AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale and redevelopment of the former Public Safety Building block; authorizing the execution of an Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale and Development Agreement with Bosa Development US LLC, for the construction of a residential project with public parking, public open space and associated retail space; authorizing the acceptance of an easement from Bosa on that property; and authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute documents and take other actions in connection with this project.
Very good. Any comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I opposed the motion carries an appointment is confirmed. Please read agenda item number 28 and ten. Item 28 cancel 1190 45. Relating to the sale and redevelopment of the former public safety building block, authorizing the execution of an amended receipt of purchase and Sale and Development Agreement with Bozo Development USA LLC for the construction of residential project with public parking, public open space and associated retail space authorizing the acceptance of an easement from Bowser on the property and authorizing Director of Finance Administrative Services to execute documents and take other actions. In connection with this project, the committee recommends that the bill passes, amended with the Divided report with councilmembers Burgess, Herbold, Johnson and O'Brien favoring councilmembers. So want a post from Burgess? Thank you. First of all, I want to start by giving a little history of of this project, which is directly across the street, across Fourth Avenue, where the old public safety headquarters building used to stand. None of us on the city council today or the mayor were involved when the city made a decision in 2007 to allow development of that site, including a civic square plaza. In 2007, when that decision was made. That followed a ten year process where the city engaged with a variety of developers and finally came up with the proposal that was won by Triad development. Due to the Great Recession and other issues, Triad has been unable to develop the project. The city has, since Triad failed, has been involved with four different attempts to find someone who could develop the project. And Bowser Development is the organization that has advanced the proposal that we will consider today. This legislation, if adopted, allows the director of FASB to execute an amended and restated purpose and sale development agreement with Bowser Development. The property formerly known as the Public Safety Building BLOCK. Bowser will construct a single tower residential project on the property, as well as a 25,000 square foot public plaza which the city has the right to approve the design of. Bowser will pay the city $16 million in sale proceeds, which will go to our Equitable Development Initiative. Bowser will pay the city a minimum of $5.7 million for affordable housing. The final amount of this affordable housing payment will be determined once the final design of the residential tower is complete. The project also calls for continuous operation of the Pioneer Square Transit Tunnel Station, which is located beneath this block. The total consideration for the city to receive here is approximately $50 million $16 million in sale proceeds. The minimum contribution of $5.7 million in affordable housing. The release of liability of the city, and the waiver of potential litigation costs. An immediate maintenance requirement. Once this ordinance is adopted by the Council, Bowser will take immediate control and will begin doing maintenance on the walls of the pit across the street. Some of that maintenance is needed almost immediately. The committee recommends that this legislation be adopted. Thank you very much. Comments, concerns or questions? Councilmember Johnson just. Wanted to offer a couple of quick things. One of the things that I think was important in my consideration of voting for this is that we also have a project labor agreement. That's one of the conditions of the proposed term and sale and that that project labor agreement has already been sent after. Washington, D.C. was a really great sign for us. The developer has a track record here in Seattle but is still relatively new to the city. So working proactively with our building construction trades to develop a project labor agreement that will bring more apprentices and more individuals to the construction trades, I think is going to be really critical here. That $5.7 million floor that Councilmember Burgess talked about would build at minimum 70 units of affordable housing here in the city and will be larger if it's found that the floor plates for the tower is larger than what was originally proposed by the previous developer. So good options here for us and really looking forward to the final action here this afternoon. Thanks very much for the comments. I'm going to ask the clerk, please call the roll on that. I'm sorry, Councilmember Swan. Thank you, President Herrell. I voted against this council bill in committee and I intend to do so again today. And I would like to take a moment to explain why this vote authorizes the sale of an extremely valuable city property to a big developer for $16 million, which I think would be an estimated at least an estimated $40 million less than its actual value. This sweetheart deal for Seattle's mega developers is nothing new, really. As was mentioned accurately, this property has been sitting idle for the past nine years because under former Mayor Nickels, the city gave a really. Obnoxious sweetheart deal to another giant developer triad. In that instance of corporate welfare, the city offered the property to try out for free as long as Triad built a so-called Semipublic Park, also called the Civic Square Plaza, on part of it. Over the last nine years, Triad has not even accomplished that. It is true that the current council was not involved in that deal, but the current council does have an obligation to make decisions today that are in the best interests of working people and the most vulnerable in our society. Outrageously, we do not even know how much the city is losing in this deal because the city never did an appraisal. In committee, I asked the Finance and Administrative Services staff about this and they responded that they had hired a company to do an appraisal a year ago, but that appraisal was never completed. This is extremely unusual because making having an appraisal done is a very basic step. For example, a couple of months ago, Seattle City Light Surplus, a similarly sized property in Salt Lake Union. In that meeting in my committee in the Energy and Environment Committee, City Lights said that they had hired an external appraiser and would probably do a second appraisal right when the property went up for a bid to make sure that city light and hence the taxpayers of this city get the best possible deal. I asked City Lights expert at that table if hiring an external auditor was standard and, you know, standard practice and central staff. I responded and I quote, four properties the city is selling. Yes, it generally gets an independent appraisal, unquote. And the city led expert also added, quote, And certainly for anything of this size unquote, before selling the property, this property, I think the city should do a proper appraisal not only to get the actual market value for it , but also to help the council and other members of the public decide what to prioritize. For example, the current deal maintains that Semipublic Park on part of the property. I say Semipublic because every time there is a public park on private property, the public never really feels comfortable using it. And it ends up becoming, whether it's intended to or not, like a private yard. Urban planners will tell you that if members of the public don't clearly know that some area is public, they often don't venture into it because they're not sure and they don't want to get into trouble. Really, the public will use the waterfront park a few blocks away. How much more could the city get for this property if it did not include the Civic Square Plaza? I don't know, but an appraisal would tell us. And to be clear, I think we are certainly talking in the tens of millions. Without this plaza, a developer could build a second tower that would double the housing that could be built, increase the money for equitable development, that the city would be paid for the property. And keep in mind, equitable development. Development money is what's being touted as an advantage. But, you know, that's a little bit of a it's a specious argument. Those benefits would happen regardless of when and how the sale went to, because these are benefits that the city would accrue. So why not do it for the real value of the property? And similarly, the city council members are saying that there is a $5.7 million benefit, but those are a major payment that would happen regardless of what the illicitly put in place. These are these are misleading, specious arguments being made to say that this is a good deal. And it could if the second tower were built, then it would increase the money for equitable development and it would double the MJ payment during the development for affordable housing. And so this option hasn't been considered, the public hasn't been made privy to that. Another example is the zoning of the property, which is zoned lower than the other side of Fourth Avenue where City Hall is. If the city absorbed this property before selling it, how would that change the property value? I think that's a good question to ask and appraisal would tell us the answer to that question. I understand that the city benefits from offloading the headache of any possible future litigation around the Triad deal. And I wouldn't scoff at that, but but I don't believe that it is in any way worth a $40 million discount. Instead of maximizing the value to the city and the people of this city, there is a rush to sign this sweetheart deal with Bozo, as a matter of fact, because there was a divided report on the committee, you know, meaning at least one councilmember voting no. It should be customarily this vote would have come a week from now, but this was rushed even beyond the are all already being rushed. So if councilmembers insist on voting on this today, I will be voting no. This is corporate welfare and I will not support it. I also want to do. Add my support to those who spoke during public testimony against the sweeps of homeless people. We absolutely want to stop sweeps right away and urgently build affordable housing to house all homeless people by taxing big business. Thank you for talking about this. We're going to do it in government. Thank you. Councilmember one Any further comments before we call the roll call on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Burgess. I'd like to close our discussion of this. As I mentioned earlier, this is the fourth attempt by the city to use the property across the street after the Triad experience. The city entered into negotiations with two other development firms. Neither of those firms were able to advance a proposal that made the development of the site economically viable to them, and they chose not to proceed. And then the bowser consideration came before us, as is typical in major real estate transactions like this. The city did have a valuation of that property conducted and developed by outside party that does this work. It was estimated that the site is worth somewhere between 45 and $55 million, depending especially on how the light rail station is treated at that site. The city chose not to publish that appraisal because doing so would have made that document available to public disclosure. And we did not want to signal the price that the city was attempting to achieve. When you calculate the value of this transaction to the city of Seattle, it is approximately $50 million right in the middle of what that valuation indicated we should be able to obtain on the open market. This is a prudent transaction that is in the best interest of the taxpayers of Seattle. And the reason we are acting on this today is because this deal expires at the end of September if the council does not take action. Also, the $1,085,000 that has been placed in escrow essentially will transfer immediately to the city on the passage of this legislation and the maintenance that is required. One of the walls has some structural problems there and needs to be addressed will immediately transfer to Bowser. Once this ordinance takes effect. This is a reasonable deal. It's prudent and we should move forward with this legislation. Thank you. I think it is time to vote. So seeing no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw Burgess. Hi. Gonzalez, i. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Hi. Sergeant. No President narrow seven in favor one opposed. Bill pass and share with Senate. Please read a joint item number 29. Read the short title, please.