Seattle Forward

Full Council Arena Street Vacation Vote

The Full Council did not approve the conditional street vacation of Occidental Avenue South for the proposed arena project by a vote of 4-5 yesterday (Bagshaw, Herbold, Sawant, Juarez and González voting no; Harrell, O’Brien, Johnson and myself voting yes). This vote is a major disappointment for those who hope to bring an NBA team back to Seattle; at a minimum, the Council’s decision yesterday sets this effort back.

I voted in favor of the conditional street vacation both in committee and at the Full Council meeting yesterday. I explained my committee vote in this earlier post.

When determining my position, it was important to me that the street vacation would have been conditional on many factors. Most notably, the street would have been vacated only for the proposed arena project. It could not have been vacated for a large office complex, even though that use is permitted on the parcels on either side of Occidental Ave S. It also would have been conditioned on a detailed scheduling coordination agreement we asked the arena proponents and other major teams to work out together.

Per Council policy, the street vacation would have lasted for five years, but the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved in 2012 that commits partial public financing of this project expires in November, 2017. After the expiration of the MOU in late 2017, any arena construction would have needed to be completely privately financed. If an arena was not constructed by 2021, the opportunity for a street vacation would have expired.

My colleagues who voted the opposite way based their opposition on concerns about traffic impacts and the proposed arena’s effect on maritime jobs. While I respect my colleagues’ decision, I saw no convincing evidence to back up these claims. In fact, the city’s traffic engineers and the professional consultants the city hired assured us the traffic impacts could be mitigated.

SODO Arena Street Vacation Committee Vote

The City Council’s Transportation Committee voted 4-1 (O’Brien, Johnson, Harrell and myself voting “yes,” Bagshaw voting “no”) this week on whether or not to approve a conditional street vacation on Occidental Ave S in SODO. A street vacation is a formal process where the City Council decides whether or not to grant public right-of-way in exchange for fair market value and other public benefits.

This street vacation has been sought as part of a proposal to build an arena for basketball and hockey teams. After proposing several amendments to strengthen the conditions of the vacation, I voted to approve the vacation. Here’s why.

Sound Transit 3 - Time for Feedback

The City Council received a briefing this morning about the proposed Sound Transit 3 expansion of our regional light rail and bus network. The draft includes several large projects in Seattle, including lines to Ballard and West Seattle and a second transit tunnel through downtown.

The light rail has gotten a lot of positive press recently with the opening of the Capitol Hill and UW stations and the resulting large uptick in ridership. A front-page Seattle Times story this morning highlighted our city as having the fastest growing bus ridership in the nation.

Put simply, transit matters and it is important that our local leaders get this plan right. To do that, we need robust public engagement.

Why I Voted “No” on Rescuing Pronto Bike Share

The following article was sent out in my City View Newsletter, which you can sign up to receive here.

Yesterday, the City Council voted 7-2 (Councilmember Herbold and myself voting “no”) to spend $1.4 million to rescue from insolvency the Pronto bike sharing service that has operated in Seattle for a little over one year.

While a bike sharing program has the potential to be an important, and desired, element of our transportation network, the current system is insolvent and lacks the ridership, membership and revenue to be financially viable. In essence, the Council was asked to rescue Pronto from insolvency in order for a theoretically more viable service to be developed.

Despite the passionate advocacy by some in favor of such a rescue, the risks of investing without a specific plan of action or a clear understanding of the City’s future financial exposure are exceedingly high. I believe such a rescue does not reflect the level of care the Council should exhibit as it exercises its fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayers of Seattle.

The potential financial risk to the city is evident in the failure of Pronto to achieve its original ridership or revenue projections:

Our Bike Sharing Future

Update: I explain my "no" vote at the March 14 Full Council meeting in a separate post here.

Later today, I will vote “no” on legislation that would, if approved, have the city government purchase the insolvent Pronto bike sharing network and all of their bicycles, stations and equipment.

Instead, I will propose amended legislation that will position Seattle for a future bike sharing alternative that shifts most of the financial risk to a private partner. My legislation will:

• Acknowledge that Pronto faces insolvency at the end of March.
• Prohibit the City from investing in a failed enterprise which requires the City to carry ongoing financial risks by itself.
• Allow a partial lifting of the proviso to repay, if necessary, the $1 million federal transportation grant the City must repay if bike sharing does not continue in some form.
• Maintain the proviso on the balance of the funds, approximately $4 million, and reserves these funds “to support a future public-private partnership for bike share that does not rely on City of Seattle funding for operating revenue and jointly shares responsibility for capital expenses.”
• Maintain the proviso until SDOT “provides a detailed MOA between the City and an outside partner . . . that demonstrates a substantial shift in financial risk to the City’s private partner . . .”
• Shift the remaining funds to other “pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects” if a public-private partnership is not established by the end of 2016.

I believe this course is the most prudent, allows the City to quickly establish a better bike share system, and keeps some leverage for the City to influence and guide the public-private partnership into the future. Maintaining partial public ownership is preferable to an entirely privately-owned model because the City sometimes has policy goals – equity of access or distribution, for example – that may run counter to an enterprise focused more exclusively on profit.

The Council’s transportation committee meets at 2 p.m. today to vote on this issue.

Supporting the Muslim Community, a Voice for Drivers, Labor Standards, and More

Yesterday was the last Full Council meeting of 2015 and it was jam packed: 52 agenda items, 3 ½ hours of deliberations.

We started with a resolution expressing our support for Seattle’s Muslim community in the wake of increasing anti-Muslim hate rhetoric and violence. The City of Seattle welcomes and affirms our Muslim residents, both native born and immigrant, and recognizes the enormous value they add to the cultural and economic life of this city. When we respond from fear, we respond from weakness. We all want our community to be safe, but fear does not lead to safety.

The Council then passed landmark legislation that allows drivers of for-hire vehicles to collectively join together and negotiate better working conditions, making Seattle the first city to take this step. We must continue to find ways to protect workers in the new gig economy where the traditional employer-employee relationship is less prevalent.

We approved a thick bill (146 pages) improving and standardizing the enforcement processes for our local labor standards. We debated nuances while updating the Council’s rules and procedures. We made a small change to our business licenses that allows us to more easily revoke these for unlawful businesses. We designated the P-I Globe as a landmark and we created a new Arts & Cultural District in the Central Area.

It was a full, productive meeting. It was also the final Full Council meeting of three of my colleagues, Nick Licata, Jean Godden, and Tom Rasmussen. Between the three of them, we are saying goodbye to 42 years of collective service on the Council. As we get excited about the incoming councilmembers, I will miss the wisdom, dedication, friendship, and passion for service of my exiting colleagues.

Final Decisions on 2016 Budget

The Full Council voted to adopt the City’s 2016 budget today, incorporating changes Councilmembers have made from the Mayor’s proposal over the last two months.

The Mayor’s proposed budget provided us with a good start, including funding for a hospital-based gun violence intervention program at Harborview Medical Center.

I’m happy to report that all of the items I pushed for were adopted into the Council’s final package. These included funding to study an educational center for immigrants and refugees with foreign professional degrees, increasing dedicated funding for arts programs, support for small manufacturers, advancing a study to incentivize shared parking facilities in private buildings, expanding funds for the reentry and job assistance program Career Bridge, and language to direct City staff to work with Seattle Public Schools on student population growth planning.

I also have been working closely with community leaders and Councilmember Harrell to provide City support for a new “Opportunity Center” in southeast Seattle. This budget will provide nearly $2 million in seed funding for this project, which is expected to include job training, affordable housing, meeting space, or other amenities a community-led process will help determine.

Round 1 Budget Proposals

Budget deliberations have kicked into high gear here at City Hall. The first deadline for proposals to secure a baseline support of three councilmembers comes this Wednesday. After a couple more rounds of discussion over the next three weeks, the proposals that receive majority support will be put together in a balanced budget package.

Earlier I wrote about what I liked in the Mayor’s budget. Here are some additional proposals I’m excited to advance for further consideration by the Council:

More Sidewalks for Less Money

Today Mayor Murray and I announced new strategies to construct more sidewalks for less money. For decades, neighborhood advocates have pushed the City to provide sidewalks to the areas that have none, but the biggest hurdle has been cost. Traditional concrete sidewalks can cost $300,000 per block face. That’s a lot of money!

But sidewalks are important. A lack of sidewalks makes it harder to access the amenities like parks and libraries that make Seattle a great place to live. It forces children to walk or bike in the street to reach our local schools. It creates dangerous situations for our neighbors with disabilities and our elderly neighbors.

So several months ago I challenged the Department of Transportation to get more creative about sidewalk production; I wanted to see if the City could do more with the resources we have.

It turns out we can.

By using more cost-effective designs and materials, like stamped and stained asphalt instead of concrete, we can build more sidewalks for less money. This approach won’t make sense for every block, but by using it in appropriate places the City can build 250 sidewalks for the former price of 150. That is 67% more sidewalks, and many more neighbors who will now be able to safely walk to school, the park, the grocery store or the bus stop.

More details are available here.

Lowrise Multifamily Code Updates: Balancing Design and Density

Legislation a Council committee discussed earlier this week has been characterized by one side as a dramatic giveaway to developers and, by the other side, an unnecessary and dangerous downzone. Both characterizations are false.

The Council’s land use committee considered code adjustments to the city’s Lowrise residential zones. The multifamily Lowrise zoning category, which makes up about 10% of city land, is designed for a range of moderately dense housing types, from townhouses and rowhouses to apartment buildings.

Even though many Lowrise zones contain older single family houses, these zones are designed to be denser multifamily—not single family—zones.

Lowrise zones are often found in the City’s Urban Centers and Urban Villages, where we focus our efforts to concentrate density. Concentrating density is good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for our communities. When people live closer to work and have easier access to mass transit systems, it creates a better city for all of us. It also allows us to protect the character of single family zoned neighborhoods.