Petition of Acorn Development LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 21, Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street, and 8th Avenue.
Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments listed in agenda items 48 and 49. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. The appointments are confirmed. The report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item 53. Of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item 50 Quirk File 314 27 Petition of ACORN Development LLC for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK 21 Sarah April 2nd Addition to the city of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street and Eighth Avenue, the committee recommends that the full council grant the petition as a condition to with the divided report with councilmembers Rasmussen Gordon back Sean Burgess in favor and Councilmember Liccardo opposed. Thank you. Our rules require that the majority position go first, councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. This petition is seeking the vacation of a daily in the Denny Triangle. It's the fourth vacation petition to enable Amazon to build out its campus. The three previous vacations were approved by the Council upon the condition that a variety of public benefits be provided and that Amazon pay all fees and of course pay for the full costs of the property that they would be acquiring. This alley runs north and south through the entire block is bordered on the north by Bell Street, on the south by Blanchard Street, and on the West by Seventh Avenue, in the East by Eighth Avenue. The vacation would allow for the development of two buildings on the site, a 23 storey tower where the street level read. Hell on the north and an eight storey office building with retail on the south portion of the block. The vacation allows more flexibility of floor plate configuration. Rotation of the towers for more light and air at the street level. And a greater ability to control solar heat exposure. Better circulation for the public, including pedestrians and bicyclists. A pedestrian through block connection. More efficient. Underground parking. Elimination of vehicle access across seventh Avenue, which is going to be a project to protect a bike lane. And Blanchard Street, which has a green street and then a reduction of vehicle access on Bell Street into the site, which is also a green street. A green street. There's been an extensive public review process since the petition was filed in February. The Seattle Design Commission held three meetings in March, May and June and finally recommended by an eight zero vote in June that the issues that had been of concern had been resolved. And also they approved the public benefit package. Pardon me. The Downtown Design Review Board on September eight considered the petition, and the petitioner received a40 vote of approval. The project has gone through a master use permit review by DPD and there have been community meetings, including with the Dennie Triangle, Neighborhood Association, Bell Town Community Council, Housing and Land Use Subcommittee and the South Lake Union Planning and Policy Committee. The City Council Transportation Committee has reviewed the petition twice, including a public hearing on November 24th and public comment at that meeting as well as on December eight during the Transportation Committee review. The committee learned the following that there had been extensive review by city departments, and that review was led and coordinated by the Seattle Department of Transportation. The Roadway Structures and Street Improvement Permitting section of our start recommended stated no concerns and recommended approval of the proposed vacation. The Parks Department stated it has no concerns given the proposed public benefits benefits that the city would gain. The utility's SPU stated it had no facilities in the alley and recommended the vacation be granted and City Light and CenturyLink said that they are working with the petitioner to relocate their facilities and they have no objection. The Department of Planning and Development made two significant comments the Disney Triangle Neighborhood Plan approved by the City Council and key strategy number one I state said the city should simplify and create a means to expedite the early vacation process to encourage residential and commercial development. Again, this is a recommendation for this neighborhood. Secondly, DPD stated that the proposed alley vacations are intended intended to accommodate a high density commercial development, which is consistent with the zoning and the vision for the area in the Disney Triangle Neighborhood Plan and the Downtown Urban Center Plan. Our review and approval of vacations is based upon our vacation policies that have been adopted by the City Council by resolution over many years. Those policies were developed to provide clear guidance to the petitioners and to the city staff, and also to inform the public as to how we review and how we make decisions with regard to vacation petitions. They're also developed to ensure that all applicants are treated equally, consistently, objectively with fairness and predictability, to ensure that the public interest is served. We also identify and define within our resolutions what we mean by public interest. It includes protection of the public trust, taking into consideration the effect on circulation, access, utilities, light air, open space views, protection from land use, adverse land use impacts, and the provision of long term public benefits. The Department of Transportation revealed that the transportation issues, including pedestrian and bicycle impacts and determined that the vacation will not have an adverse transportation impact and will not impair the function of the adjacent streets. The department also determined that the typical functions of an alley that will be provided will be provided on site if the alley is vacated, including an internal loading dock, three vehicle access points, two driveways on eighth Avenue, one exit, only driveway onto Bell Street. The Design Commission also worked by the petitioner to ensure that the driveway openings are as narrow as possible, but there will be no vehicle access. As I said earlier, from Blanchard or Seventh Avenue to minimize the impact on the green streets of Bell and Blanchard and to eliminate vehicles crossing Seventh Avenue, which will be a separated cycle track constructed at the petitioner's expense. The parking proposed for the project is compliant with our land use code and accommodate slightly more cars and bikes in the vacation than without the vacation. Also, Amazon, in order to reduce the amount of traffic coming to and from the site, provides all employees with an ARC keycard and has an aggressive transportation demand management plan to encourage employees to walk, bike or take transit to their site. With regard to the utilities, as I said earlier, there are fewer utilities on this site than in other downtown sites. There are no SPU facilities, Seattle Public Utility Facilities. And again, City Light and CenturyLink are working with the petitioner to relocate their facilities and they do not object with regard to light, air, open space and views. The block will have a total of 27,000 square feet of street level, open space, pedestrian amenities and a diagonal pedestrian through block connection. There will be significantly more open space for the public after the vacation than without their vacation and start fires. No issues here with regard to light, air office space and views in terms of the other standard that we apply protection from adverse land use impacts. The vacation review determines that if the post determines whether or not the post vacation development would be consistent with land use patterns in the area, and that view is guided by our city policies and codes that apply to the site. This block is zoned downtown mixed commercial that's called DMS 3340 slash to 90, Dash 400, and it allows for a maximum height of 340 feet for portions of the project containing nonresidential use. This block block 21 is in a different zone than block 20, which is just to the south and the council approve of vacation there. That block is the downtown office core to a dock to which allows nonresidential up to 400 feet. This block, block 21 is going to be a lower, more moderate scale site for office, retail and commercial use. This zone is to be a transition site between the more intensive Dakota area and the surrounding lower scale commercial mixed use or residential areas. This area is in one of the city's five urban centers, and our city staff have determined that the proposed amendment with the vacation is consistent with the zoning and our city policies as an urban center. Our policies provide that there should be a balance between what the public gives up and what the petition acquires through the vacation process. The benefits most benefit the general public and must be separate and above any other amenities provided to meet the code or the other requirements. The Council has approved Ali vacations earlier by Amazon on three other blocks 14, 19 and 20, and the public benefits provided in exchange for those vacations include the seventh Avenue Cycle track shared use street and has pedestrian facilities. West Lake Avenue Street Improvements. Blanchard's Street ten foot setback in has right away improvements artworks. Additional overhead weather protection, the purchase of a fourth streetcar. The public benefits proposed for this vacation art will complement and expand the benefits provided by the three previous vacations approved by the Council. The public benefits focus on the exterior of the block rather than inward focusing, and improvements to the neighborhood are set out in your materials. There's a very long list of those public benefits, and I won't repeat all those, but the public benefits will enhance the public experience, including pedestrians and bicyclists around the entire site. Following all of this review by our city departments, our Department of Transportation, which again has a lead for assembling the comments and review, found that the project is consistent with our adapted our adopted street vacation policies and that similar impacts between a vacation and a no vacation development alternative for the site would occur. The vacation alternative provides considerable flexibility to the developer and the use of the site both above and below grade, including allowing for a single garage for services and parking for the project. And finally, the flexibility on the site also allows for the provision of open space and other public benefits. Following the public hearing that we held the public comments and the reviews of the record. And over the course of two meetings, the committee determined that the vacation petition and the public benefit set aside city policies and in addition, are consistent with the previous benefits that have been required by the city from Amazon and which were previously approved by this Council. The Transportation Committee recommends approval upon the condition that the petitioner complies with the conditions that were set out in the November 3rd letter that November three, 2015 letter to the Transportation Committee from the director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Lakota. Right. When you said majority prayer, I thought you were going to ask for the minority report. Yes. Sorry. Minority Report of one. Will be the last time we get something official. I guess my opposition to the legislation brought before us was based on the my concern that we are having more and more with refer to is privately owned public spaces in our downtown area. Generally these are conveyed through transfer development rights. In this instance, issue is through an employee vacation. But the objectives, this is the same 28,000 square feet of open space to allow the public to enjoy. The concerns were raised on how much access was denied to this area for expression of public speech and looking at what was in the agreement with the revocation. I notice that we did not have language that we had required in those privately owned public spaces that we acquire through a transfer development rights. So my position was that we could amend the agreement to include language that would be similar to the open conditions governing open space under TDRS, which is long established. It is not 2024 seven open space. There is actually time limits on it and it's in the behavior there as well as is regulated as it would be anywhere else with FEMA speech. So that was defeated in committee. I think this is an important issue not just necessary for this property, but for setting a standard that I believe we should be looking at for any open space that's being created primarily, I mean, particularly in a downtown area where the density is increasing. We now had, I think, 50,000 people living downtown. So I would move actually that in this instance we need a fuller discussion on how we can accomplish this and we might as well begin with this property. So I would like to move to we refer this to the Transportation Committee second. It's moved in, seconded that item 53 referred to the Transportation Committee. Is there any discussion? Sure. Councilmember Rasmussen. I think the point that Councilmember McCotter brought up is an important one. One thing that is important to know is that the concerns that he has with regard to public access and the rules and regulations that govern the part of the property that was granted as part of the public benefit package really is included in our property and use and development agreement. Last at our last City Council meeting, we approved a property and use and development agreement. We call it a powder for short that says virtually what councilmember wanted to require and this conceptual approval. And so we have delegated this responsibility of ensuring that the public has, in this case, the one in South Lake Union by Vulcan. It was blocked 93 that all of you approved states that the except as otherwise provided in this agreement public access shall be allowed 24 hours a day every day of the year to the following public benefit elements on the property. And then there is a list of the properties that qualified as the public benefit elements, and they have to be open and accessible and it has to be signed that they are open and accessible to the public. There is one option that the owner has or right that the owner has, and it says that the owner may adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding use of and access to such public benefit elements as are necessary to ensure the security of the users of their public benefit elements and the development. So that type of concern that is that we make sure that this space that has been granted as a public benefit, that it remain open to the public, is required in the Property Use and Development Agreement, which is adopted by ordinance by the City Council. It does grant the owner, though, to develop reasonable rules and regulations with regard to the safety of the users of the public space. The concern that I have with regard to councilmembers motion is that we're seeking to adopt a in this condition, a condition that we have adopted for transfer of development rights, and we haven't established this condition when we make these decisions with regard to the conceptual approval. So I do think that we should review all of our city vacation policies next year. Another issue that is came up last during the discussion, I think it was last year with regard to the Whole Foods sites related to employer employee relations or labor standards. And at that time, the Council agreed that that was not part of the criteria for determining whether or not it's in the public interest to vacate a site. And we agreed that we were going to review our policies that we've adopted carefully by resolution to ensure transparency and equity and openness, that we were going to review those this year, and it didn't happen. I think that we need to have a comprehensive review of those policies, make a determination if we want to include this kind of policy in the consideration or labor standards as well. And then any applicant moving forward would know exactly what the rules are. But I don't think that we should start enacting rules now that we haven't applied before. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember one Councilmember Rasmussen is correct that. That discussion. On what? Exactly constitutes a public benefit and the question of the evolution of that definition, which is necessary and it is something that I argued for when we were voting on the Whole Foods early vacation bill. It's true that that that real discussion didn't happen, which is precisely why I think this should be referred to the Transportation Committee so that the discussion can happen. This is not an alley vacation for just any company. This is Amazon. This is a behemoth. And I think this should be done extremely thoughtfully. And as far as public spaces are concerned. I don't think the question is about whether the public has a right to walk around there. The question is about whether or not, though, for example, the workers or the contract workers, workers that are contracted by Amazon for security or other purposes have the right to express their own issues as workers on the Amazon campus or not. And I think these are these issues, not just about that, but broadly on public benefit are important enough that they should be thought about, oh, you in a in a much more deliberate manner than just rushing this through. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. As we talk through making an alley vacation or a street vacation, what we're talking about doing is taking something that is existing in the public right away and transferring that to private ownership. And part of this process, of course, is about compensating us and making offsetting investments to make us whole. The the issue around free speech, I think is a really important one because folks have a pretty clear understanding of what their free speech rights are in a public right away and what they are allowed to do. They don't need to go look up a public use and development agreement to understand what's going on. And because we're taking that away and this process and trying to put back something similar but some access to Civic Plaza, I think it's really important that we get the specifics right. I personally as a councilmember, have been at a public plaza and been approached by private security guards saying, you know, you need to move your sign that can't be here while you're eating and things like that. It's probably true that that in some puta that they didn't have the right to do that. But even as a councilmember, I didn't have the capacity to go find that and confront them. And so I think this is an important enough decision that I support Councilmember Carter's move to refer this back to committee. Let's examine what we can do around First Amendment, including possible things around training or maybe public notice. So folks see clearly what they're allowed and not to do in these these kind of quasi public open spaces. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Gonzalez. I want to echo sort of the the need to to be judicious as we move forward with this particular issue. As a civil rights lawyer, as somebody who has studied the Constitution, I think that these issues are quite complicated and don't want us to hastily pass some sort of provision around free speech or First Amendment as it relates to these street alley vacations. I'm hopeful that if we take a little bit of time and I'm not sure if Councilmember Walcott is amenable to setting a date certain on his motion to refer back to the Transportation Committee. But I do think it is this is a very critically important issue that requires us to be very deliberate and thoughtful around. And I hope that we give ourselves the opportunity to do that. Thank you. Any other comments to Councilmember Liccardo? To answer to answer Cotner Gonzalez's question, I would recommend to the first meeting of the Transportation Committee of next year. Any other comments? I'm a rapper. Yeah. I'm going to oppose the motion to refer back because of some of the reasons that my colleagues have cited. This is about due process and it's about fairness. This L.A. vacation has gone through an extensive review process exactly as city procedures and rules require. And it has met all of the conditions that the City of Seattle sets for this kind of L.A. vacation. And to introduce a new topic now, and I might add, a topic that is already covered in the regulations that will apply to this open space, I think is very inappropriate at the last minute. This came up a couple of years ago with another property in West Seattle, and some members of the council asked for a review of these things and whether or not our policy should be amended. And then they chose not to pursue that. However, we just, in our budget actions here last month allocated some funds. And I know that Councilmember O'Brien in his committee, beginning in January, is going to consider the issue of revisiting the Street and Ali vacation rules and regulations. I think that's very appropriate. But to say to an applicant who has for an extended period of time gone through the city process that we said that now we're going to stop that process and change the rules, I think is very unfair and strikes at the core of how we govern our city and how we do due process. So I think it's not appropriate to refer this matter back to committee. The motion before us is Councilmember Lookat is motion to refer this matter back to the transportation committee. Those in favor vote I right. Please raise your hands. Those opposed, vote no and raise your hands. The vote is 4 to 4 and the motion fails. So thank you. Council members. I think it's a very good discussion. It I do agree with Councilmember Burgess and I said this at the committee meeting, too. When we say because we don't like a business or are opposed to a certain business, we're going to change the rules for that business alone, for city policies and procedures and decisions. I think that's a very dangerous and slippery slope. What what entity, what person, what business is next if they're not popular with a particular council member? I think it's really dangerous and we should have fair and objective policies. That is why we adopted those by resolution to ensure that we're not singling out any one petitioner large or small bakery or a large corporation. And I oppose that kind of arbitrary decision making that I have heard here. What I would offer, though, is if council members are not comfortable with the Department of Transportation and our Department of Planning and Development setting the public access rules through the property and use and development agreement, we could consider the language that Councilmember Liccardo proposed at the committee meeting. It's very similar to what is included in the property use and development agreement. So I would I have copies of what he distributed to the committee. It was what the Divided report was based upon and I would move that you consider this so that we can move along. One of the concerns I have about holding this over to next year, so we're going to have three new council members. They have not been been the beneficiaries of the public hearing. They're going to have to start again. And I think that that is going to, again, undermine our whole process, object of objectivity and clarity about how we define the public interest. So if I would like to move this language to add to the clerk, file the conditional approval, and I would be happy to distribute it to all of you and I would be happy to read it into the record, too. Why don't you read it into the record? We all have it. It's part of the Divided report. This is the language proposed by Councilmember Liccardo. Free speech activities such as handling, signature gathering and holding signs all without obstructing access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed while engaged and allowing activities in allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. So I think this addresses the points that were raised, including asking people to leave the site. And so I would move this amendment to the FERC file. And this would become one of the conditions that the council would impose on this alley vacation. Is there a second second? It's moved in second and that we had this language as a condition for the vacation. Is there any further discussion? Councilmember O'Brien. So just to for some clarity, is this do we need to suspend the rules to introduce an amendment to a bill that hasn't been provided this late in the game? This was part of the divided report that was presented to all of us. Sure, there was there wasn't an amendment prepared that I'm aware of. I said, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And so so. I'm going to ask the clerk to advise us on that issue. This amendment was not provided in advance, nor before the 12 new deadline for today. So it's a rule to a motion to suspend the rules as necessary. Okay. Thank you. I would move to suspend the rules so that this amendment can be considered. And the spirit of that is that we all knew this language. We knew the issue. It was presented to us in writing. And so I would move to suspend the rules. So it's moved in second and that we suspend the rules. Any comments or questions about that? Council Member O'Brien. Yeah, so I didn't realize that this amendment was going to be presented. I would I'm going to vote against suspending the rules. And the reason is I would actually like to look at the language in that amendment and make further amendments to it. But because we're talking about free speech and our policies, I'm not comfortable making those decisions on the spot up here and would prefer to have time to have legal review. Thank you. Any other comments? Those in favor of suspending the rules in order to consider this amendment. I'm sorry. Oh, council member. So on. Thank you. I just wanted to say for the record that I concur with Council member O'Brien's point about this free speech is too important. We can't just rush to this amendment. Thank you. Any other comments? Those in favor of suspending the rules to consider this amendment vote. I opposed vote. No. No. Okay. We're going to have to do that again. And those in favor, please vote I by raising your hand. Those opposed vote no. The motion is approved. We now have the amendment before us. Are there any further comments on the amendment? Councilmember Rasmus Thank. You. These this amendment will address the scenario that Councilmember O'Brien described. It's also consistent with the kind of requirements that are in the property and use and development agreement agreements that we have approved in the past. So I believe it addresses those concerns. However, again, I urge my colleagues in the forthcoming years to treat all people equally regardless of who the the petitioner is and who is before this council. And I that is, I think, critically important. I encourage you, if you want to adopt new policies related to vacation petitions, you do that in open public process and you do it through a public hearings and you adopt the use by resolution, not based upon case by case, depending upon whether you like that person, like that business or not. That is not, I think, due process by any stretch of stretch of the imagination. And I think that we have a very strong public benefit package. It will significantly improve the pedestrian experience in the Denny Triangle. It's consistent, as DPD said, with the visions and the plans for the Denny Triangle, not Amazon's plans, but the city's plans for the Denny Triangle. And so they are meeting all of our public benefit requirements. They're paying full market value for that property, and they're going to be contributing significantly to low income housing funds and other needs that we have in the city. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember O'Brien. So I'm going to need a little parliamentary help here. So I would like to amend the amendment, and I don't know if we need to suspend the rules again. No. To do that. Okay. But hopefully your amendment is going to be easily understood. And. Well, what I would like to do is require that there is. Signage on the site so that the public can be aware of what their First Amendment rights are in this space. And again, because this amendment wasn't presented as an amendment before, I haven't had time to work this up so I can kind of just make things up on the fly. And so maybe I'll let some other folks comment. We'll all work on some language to scribble down here. If I may. I say I think that's a friendly amendment that's consistent with what we include, that kind of language on our property and and development agreements. And the agreement that all of us approved just on November 30th says that that a summary of the rules is posted invisible locations in the development. So if that we have that language and if you want to state more specifically about the ability of the public to to use the site, ensure that the public can pass through or use a public benefit regardless of whether such use by the public is associated with the development. There's really great language in the property use and development agreement that we passed. We could. Crafted from that, cobble it from that. But I agree with you on the notice to the public. I have already gone to developers when I've seen that these public sites are not well signed, that don't look like they are open and welcoming to the public and ask them to change the signage so that everyone knows that they have the right to go through that site and use it even if it's on private property. So our resident expert is here. Mr. Barnett, I'm wondering if I could ask you if the signage requirement is covered in the terms and in the puta and proper posting. And you're answering. Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you. Can we ask her to come to the microphone? Could you step up to the microphone, please, and introduce yourself and tell the vast audience who you are? Yes. I'm Beverly Barnett with Seattle Department of Transportation and I will be administering this. We do require signage on all of the public spaces, and that would be one of the standard conditions. So whatever language the council imposes today, we would work out how to have that signed on. The public spaces related to the Amazon project. Thank you. So, Councilmember O'Brien, I think your concern is already addressed. And based on the testimony of Ms.. Barnett, do you still want to make your amendment? Yes, because I haven't a chance to review exactly what that signage is. I would like something that explicitly states that people would have the ability, the public has the ability to demonstrate protest, leaflet and other acts of expressions of their own First Amendment rights. I can look at this. One thing I'll just note Councilmember Rasmussen talked about fairly and treating everyone fairly, and I agree with treating folks fairly. We wouldn't be here if folks had allowed the full extra week from the Divided report last week. We would have had time to address this beforehand. And so I feel like we're making some exceptions for a specific person or entity as opposed to following our normal procedures when there's a divided report coming out of committee to allow us time to work on that. But if someone else wants to talk, I'll read what you just handed me. Councilman Rasmussen. We probably will have to cobble language from that, but I think it carries out your intent. The reason for moving this through now, consistent with council rules, is we're going into an hour long recess holidays and we're going to have a new council next year. That's very that's extraordinary that I think in this case warrants following this rule where we can bring it before the council at this time. President Burgess Council Member So on. I, I think that it's just simply not true and not honest to say that somehow it would be unfair to Amazon if we delayed this vote to re refer it to the transportation committee. I don't know, other than Amazon executives and major shareholders who are raking the profits in at the expense of so many workers and so many people all over, especially in this region. I don't know of anybody who thinks that somehow Amazon is as a corporation is the same as any other human being. These are the fact that this vote is being expedited without giving it the due two weeks for the debate. A report itself is an example of how big business changes the rules all the time. And the reason they're able to do that is because so many elected officials are in favor of corporate interests and are not looking out for workers. And I wanted to add to what Councilmember O'Brien had said. You know, last year I was at a demonstration of workers on the Amazon campus. These workers are security guards, security personnel who have been who are being denied their lawful, safe and sick time as required by Seattle's labor law. And when the workers asked to speak to someone in charge, the Amazon representative asked them to move away from the compound and on the sidewalk in the rain, and they were not allowed to talk to anybody inside the building. And he didn't, of course, know that there was an elected official with the workers at that time and wrote to make sure that we remember that the workers who are organizing there are demanding nothing more than that the employer follow that law. And I don't think that anybody who is being honest and who is truly concerned about the interests of workers would be under any illusion that the that the process, the political process at this moment is fair and objective towards workers. It is extremely biased towards corporations. And that is why when it's a question of free speech and the question of a, you know, a mega corporation like Amazon, we should not be rushing through. If we are trying to be responsible, we should be being thoughtful. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Gonzalez. I just want to I just want to hail back to the comments I made in support of the motion to hold this over, to give us a little bit more time to work through the tricky nature of crafting some First Amendment protections. I think the fact that we're all scurrying up here trying to craft some language to get clarity around what we're talking about is a case in point as to why I think we needed to suspend this for a very short period of time to address what I think were reasonable concerns brought up around freedom of speech that were flagged by Councilmember Licata. You know, there are other questions that I have, for example, around, you know, what does it mean to unreasonably interfere with somebodies enjoyment of the space? I don't I don't know where that's defined. I don't know if that's defined in the PDA. I'd like to be able to sort of consider what that actually means. And so, again, this is just an example of of, I think, needing us to be thoughtful and judicious about how we move forward on this. I recognize that the public benefits piece around this is significant. I commend Amazon for the contributions that they have made in regards to that. But I think that this is a reasonable request. I've heard from Amazon that they are amenable to agreeing to and have agreed to freedom of speech requirements via the PDP. UDAS And I want to make sure that that we are again setting up a process where it's fair and collaborative in terms of defining exactly what the contours of those conditions would be. Thank you. The parliamentarian has informed me that our vote to suspend the rules did not achieve the two thirds required vote to suspend the rules. So this amendment will not be considered. I would move to hold this item and bring it back to full council on Monday, January four, excuse me, Monday, January 11. Is there a second? I thought people did want to hold it. Well, that motion failed for lack of a second. Is it. To reconsider? Want to advise you that it's very clear that if we continue voting on this, we're going to have a 4 to 4 split. So I think it would be best to. Is it out of order to reconsider Council Member Mercado's motion to read, to refer it to the Intelligence Committee? We could reconsider that. But there's a motion on the floor right now. I think it's. Go ahead, Councilman. Assuming your motion failed, I guess it could be perhaps made again. I was just trying to take I was taking pause to understand where we were when you explained that the motion to suspend the rules failed because of two. To requires a two thirds vote, and we did not have. That. I was wondering if we could revolt, that perhaps that vote would change and we can then suspend the rules. Is that a possibility? You don't want to go through that again. Oh, I like the we haven't spoke substantively on the issue yet because I was waiting for the right opening. I wanted to lay that out because I was hoping we could actually resolve this today. It was my preference that. That's my preference as well. But I think that's not likely. You know. So my motion to refer this to full council on January 11 fails for lack of a second. What is the wish of the body? I think I got. Council member Gordon. I was going to say that in reading the the section one B to page six makes it so perfectly clear that free speech activities such as handling, signature gathering and holding signs all without access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed. And according to Miss Barnett, thank you very much for coming. That will be posted prominently and while engaged and allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than by conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. I mean, that seems to me perfectly clear and it's certainly consistent and it seems to me that we should go ahead with this. And as a matter of fact, we did take it up twice at the Carers Protection Committee, had a public hearing and did vote upon it. There was a last minute proposal by Council member Le Carter which failed. It is a divided report and I think we should go ahead with it. Are you moving it? Should I ask that we move it? Abrahams, Assistant of Music, I believe. I call for the question. President Burgess. Thank you for the question has been called for. But colleagues clearly were divided on this issue and. So Bruce keeps one because I right. Councilmember Harrell Because we are divided and I assume that if we proceeded with a vote it fails. We sort of go back to revisiting it anyway. So I'd like to actually renew your motion to hold it till January 11th. Electorate renew that. Motion. I'll second that motion. Are there any comments on that motion? Council Member So what? I just had my hand up earlier. I wanted to go back to guns from a Ryan's point about reconsidering the amount of guns umbrella cut as motion to refer it to the transportation committee. And I believe for reconsidering calling it for reconsideration requires the losing side. So one of us who voted yes on it has to make the motion and I'm willing to make the motion. Well, there's a motion on the floor now. So if this fails, then you can go to that reconsideration. So the motion is to send this to to hold this and bring it back to full council on Monday, January 11. Any further comments? Councilman Earle. Thanks for your patience there. Councilman Burgess. I told you this morning we'd be in to the dinner hour. I just wanted to assure. Council members want that in making the motion. My thinking is we have almost four weeks to figure this out because we'll be around. We'll have. I think we will because we'll be here next week. And even we don't have to take vacation. We'll be around and we have the week of the fourth. But I think perhaps you're thinking it goes back to committee for more discussion. And I don't. That wasn't the intent of my motion to have. That was just to resolve these issues and get it to the full council. So. Again, I respond to that. Yes, members. Thank you, guys. Remember how. Yes. In terms of just time, you're right that there is that ordinarily, I think that would be a good amount of time. But I have two specific concerns. One is that just realistically speaking, I don't think the council will be deliberating on this because it's holiday season and this is the last one council. Everybody has other commitments, family commitments. I think this is an important issue. And I think that to do justice to it and not not not make a commitment that I don't think we're going to be able to keep. But more importantly, I think there's a difference between referring it to the committee as opposed to bringing it back to full council. The reason we're advocating to bring it back to committee is because we there are issues that need to be discussed and full council is not. The forum that facilitates that discussion. It has to happen at the committee level. So that's what I would say. Thank you. The motion before us is to hold this item and bring it back to full council on Monday, January 11. All in favor. Vote I by raising your hand. I opposed. Vote no. The motion carries. This item is held until January 11. Please read item 51. It's.