while we keep interrupting Council President Harrell here, I do appreciate the emphasis on local artist two Excellent. Okay. Has been. Councilmember Gonzalez's proposed amendments have been moved in second and all those in favor of vote I in raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Okay. So I think we're ready to move and I'm going to use the term as condition when I talk about this petition as opposed to amendments because they are conditions of the petition, we're ready for signature. Good. So I move to grant the petition as conditions for a second. Second. Are there any further comments? Are you guys are premature? Any more comments? Well, no, I have something to say. Okay. I'm not voting for 49. Got a yes vote over here. That was in focus. Okay. As in Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you. No surprise. I still oppose this street vacation, but I wanted to give my colleagues a few comments. I know our positions are solid solidified at this point, but nonetheless, I want to speak one more time on this. My sense is that without the assurance of an NBA team, without the improved transportation conditions, without addressing the impacts on the port, and without a serious look at the viability of key arena, we're losing our leverage. And that means workers, the port and our taxpayers alike have a lot to lose. But I also want to acknowledge all the hard work that has gone in my Sonics friends out here, the people that have been coming day after day as we have had these conversations. What I do know is that there's people of goodwill, and I do know that we have good intentions. And I appreciate the kind words from the nonprofits. But I do want my colleagues, my beloved colleagues, to seriously consider, reconsider reconsidering at this point and voting no. First, this vacation is simply premature. When we negotiated for the MEU four years ago. We all believed, and we're told that the Sacramento Kings were about to be sold to Chris Hansen and that we were going to have an opportunity to get our Sonics back here. We all wanted the Supersonics to return to Seattle, and I shared that, and I shared that enthusiasm. But since then, no NBA team has materialized. And based upon what the NBA commissioner said just ten days ago, Commissioner Adam Silver states, whether or not this arena is shovel ready is not a factor, not a factor that we are considering in terms of whether or not we expand at this point. So it doesn't make sense to me that we're moving ahead, particularly when we have not linked this up with an NBA team coming back. And second, the street vacation does not address the traffic problems that already impact our busses, our cars, our freight downtown. All of you know that I live and work down here. I walk home every night and on any given game night, whether it's the Mariners, whether it's a monday night football game, whatever we have, the freight and the cars and the busses downtown are simply stopped. The traffic conditions are real night right now on first and fourth. And nothing has been done in this particular proposal that will seriously impact this congestion. I believe that this decision is, frankly, an economic justice issue. Why would we put family wage jobs at risk and compromise traffic and freight traffic, the throughput that we need when there's no team and the proposal fails to address the forecasted traffic problems. What we're doing is pitting sports against family wage jobs. It doesn't make sense. And third, we simply have not given key arena a serious look on property that the city owns. And with our recent AECOM study that indicated that we can create an arena that the NBA and the NHL would love to play in. Again, quoting Adam Silver last Thursday, he said he hasn't ruled out anything. For me, it's a fresh start, he said. Nothing is a closed deal. Silver said of the key arena renovation option, especially with what an arena renovation looks like these days. Compared to the old days, it's very different. And so when somebody talks about renovating Key Arena, depending on how much was invested, it could look just like a new arena, frankly. So the devil is in the details. So that's my concern, frankly. We all love our sports teams. We love our partners. We know how much community energy and positive effort has gone in from the Sounders, the Mariners, the storm, the Seahawks, the Huskies, the Falcons and the Red Hawks. And yes, to my friends, we have heard the pleas and the pledges from Sonics rising. But while we're listening to our sports partners, I really wish we would be listening more to our port partners. It's the port that is helping us make our city and region strong and viable. And the port has repeatedly written to us about their efforts to keep our trade. This a trade dependent region that's competitive with both Canada and California and also all of you up here have seen the letter that has been signed by 50 legislators. It knocked me out that we've got 50 legislators that could actually come together and agree on something. But they did agree on this, and they said that the side of the proposed street vacation represents the cross roads. The international trade, manufacturing and transportation interests that together form a key economic engine for our state. We should not be compromising that, and we should not be pitting our jobs and our port good port jobs for a sports stadium or an arena itself. And I do strongly support the goal of bringing the NBA and the NHL back to our region. But I really disagree that it's an either or. This should not be a proposition that is either or. It should be one that is. And and we keep the jobs and we have a competitive port and we bring back a sports arena. And I do want to say one last thing to my buddy, the Garfield Bulldog on my left. Last Saturday, we were we were at Garfield High School. And there was as I went behind the curtain for a moment, there was a big sign that said. Honesty is standing up for what is right, even if you must stand alone. So I may be an eight one vote here, but I really believe that taking care of our port and taking care of our sonics in the future is the right thing to do. So I'll be voting no today. Council. Councilmember Juarez. Thank you. Oh. Okay. Oh. Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw. Good afternoon. My name is Deborah Suarez and I represent District five. The Seattle City Council was asked to review and approve Arena Co's application for a street vacation. And with that, we're entrusted with the public trust, the public interest and the public benefit. To make this decision, we looked at state law, to see the municipal code, as well as a resolution passed by council in 2009, which outlines the guidelines for street vacation decisions. In addition, many of us read hundreds of documents, reports, studies, public comment, legal memos, policy memos. We looked at, we talked to stakeholders, unions, businesses, of course, representatives of the applicant and their lobbyists and the mayors. And as a matter of policy, I found some of these tools to be sorely inadequate. Not the public comment or the studies, but basically the 2009 resolution, which is the guideline for district vacations, nor in these policies are there instructions for dealing with the whole holistic impacts of street vacations on the future of our city now and in the past, including the port overlay and its historical uses, basically we are engaged in a flawed value system. For me, this decision weighs a nonexistent NBA franchise against Seattle's 160 year legacy as a maritime powerhouse on the Salish Sea, the Port of Seattle. Somehow we've created a false narrative of fact versus a fiction. The Port of Seattle is a crucial driver of growth in Washington State, the most trade dependent state in the union. If the Seattle Council votes to give up this public right of way in the heart of our maritime industry I'm sorry, the heart of our maritime industry district, we will spur what I would deem an irresistible pattern a civic gentrification as non-industrial users move into the area and economically evict the industrial tenants and related family wage jobs . We already have two arenas, so this is in some ways a tale of two streets. In some sense, it is neither an unused, simple alley or a major powerhouse used as an access road during severe congestion. This is a zoning decision, a decision we must make using tools and a policy that is simplistic, sterile and again ignores a holistic approach of growth, culture and our history as a city. This process sorely lacks a truly public interest and public benefit analysis. At least it does for me. We must protect our public trust, provide for true public benefit, and that protects us from adverse land use effects. And I could go into all the studies and everybody has a point about traffic congestion, pedestrian and what we what we want our city to look like. The value systems said today. And what we have to work with isn't the system that we want want, but it's the one we have. And I believe it is flawed. It doesn't capture or go beyond both the intrinsic value and the inherent value of today, of today and future issues affecting our society like climate change, your income inequality. We need this in order to make decisions that dramatically change our history, our future. To me, the port is real. It has intrinsic value. The street represents a bigger story in our collective, collective narrative. Once we relinquish the street, we take away another piece of our maritime history, the industrial port district. The analogy, of course, is civic gentrification, except a sad or fatal flaw is that we are balancing our choosing a nonexistent commodity that is a third arena with no NBA team in sight against an existent, long time civic resident. The port the port is dense with life, jobs, commerce, history, tradition, and over 160 years of maritime success. So basically I want to share something with you. And this is what we kind of do where I grew up. I want to share with you only in respect to the port, a tale of Two Rivers and why it's important to today's discussion and whether we approve a street vacation for the hope of something bigger or better or more to come. Over 100 years ago, the state of Washington thought it was a good idea to build two dams, one on the lower Elwha River and one on the Kerkovich River. This decision was a value based decision, the kind of decision we're making today. The city of Tacoma and the state of Washington decided that the dam in energy was more and more important. It was more important than the people, the river, the environment. The culture, the history, the legacy. They picked one project over the other. And as we know, let's fast forward. One tribe got their river back and that was the lower Elwha tribe. 100 years later, after all the degradation, loss to the natural environment and including to the Native people and 30 years of litigation and mediation, it was finally determined what our culture wisdom has always known that the river was more important and the dams were taken out. The other river, this Acoma River, almost the same history 100 years ago, they decided to completely de water and take out the north fork of this Acoma River. And again, we had 30 years of litigation in mediation because again, we made a value judgment. Something else was more important than what we deem in front of us right now. In both cases, the river was who the people were, the culture, the tradition, their their livelihood, their history, and their legacy. And you're probably thinking, Oh, my God, what does this have to do with the Sonics and the port? I have a point. Trust me, I'm going to be there. The maritime history is our history. We have over 160 years of being a maritime city. We are the Seattle Mariners. We are people of the Salish Sea. In fact, we had that since the first ship sailed into the bay in 1850. The Hudson Bay. As a native person, trust me when we weren't that excited when they showed up. But they're here. We are water people as well. We are next to the Salish Sea. Our physical location and relationship with our environment defines us as a city. It defines us as a people. It defines us as is our legacy. It's who we are. Just like our neighboring tribes. So my point today is this You can always build an arena. You can build three arenas. You can build five arenas. You can build them everywhere. But you cannot build another deepwater port. You cannot do that. You can never replace history or tradition. So do arena. If we trigger this, the public cost will be well over. I'm sorry. $200 million. The Port of Seattle on Salish Sea. Priceless. The port is not a symbol. Its value is natural, is its natural state, its use and its legacy. And it's real. And it's here. And for me, that's our history. That's our legacy. And it's us. And so I'll be voting no today. Thank you. I was performing. I'm going to try to be briefer than my colleagues. But you were both quite eloquent. No, it it was a that was meant as a positive. So the decision before us is one of a discretionary decision that the council makes on any street. Now, a vacation. And I'll be the first to say that every street and alley in the city provides some benefit of some sort to us. And so to pretend that that any street doesn't matter to us is inaccurate. And the question before us is a discretionary one of balance between interests. And in the case of Occidental Street, in this location, I believe that the impacts of removing that street from the grid can largely be mitigated through the agreements in this agreement. I also believe the public benefit that is being provided by Arena CO in the case of this vacation is an excellent public benefit across the board. I know that there are folks that disagree with that, but my discretion in looking at the environmental impact statement, the analysis, the testimony, the presentations we've had here, I believe on the whole that the public benefits by granting the street vacation. And so I will be voting yes. Now, I wanted I want to just say that that those people on both sides of this, as my other colleagues have mentioned, that I have a ton of respect for, and it's a challenging position to be in. We've heard today from the building trades from Unite here and other unions that have said that this is a great project for their workers going forward because of agreements that have already been reached both in building and operating this arena. It'll be providing family wage jobs for those folks. And I believe all of us here support those family wage jobs for you. We've also we've also heard from longshoremen and sailors, Union Pacific saying that they believe that this project will have a negative impact on those family wage jobs. And again, I believe all of us care about those family wage jobs, as do I. I believe that there's a path here through thoughtfulness to date to allow the addition of the family wage jobs to build and operate that arena without impacting the family wage jobs that already exist in the area. But I know there's difference of opinions on that, and I respect folks on both sides of that. I look forward to supporting this in a moment when it comes to a vote and look forward to seeing what happens next in the long saga of pro basketball and hockey in Seattle. Cancer Council member. So want to thank you, Brendan Harrell. I respect Councilmember O'Brien's points. Deciding how to vote on this item was not easy for me and my staff and I have had to dig deeply on both sides to make up our minds. I have to say, the genuineness and sincerity of basketball in Sonics fans has been impressive. These are thousands of fans who have had their teams stolen out from under them and legitimately want an NBA basketball team back in Seattle. We also have hospitality workers and workers in the building trades who have successfully negotiated important labor agreements, which I, as a member of the labor movement, unreservedly support. And on the other side, there are maritime and industrial workers who have been fighting for decades to defend the industrial core of Seattle and defend our working waterfront. And as a member of the labor movement, please let me share that these jobs are particularly important because the unions that represent these workers have had a history of willing being willing to go on strike and fight back against the attacks of their bosses, preserving some important traditions of the labor movement, fighting traditions that we as workers are going to have to use to reverse this spiral of economic inequality. And as a result of these battles that the labor movement has waged the middle class jobs that we won over the last century. Have been lost over the last several decades through massive deindustrialization and loss of manufacturing. I want to be very clear. I would never make a decision based on the claims of the bureaucracy. That is the Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle is an institution that former United States attorney Mike McKay described as, quote, a cesspool of corruption, unquote. The Port of Seattle that says that it is against the arena in order to defend jobs, but has disgracefully fought the sea dock workers in their efforts for $15 an hour. And the Port of Seattle that has shockingly allowed the super exploitation of independent truckers, many of them independent workers, and a board of Seattle who, for a quick buck, was willing to sacrifice our planet to bring the shell. Arctic oil drilling rig. But on the other side, there are big developers who want to redevelop the industrial core of Seattle and the Port Workers and their union. The International Longshore and Warehouse Workers Union have been fighting again and again against these forces who are slowly squeezing out our working waterfront. I am in solidarity with not the Port of Seattle, but the port workers and the ILWU who are trying to stand up against these forces of gentrification. I recognize that Sonics fans will not like my no vote on this matter, and I really don't like that vote either. I hate having to be in a position where, as an elected representative of the city, I have to pit sports against jobs, jobs, against jobs. This is not a good way to make public policy. But please always know that I vote with integrity and my vote is never up for sale. I do want to help bring back the Sonics, but I cannot do that on the basis of undermining our working waterfront and good paying industrialized industrial, unionized industrial jobs. Not to say that other jobs are also not of value, especially if they are unionized, living wage and come with benefits. Those who say that this early vacation vote has little to do with closing down the maritime industry may have a little bit of legitimacy. But I think that the ugly vacation boat is also a battle line in an ongoing war by big developers to gentrify Seattle. And I unfortunately cannot vote in favor of doing that. I therefore do not support the building of a new arena in this location. But again, my vote has nothing in common with those elected officials who say they're voting no because they care about jobs, but were also the ones who voted yes for the Amazon alley vacation earlier this year and completely disregarded the major concerns of workers security workers that are contracted by Amazon and have faced massive wage theft and retaliation against them. I was the only no vote against Amazon and today's vote is a similar issue for me. I support bringing back an NBA team to Seattle as long as it's not linked to building a stadium that potentially threatens our working waterfront. I know this is not an immediate alternative at this point, but I want to say I will help in any way I can. For us to demand that NBA commissioners allow for expansion and bring back the Sonics to the key arena and the door to my office will always be open to help genuine efforts to do so . Key Arena has been good enough for the Seattle storm to play in, and it was good enough for the Sonics before the owners decided to screw over Sonics fans. And if it wasn't for the greed of billionaires who controlled pro-sports, it would still have been good enough. I'm voting against this trade vacation because I'm concerned about Seattle's good paying, unionized industrial and maritime jobs. And I don't want to put jobs against jobs. But I also think we have a much broader conversation to have about how the barons who own our professional sports teams are allowed to have monopoly control over entertainment for millions of ordinary working people who are sports fans. Finally, I would like to thank everybody who helped me and my staff members learn the nuances of this issue, particularly all the Sonics fans like Adam Brown and Jason Reed, who made the important corruption exposing documentary film called Sonic Skate and all my sisters and brothers from the labor movement who helped elucidate the history of soda industry. Thank you. Councilmember Burgess. Thank you very much. I thank the city council since we started this prospect process back in 2012, has very strongly and consistently negotiated for the best outcomes for the city, the city government and the people of Seattle. We did that when we renegotiated the MRU in 2012, and I think we've done that here with this street vacation process as well. I hear when our port commissioners come and testify before us. And Commissioner Feltman is still here. And when they express their fears about what this decision might do. But I want to remind all of us that we have voted consistently to support our maritime and industrial sectors and the ports specifically. Last year we adopted the heavy haul corridor legislation. We have voted dozens of times to protect industrial and manufacturing zones of our city. And I don't think any of us up here would do anything where we knew that we were somehow harming the family wage jobs that come from Seattle's legacy industries, our maritime manufacturing and industrial sector . Some suggest that we should wait and not take action until we're guaranteed an NBA team. But we've never been guaranteed a team. And frankly, the way we know that the NBA works, it's a fantasy to think that we would ever be guaranteed a team. The only alternative which the city and King County together chose to follow in 2012 is to develop a framework that could put us in a place where a team may be made available to Seattle. So rather than tying our chances to a specific team, what mattered is that we made it explicit in the MCU that the public private partnership to build an arena would not move forward unless a team were secured. And we've done that as well in the street vacation. If a team is not secured by November of 2017, public financing of this arena goes away and evaporates. The street vacation is no different. It's conditional on the Arena project, and the Arena Project's public financing is conditioned on securing a team. The street vacation is also conditioned for those who are worried about traffic on strong and detailed language around scheduling agreements agreed to by the other stadiums and sports teams who play in that area. The street vacation is also not a giveaway. If we approve this vacation, the city agrees to sell for a fair market value estimated at between 18 and $20 million. That one block of Occidental, as well as an appropriate level of public benefits estimated to cost Mr. Hansen another 20 to $25 million. I think we've adequately addressed the various issues that we have before us. We've weighed those and measured what impact they would have, and I think that's the reason I'm going to support the street vacation. Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you. Council president. I just want to talk about a couple of the touch points for me over the course of this discussion that have really helped inform the decision that I'm going to be making today to support the arena vacation. You know, we heard pretty loud and clear from folks around the industrial zoning issues in the SODO area. I want to point out for my colleagues benefit and for those watching along at home that their current site for the proposed arena has no existing industrial zoned land on it. It's a it's an arena. It's a proposed arena site as a proposed stadium district. So I am very committed to the idea of continuing to preserve industrial lands in the city. The location, as proposed today, is not currently zoned for that kind of use. There are no current tenants that are involved in industrial manufacturing jobs. And I think that one of the things that really informed me over the the time that I took to make this decision is some reporting from the Planning Commission that really underlined how important manufacturing and industrial lands have been throughout the city's economic booms and busts as a constant for us in our revenue tools. I stand committed as the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee to make sure that the industrial lands that we have zoned as industrial, which again, this is not one of them, stay as industrial lands. We've also spent a lot of time talking about transportation as part of this discussion. I think that there's been a lot of really great public benefits associated with this plan, including a lot of transportation enhancements around pedestrian and bike infrastructure, as well as a contribution to the Landers Street overpass, which many folks have identified as a critical corridor for freight mobility. I want to highlight for my colleagues that what we've been talking about is vacating one block of one street in a city where we've got 30% of our landmass for roadway infrastructure. For me, this issue isn't about that one block. It's about how do we prioritize that 30% of our city's roadways to do a better job for free mobility? And I stand willing to work with the board to make those tough decisions to allow for better freight mobility and connectivity here in the city. But I was not compelled by the arguments that I heard around negative traffic impacts or some of the other issues that I heard around the loss of manufacturing industrial jobs. I was compelled by the testimony that we heard around how important this is going to be for the building and construction trades and for the folks that unite here around creating a 20 sort of a 365 day employment opportunity for those folks who are working in those jobs. And I think for those and several others, not the least of which is being the shortest at six four of one of my cousins and being a lifelong Sonics fan that I'll be voting yesterday to support vacating . Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I'm very sympathetic to wanting to get the NBA back in Seattle, so sympathetic that I see having a team as a public benefit that would be worthy of voting for the street vacation. I think that's really one of the things that has got gotten lost in this discussion is that it's not just the nine people up here who determine what a public benefit is. It's it's you guys, too. And I've heard loud and clear that you support having a team in Seattle regardless of what what side of this issue you are you are on. Many of you really see that as the driving public benefit associated with a street vacation. But unfortunately, that's not where we're at right now. Another approach that I had looked at, because I had concerns that we are opening the door for a request for an extension of the street, an extension of the MRU or a change of terms is we looked at seeing if we could vote on a street vacation that had the same duration as the 2012 EMU. But we've been advised against that approach by our law department. I do support the fact that we have a a historic labor peace agreement in the EMU and that there are future new jobs that this project may bring. As it relates to the Labor peace agreement, I believe that is tied to the to the public financing of of this of this project. In either event, I really prefer to air on the side of protecting and protecting industrial and maritime jobs that we have now, not jobs that we may have in the future . We need to maintain our diversified economy. There are nearly 43,000 people who work in SODO, an average wage of $70,000 a year. Also, I've heard a lot of concerns. Definitely a few people in West Seattle who have contacted me in favor of this arena. But I've heard a lot of concerns from my constituents in West Seattle and South Park about their access to downtown, specifically the West. Seattle Transportation Coalition has noted that there's been an a reduction in vehicle lanes over the last decade through SODO. Many in West Seattle feel that they already shoulder the burden for professional sports facilities. District one is separated from downtown by Sodio Sodo and the stadiums. If the transportation mitigation as identified now doesn't work out. It's West Seattle and South Park. That would be the neighborhoods most affected and hindered to access to downtown. Further are business owners in West Seattle have expressed concern about gentrification and losing access to goods and services in Sodo that serve their businesses in West Seattle. One restaurant owner in West Seattle write to the council and tell us that there were 14 unique locations in Sodo that provide goods and services to his business alone. Lastly, the the project before us doesn't include the proposed L.A. live style bars and restaurants in the impacts from them. And so parking and transportation impacts may not even be adequately described for these reasons and and more that I won't go into because many of my colleagues have already. I will be voting no against this reification. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Last but not least, I hope. Not last. Oh, are you? I know. You're in fourth. Quarter, by the way. Almost in overtime. Oh, my word. I'm going to pretend like I didn't hear that. So over the past six months, I have received probably more than a thousand messages. And that doesn't even include the social media posts that I've been getting while sitting on the dais and otherwise about this land use decision. I began to study this issue in late November of 2015, just a few short days after being sworn into office. In the course of the past six months, I've reviewed constituent messages. Petition to vacate the Street Clerk File 312905. Central Staff divided Report and Stats Recommendations for the Street Location Central Staff Transportation Impact Summary Arena Traffic Impact Study the Stadium Overlay District Ordinance Central Staff's Summary of the MSU and the Port of Seattle's Economic Impacts of the proposed Soda Arena reports which were received late on Friday. I also participated in a two hour public hearing and watched committee hearings of the Transportation and Sustainability Committee, in addition to several briefings and presentations from central staff as ODOT, as DCI and the Design Review Commission. And I really sincerely want to thank all of those who have reached out to me to give me your thoughts about whether or not it is in the best interest consistent with the Seattle's and consistent with the Seattle Street Vision policies to now vacate or sell Occidentale Street to Mr. Chris Hansen for the purpose of building an arena. For those of you that know me, you know that I'm generally not the quietest, quietest person in the room. My silence. I hope you will take it as a signal of my profound and deep struggle with a seemingly innocuous land use decision. The voters of Seattle, citywide, have vested in me and my colleagues the great responsibility of sifting through these difficult policy questions that ultimately are distilled to one word A or I. Or no? I have always committed to being thoughtful in my approach to difficult policy issues, but I must also be decisive, and I hope that my vote today will fall in line with my goal to be thoughtful but decisive before being elected to Seattle City Council. I watched this arena issue play out, and with all due respect for Mr. Hansen, I've always been a skeptic of the use of public dollars to finance a private capital venture, and I cannot say that I would have voted in favor of the memorandum of understanding that was approved in 2012 by that City Council. The decision before me today, however, is not a rehashing of the Memorandum of understanding and that City Council's decision to approve it. The decision before me is a land use decision that is governed by three questions. One are the functions of the street right of way to be vacated protected? Two Would there be adverse land use impacts resulting from the vacation? Three Will there be sufficient public benefits to offset the loss of the right of way? Many folks, in my opinion, have erroneously pitted certain union jobs against other union jobs. This is also a false dichotomy and does a disservice to our struggle in the labor movement. Now is the time to show solidarity with each other, not a scarce resource mentality. Nor is this an either or decision about whether you love the Sonics or love the port and maritime industrial jobs. We can and should love both, and I believe that we do. I am wholeheartedly in support of bringing NBA and NHL teams to the city of Seattle, and I hope that we can do so without further compromising the vitality of the port and our rich maritime and industrial history in this city. We currently have a maritime and industrial community that provides us with tens and thousands of jobs, and I believe it's in our city's best interest to protect the jobs we know we currently have, rather than sell the street for hypothetical jobs that are contingent on a hypothetical team. I have really struggled with this decision a lot and I respect people on both sides of the equation on this one. I trust I believe in the building trade. I believe in the Sonics rising folks. And I also am a resident of West Seattle and suffer every day through the traffic that is in Sodo. And I think that we need to make sure that we are committed to a robust traffic traffic mitigation strategy. I don't believe that the traffic issues have been well, well dealt with. And today I am going to vote no on the street vacation. Any further comments before we were calling the questions the inappropriate phrase, actually. I will just be very brief because I can count and I will be supporting this for a variety of reasons, but I certainly really respect the work that my colleagues have done. Many of you have talked about the sort of the I don't say agony, but the having to go deep in terms of your values and your mission and your vision of what this city should be about on this decision. And as Councilmember Johnson said, it is one block, but it is a critical block. I do want to remind the public that the taxes that would be used in this are financed from arena generated economic activity. That would be the admissions tax. The property taxes sales tax would be taxed at leasehold excise tax and a parking tax. These are new revenues that we do not have. And at a time when we are trying to create jobs and certainly not take them away, this seem like to be a wise decision. But I must tell you that there are many ways to demonstrate our commitment to longshoreman and to the sailors union of the Pacific and to our maritime and port industry. And I think we will continue to do that, not just in our our our heavy haul corridor, our work, our freight masterplan work or our priority hire legislation . But in every decision that we continue to make, but on this particular street vacation, I see it again consistent with the you. So having said that, I, I think we've all protected our record and I'm ready to move forward with the vote. I'm going to ask that the clerk call out the roll on granting the petition as condition it's already been moved and seconded. So please call the roll on the granting of the petition as a condition to. Purchase. By. Gonzalez. No. Purple, no. Johnson High. Suarez no O'Brien High, sir. Want no beg Bagshaw? No. President Harrell. I. Four in favor. Five opposed. The motion fails and the petition is not granted. Okay. We're going to move to our next report, which is going to be the report of the Civil Rights, Utility's Economic Development and Arts Committee.