AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pike Place Market Historical District; amending Ordinance 125650 to extend its effective date by six months.
Thank you, Mr. Leigh. Please read the next edition item. Agenda Item to cancel 119504 relating to the Pike Place Market Historical District amending ordinance 125 652 extends its effective date by six months. The committee recommends the bill passed with councilmembers Herbert Swanson O'Brien favor and abstention with Councilmember Pacheco. Customer Herbold Thank you for this council bill amends ordinance 125650 to extend its effective date by six months. The bill it is amending establish an interim expansion of the Pike Place Market Historic District last August. The legislation will allow the Department of Neighborhoods some additional time to complete work that this council asked Don to do in last August, so that the effect, again, is just to simply extend the legislation we already voted on by six months. The central staff memo accompanying this legislation specifies that the Department of Neighborhoods expects their consultant will complete much of the work needed to develop a preliminary recommendation by the end of June. If the recommendation is for a permanent expansion, CPA review would follow that recommendation. We had a public hearing last Tuesday. A lot of folks came out to testify in support of the legislation, and folks speaking in favor of the legislation really did a great job of speaking to why in their perspective, the market should be looked at as part of a a permanent future expansion for the for the Showbox to be within the market boundaries. The points that they spoke to was that the market was established in 1909. The shoebox building opened up about ten years later in 1919. It was a public market. Folks noted the fact that there is a commercial synergy between both the market and the shoebox. Many visitors go to both places each year. For the last several years. Seattle has had a record number of visitors. And so tourism is an important industry in Seattle. One of the comments that came up in the public hearing was from businesses for people who had moved to Seattle because of the culture and who have since started a business. The folks also spoke to the physical synergy between the the look of the buildings and the appropriateness of the shoebox to be considered as as part of the market. Because of that as well, the Department of Neighborhoods is working to implement ordinance 1 to 6 560, which calls for a review of the historic significance of the Shoebox Theater to study the relationship between the Shoebox Theater and the Pike Place Market and to consider amendments to the Pike Place Market, Historical Design District Design guidelines related to the Shoebox Theater. They're also part of this ordinance called for them to draft legislation, conduct outreach to stakeholders, and conduct State Environmental Policy Act review on the permanent expansion of the historic district as appropriate. The there may be some confusion about the scope of what the executive is doing right now. The Department of Neighborhoods has clarified that the current scope of the study includes an analysis on whether or not to permanently extend the the market district to cover the shoebox property and in order to make a recommendation on whether or not to extend expand the expand the district to cover that one property. They need to look at a broader area. And in this case, they are looking at First Avenue properties to better understand the historical context as it relates to the shoebox. Essentially to analyze the shoebox property, you have to analyze the historical connection of the adjacent areas. We have heard from folks who, during our earlier deliberations back in August, had not taken a position. We heard from some of them today, and we also received a letter last week from Friends of the Market, the Pike Place Market Foundation , Historic Seattle, Friends of Historic Belltown, the Fisher Studio Building and Rise Up Belltown and Friends of the Shoebox may have mentioned them twice because they are awesome. And the. There's been a question of a potential lease expiration in January 2024. If part of the if this property is becomes part of the market historic district, the change of use would require a certificate of approval from the Mark the Pike Place Market Historical Commission. So that just a little bit of additional context about how the recent news from the owner on their plans for the for the building would impact future decisions around the the district boundaries. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Pacheco, an open up for comments or questions. Councilmember Pacheco. I hear and appreciate the nostalgia and sentiments that brought some of you out today to support saving the shoebox. And I believe that this conversation highlights the need for better tools to preserve the cultural resources we have in our city. That said, I do not believe that this tool expanding the Pike Place Market, Historic District, is the right way to go about preserving the shoebox. As with any policy decision, there are major tradeoffs associated with preserving the shoebox. When we use a blunt policy instrument like the historic district as our tool, we are making housing the cost of saving the shoebox that is housing that the city desperately needs in the midst of a housing crisis which rooted and which is rooted in a shortage of housing. We need to be building more houses of all type. This action takes away the opportunity to build 442 new units of housing that we need. Even more importantly, under make. All new development must contribute to affordable housing by closing the door to redevelop. On this site we are turning down up to $5 million in affordable housing payments that could have been required under MHR as a chair of the council's Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. I'm a firm believer that we should be embracing density and building more housing in walkable neighborhoods, particularly close to transit and light rail stations. I also serve on the Puget Sound Regional Council, where we are challenged with Vision 2050 as our region is expected to grow with 1.8 million new residents and 1.2 million new jobs. As we confront climate change, congestion and unaffordability building housing near transit and jobs is what's what will allow so many Seattleites, like myself, to live without a car. As someone who has advocated for greater density density in my own district, particularly in a district where new light rail stations are opening, it is intellectually inconsistent to oppose any new development so close to light rail. Let me be clear. I'm not opposed to saving the shoebox, but I cannot in good faith support saving the shoebox in a way that places the burden on families trying to afford a place to call home. And Seattle, as a as a city, we need to move away from a conversation that sets up a false choice between creating new housing and preserving cultural spaces. Instead of putting these two things we need against each other. We should be having a conversation that promotes both housing and culture. I wasn't on the council last year when this temporary boundary expansion was established, but if I had been, I would have voted no. I believe that the Council could have and should have taken more time to identify a solution that preserved the shoebox and created more housing. If we had worked with a developer to identify a solution that worked for all sides, we could have found a way to preserve the shoebox and have 442 units of housing that we proposed that were proposed. As someone who was just at the Showbox on Friday, I don't think that it is contradictory to want to preserve the history of that place and recognize that it could use some upgrades. For example, we all know that the shoebox is on the city's list of unreinforced masonry buildings, meaning that it poses a serious danger to the people in the area in the event of an earthquake. This fact alone should tell us that freezing the shoebox in time is not a safe or responsible option. I will be voting no today because I believe that saving the shoebox in this fashion is leading us down the wrong path as a city. And because I am hopeful that it is not too late to pursue the options that allow us to preserve culture while also building housing. If I can make one final note. I hope that we as we have this conversation, we can do so in a way that is respectful to all of us. At the public hearing last week, I was very concerned to hear one individual comparing himself as a shoebox fan to a Native American and call the shoebox his reservation. I was even more concerned that the crowd the the crowd applauded that statement. That sort of comparison is unacceptable in my mind, and we should not be condoning it. Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco. Any other comments? Councilmember Suarez. I'll just be brief. I just want to share that we have a point of order. Council President We just had an hour of public comment about people supporting or saving the shoebox, and during that time nobody was cheered or made noises. And Councilmember Pacheco deserves to have due to be respectful and to listen because that's what we're doing. So I'm going to ask that you do that and that this is not a rally. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman worries for the comments and I. I'll take that in advisement. Any other comments? Questions I think comes first. One I think you were in queue comes from a skater that's going to figure that one out. Just refer to your side by side colloquy there and go at it. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I really applaud Councilmember Pacheco in terms of your concerns around affordable housing and housing in general. And I want to make some comments about housing. And I think the crux that we're at with wanting to create affordable housing, more housing in general in the city and preserve cultural hubs throughout Seattle. I will be voting yes again on this legislation to make sure that we have additional time to consider the requests in front of us. But I want to be very clear about something. We voted yes last year. We voted yes in the budget to give funding to the department to complete the study. The study did not begin until January of this year. So if there's frustrations, I want folks to know what this council did in August versus what actually happened beginning in January, and to direct those frustrations accordingly. I think it's also very important to know that we here on council have taken a number of steps to ensure that there's access to both cultural hubs and promoting access to housing throughout the city, and that it doesn't have to be an either or. One of the issues that we had been working on last year prior to the passage was making sure that if there was the opportunity to preserve the shoebox as is and then build housing above it, that all of those options were tirelessly pursued before moving forward. And unfortunately, we don't have that option in front of us. But I am supportive of giving us a little bit additional time so that we can see if there is opportunities that do present themselves to protect this cultural hub. But I think in the future we want to make sure that there's not a distinction between cultural hubs versus housing. It should be both. And there's also, I think, an important element that Councilmember Pacheco has elevated. And Councilmember Suarez, you know, I appreciate your underscoring of the need for respect because we do want to make sure that we're not pitting ourselves against each other in this city when it comes to residential, cultural and business displacement. That is a very real and pressing issue around Seattle, especially though in communities of color. And as we're facing the the challenge of looking at displacement across our city, one of the bigger, longer term impacts that I'm going to be looking at is to make sure that we have both and both housing, both affordable housing and the ability to create and preserve cultural hubs. It's really important for us to weigh these equity implications as we take actions to preserve important community spaces like the shoebox and so many others that have come before us. And also think about how we can build housing around these centers so that more people can walk to work that can afford to be artists in the city. You can go down the street or down the elevator to their place of employment or the place where they're playing a show. So I hope that we keep that in mind and that also, as we think about the opportunities to both preserve cultural space, we take the same level of energy that we've seen today and throughout the last ten months. And we really do apply that to creating greater density, like some of the comments that were made around creating density at Fort Lott. And we've we know that there's tremendous opposition sometimes and having your energy, harnessing that energy and focusing it as well in terms of creating affordable housing, as much as we are as creating cultural hubs , I think can be both. And and that's what I'll be looking forward to in the longer term policy solutions and conversations. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, councilmember skater. Councilmember. So want. I wanted to thank all the activists and music lovers who are here again today. And I know many of you were here at the public hearing last week, and many, many more of you have been fighting for the shoebox. And I've been honored to stand alongside you all who have made the hope of saving this shoebox a reality. Although obviously we are not done. I also wanted to take a moment to congratulate Save the Shoebox movement, especially the shoebox employees, the friends of the shoebox, and historic Seattle in overcoming a major hurdle and winning the landmark status nomination last week. And we are looking forward to a really positive outcome on that as well, even though we are all very clear that doesn't preserve the music venue use of the building. The victory we won last summer expanding the Pike Place boundary, historic district boundary to cover the shoebox would never have been possible without this movement, without the over 118,000 people who signed the online petition, without the hundreds of you all who packed council chambers demanding the shoebox not be destroyed to make way for unaffordable luxury apartments. Without the hundreds of local musicians and artists raising their voice on behalf of their community and forcing the council to act, we would not have had any chance of winning. Indeed, the Pike Place Market itself would not be standing today if it were not for a movement decades ago similar to this, and probably larger in scale because of what what they were up against. It's also a critical component for the movement to have its own elected representatives who will always stand with and fight alongside the movement, never betraying it. And my office was proud to play that role. And we will continue. My staff and I will continue standing with the movement at every step of the way. I also want to do again thank Automobile O'Brien, who supported my ordinance last August from the get go, and Councilmember Herbold, who brought forward this bill today, which I think is important, those who were there last year will recall how at every opportunity, many council members would say, what is the rush? Why someone's office pushing for this boundary expansion to apply so soon? Why is striking the legislation necessary? The reality is that if we had done it their way by believing that deals can be struck with wealthy landowners or corporate developers, then we would not be here. People likely know about a lawsuit filed against the city by Roger Forbes, the building owner of the shoebox. When the judge reviewing the case throughout significant portions of the lawsuit, we are this was due to our movement demanding no delay in action. So judicial outcomes also are influenced by what we see out in this world on the streets and how strong our movement is. When we passed our legislation last August, we knew we had one interim protections and we knew we would have to come back this spring and summer. So here we are. I will be voting yes, of course, on today's proposed six month extension of the interim expansion. And I call on council members to respect the demands of the movement and do the same. But really, as Shannon Rose said, you know, it should not have come to this today because the mayor's office and her department had more than enough time to ensure the necessary studies could have been conducted in ten months. Okay. It didn't happen. But this is what happens when the immediate pressure of the movement is absent. So it's important that we keep in mind after today that if we have one six month extension, it doesn't lead us the movement off the hook. We have to make sure that all the studies that were promised in the workplan are carried out in a timely fashion. And that will only happen if we remain vigilant and vocal. And we want to make sure that in the next month especially, we have enough pressure on the mayor's office due for the survey to be completed on neighborhood impacts by the city departments. Because it can be done in that timeline. We cannot we simply cannot rely on the behind the scenes deals and negotiations with Forbes attorneys, developers and corporate landlords. It was, you know, we won the initial interim protection purely to the strength of the movement. And we should not waver regardless of what we hear, what else we hear. We should not waver because we know that behind the scenes deals is not the way to go. For now, let's when the six month timeline extension and keep the pressure on the city department to report to the mayor's office and make sure the studies are completed. I wanted to thank those who have been fundamental to this struggle. The employees of the shoebox, the friends of the shoebox, historic Seattle Central staff members, Lesch Whitson, who is here, who helped us tremendously with getting the legislation ready. The community organizer was in my office, some of whom are here today, Jay Middleton, who launched the online petition. And Seattle's vast community of artists and musicians, some of whom are also employees of the Showbox. But I also wanted to mention Smoky Brights, Ben Gibbard, Soul Sassy Black Dude, York Spirit Award ruler, many of whom also performed at the free concert we had last summer on the plaza outside. Thank you all so much. And then in closing, I will say, as Arnie Ashford said last August, if you're right here in chambers, this is not about culture. It is not a question of music versus housing. This is not about music versus affordable housing. This is about culture and housing for everybody versus profits for the few. And as Arnie said, he asked elected officials, you have to pick a side, you know, decide which side you're on. And I will also say that making this about affordable housing, in my view, is either naive you don't know the facts or is disingenuous of elected officials because we know it's not about affordable housing. Elected officials are concerned about affordable housing. Then those who repeal the Amazon tax should not have done that. And if you want to support affordable housing, then let's fight for rent control and to expand social housing massively by taxing Amazon and big business. Let's keep fighting. Casimiro Gonzalez Thank you, council president I'll make this quick cause I know we're on agenda item two of a very long agenda for today, but I just wanted to say that consistent with my vote in August of 2018, I intend to continue to maintain my my same position. So I'm going to vote yes on this bill. However, I wanted to give some caution and some additional rationale for that. So I don't think there is a justification for me at this point to modify my vote on what I see as a technical amendment, to allow some some time for the departments to continue doing the evaluation that we originally asked them to do. We haven't modified the substance of the evaluation and analysis and study that we originally asked the departments to do back in August of 2018. This is an opportunity for the City Council to provide the executive additional time to be able to complete that work again. Nothing substantive has changed in terms of the work that we're asking the executive to do. This is just about finding an additional amount of time to allow to do this. So I see this amendment to this bill as technical in nature and not substantive in terms of a final long term solution for this particular parcel of land . Which leads me to my second point, which is a caution to my colleagues that I am concerned about the direction of looking at an excess, of expanding the scope of evaluation for the alleged purposes of evaluating the true, historic and architectural district nature of this space. I am I am. I am conscious of the fact that this may the expansion of the scope may lead to further limiting development capacity along First Avenue, utilizing this historic resources tool as the mechanism to do that. And we have seen in the mandatory housing affordability context and in other spaces that oftentimes historic resources and historic resources as a tool is being is being weaponized to prevent additional density and affordable housing coming into particular neighborhoods. That that should be taking on the burden and responsibility of additional development capacity for purposes of housing our families and low income members of the community. And so I'm going to vote yes for this bill today with with the caution that that doesn't necessarily mean that I would support a final bill. If that final bill signals, in my mind a move towards a scope of study area that would diminish significantly development capacity along First Avenue, again under the auspices of preservation. And and I just really think we need to be very careful about evaluating specific historic resources and how that might implicate policy positions, clear policy position positions that the City Council has taken in other areas with regard to zoning and allowing additional development capacity for purposes of increasing dollars, real dollars available to us to construct affordable housing , either in this particular neighborhood or in other neighborhoods around the city of Seattle. And when we look at the maps of where our development is happening as it relates to affordable housing developments, a significant majority of those developments are occurring right here in downtown in District seven. And so when we know that our inclusionary zoning incentive zoning programs require that downtown developers contribute the most amount of money under our mandatory housing affordability program, I have serious concerns about a broad stroke approach here that may compromise and diminish the great efforts that I think the City Council has taken in the space of affordable housing as it relates to a broader swath of land along First Avenue. Thank you. Katherine Sellers. Any other comments or questions? I'm going to say a few. Would you like to close debate at first? If you so just a few things. I'm going to support the legislation, Councilmember. Horrible things for having a committee meeting on it and bring it to our attention. And we were sort of monitoring the deadline of our first legislation. And I want to thank the advocates for coming out. Your voice is heard, meaningful and thanks for the song. MARQUEZ Beautiful. This concept of picking a side to me. It's nonsense. It's not for me. It's not about picking a side. It's about listening to people. When you pick a side, you're drawing a line and you're on one side of the other. To me, that's not how we get things done in this city. We listen and we try to understand and try to come up with a good outcome. I think many of you've presented a very clear picture of what we can preserve and what we should try to preserve. I can't stand. Pacheco. I want to thank you for taking a bold stance on what you believe in, and you weren't part of the long discussion we had that got us to this point. But I want to applaud you for voting for your conscience, which I always think is noble, not listening to anyone else, but trying to try to trying to hear others, but trying to vote on what you think is right. So thank you, sir. And lastly, I want to say this notion about behind the scene deals. I want to address that. So my take on it is the city didn't do its behind the scene work as feverishly as I was hoping they did when we passed this legislation, I was hoping that behind the scene work was really done and so we didn't have to get here where we are today. We all know it's no big secret that we're in litigation on this matter. Okay, that's. If you didn't know. I'm sorry. Let that secret out the bag. But we are in litigation on this matter, and my hope is that perhaps parties can work together and we could come up with a win win a win that preserves our great music venue and allows these talented musicians to do what they do so well and that we we again, look at the value of the market and the beauty of the market and housing issues. And we come up with some win wins. And whether that's behind the scenes or here in City Hall, I care less, but I just want to get that kind of work done. But for me, it's not about picking a side. It's about working together as a community and getting some things done. So hopefully within the next six months, as this legislation presents, we will get this work done. And I want to take all of my colleagues for this robust discussion. I'd asked it, Councilmember Herbold, close the debate and then we will vote and see where the chips fall. Thank you. I just want to close out with some comments some of you heard before during the public hearing highlighting the work of the arts office as it relates to the the need to act with urgency to preserve our cultural spaces. The a report out of the Arts Office, the Cultural Space Report identifies that the value of cultural spaces and activities are quantifiable. They drive economic growth and urban development blocks in Seattle with cultural spaces have significantly higher walk scores. They have more businesses open at 10 p.m. on Fridays, and they have twice as many outdoor cafe seating permits pointing to the the economic development value. They go on to say that the arts ecosystem that we have today thrives in a rich network of cultural spaces that were able to flourish because during periods of greater affordability in Seattle, without the spaces to support this cultural life, without the presence of arts and cultural organizations in our neighborhoods, this ecosystem can't be sustained at times of less affordability. Like the times we are in now. Vulnerable communities are the canaries in the coal mines of displacement. They are disappearing from the cultural landscape and some of the first to disappear, as we have heard our communities of color and the arts and cultural organizations that reflect them, whose presence helped create the very land value on which those cranes are now building. I think that's a good point to end on. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. And with that, we are going to vote on Council Bill 119504. So. Clerk, please follow the rule on the passage of the bill. O'BRIEN All right. PACHECO Now. Sergeant, I beg Sean Gonzalez. I Herbold. I Suarez. Mr. President Herrell high eight in favor one. Opposed bill passed and chair of with Senate. Clap on that one. Okay. Please read the next edition. Item 3.8 The Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda Item three Council of 119507 Relating to Fair Housing. Establishing a one year prohibition on use of rental housing bidding platforms. Amending Section 7.20 4.0 24 code and adding a new Section 7.20 4.0 98 said on this figure, the committee recommends the bill passed.