Land Use Committee Special Meeting 6/8/23

June 8th Special Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 9.30 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, Chair of the Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Council Member Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Peterson?

Present.

Vice Chair Morales?

Here.

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Fife?

Present.

Thank you.

We have on our agenda today, let's see, eight, five, six, seven items on the agenda today, five of which are part of the Industrial Maritime Package.

We also have appointment 02302, a briefing and discussion on Acting Director Rico Quirendongo's confirmation to the Office of Planning and Community Development.

Council Bills 120567 through 120571, Briefing, Discussion, and Possible Vote on Industrial Maritime Package.

Council Bill 120570, Briefing and Discussion on the Downtown SEPA Thresholds.

Before we begin, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

And would you mind opening the back doors as well?

Thank you.

At this time, we will open the hybrid public comment or items on today's agenda.

Clerk, can you tell me how many people are here signed up in person?

Thank you.

We have 11 in person and seven on line, so I'm going to do a minute for each.

That way, we still stay within the 20 minute time frame.

I will, as usual, start with those who are here in person.

Clerk, at this time, will you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Thank you Seattle.

Thank you for everyone being here.

It's great to see you all again as that video noted is just the rules of please be nice.

And I know that this group is.

It's been a pleasure to work with everyone here.

We are going to go through in-person speakers first.

I see Commissioner Cho is here.

We'll have him go first, followed by Bob Gillespie, Mark Weed, Dan Fioretto, Wendy Popkey, Jordan Royer, Peter Nitze, Dan McKisson, Matt Bentoza, Stefan Moritz, and then Waylon Robert.

We will then move on to online where we have Megan Cruz, Tiffany McCoy, Natalie Quick, Chad C, Peter Gishrew, I'm so sorry, I mispronounced your name, and Jesse Simpson.

Chad C, you are not present.

If anyone knows Chad, please let him know.

And it is not the listen line number, it is an RSVP number.

that you have received from registering.

So good morning, Commissioner Cho.

We'll start with you.

Everyone has one minute this morning.

Thank you so much, Council Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment in support of the industrial lands proposal at today's public hearing.

My name is Sam Cho, Commission President for the Port of Seattle.

I'm here today to urge your support for the industrial lands proposal as transmitted by Mayor Harrell.

With an ever-growing coalition of maritime industry and labor, including the African-American Chamber of Commerce, ILWU, Teamsters 174, WSDOT, the King County Assessor's Office, and bigger, we ask you to honor our coalition's longtime efforts to develop a consensus-based land use solution that protects the working waterfront, living wage jobs, and the movement of freights and goods.

The Port of Seattle is greatly appreciative of Mayor Hill's recognition of the importance of maritime and industrial lands that play in the ecosystem needed for our gateway to remain a major international trading hub.

We understand that housing supply in a growing city is an important comprehensive citywide scale.

Seattle's urban neighborhoods are primed for growth with access to amenities like schools, grocery stores, and green space, and all Seattle residents deserve to live a high quality of life.

Thank you, Commissioner.

We ask that you please support Seattle's working waterfront that creates over 70,000 union and living wage jobs, many of which do not require a four-year degree.

I urge you to honor Seattle's rich history and heritage and pass the package as transmitted by Mayor Hill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

If anyone else is duly elected, I will offer you the same grace.

We are at one minute for testimony this morning.

Thank you, Commissioner, for joining us today.

Up next, we have Bob Gillespie followed by Mark Weed and Dan Fiorito.

Good morning, Bob.

Thanks.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, council members, Bob Gillespie, Lander Street Partners.

Our first building in the industrial district was 1930, 1930. And so we have a long industrial history.

And what's being proposed, including council member Herbold's amendment number 14, is the first major initiative by the city to help small business owners like ours.

And we are a small property owner to do something creative.

to generate that job vitality that once existed.

The zoning that's being offered will provide job-dense industrial and technology, and it'll be close to light rail.

You can imagine if you're about a four or five minute walk from the light rail station, you get on and you've got a six minute train ride to West Seattle or other points along the Sound Transit line where you work, that this could be a place of vitality and energy and a lot of growth.

We really appreciate your consideration of this.

We support Council Member Herbold's slight expansion of the district and hope you'll pass the legislation.

Thanks again for the very brief time.

Thank you, Bob.

Appreciate it with a few seconds remaining.

Next is Mark Weed followed by Dan Fiorito, then Wendy Popke.

Good morning, Mark.

Good morning.

I'm Mark Weed.

Today I'm representing the Soles family interest.

Once again, I wish to speak in favor of the map amendments that were put forward by the Soto business community.

You'll reference those amendments through the map.

And you'll see these properties are located in close proximity to the Soto station.

Several are even adjacent to the entry to that station.

This request makes sense.

I believe you'll find it makes sense.

It promotes revitalization of Soto through density, innovative uses, and diverse employment.

I understand that Council Member Herbold is shepherding this request through the process, and I look forward to your favorable consideration and hope it is added to your amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Good morning, Dan.

You'll be followed by Wendy Popkey and then Jordan Royer.

Good morning, Council.

My name's Dan Fiorito, and I'm here today to represent my family with regard to Amendment 12, which moves a two-acre parcel north of Northwest 48th Street from the BNMIC, designates it industrial.

What's important to understand about this amendment, it's the result of several years of talking with different coalitions.

The Port has no objection to this.

Fremont Dock, who owns significant property to the south, has no objection to this.

I would like to make a point of clarification.

I would like to make a point of clarification.

I would like to make a point of clarification.

There's no opportunity to do anything.

And this would give the city input and the community input to any development that would happen in the future.

I ask that you pass this amendment.

Thank you, Dan.

And for folks using this microphone that Dan was just at, make sure to pull it close to you.

Up next is Wendy Popkey followed by Jordan Royer, then Peter Nitze.

Good morning, Wendy.

Good morning.

My name is Wendy Popkey and I'm here on behalf of our family owned Nelson Motors property.

We support the industrial and maritime lands update and appreciate Councilmember Strauss's amendment to address our area.

We ask that the council support Amendment 10 for the Ballard Hub urban village.

We, along with our neighbors, own the triangular block north on Leary Way between 17th Avenue Northwest and Northwest Stop Place.

Our block is not within Bimnick, however, it is located in the Ballard Hub Urban Village and is within a 15-minute walk of the future Ballard Light Rail Station.

We are surrounded by retail, medical, and residential uses north of Leary Way.

As Ballard continues to grow, the neighborhood housing should be focused in the Hub Urban Village.

Given that our block is located inside the Hub Urban Village and we are separated from the traditional maritime and industrial areas to the south below Leary Way, we are respectfully requesting that the Council rezone our block to Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 75-foot height limit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Wendy.

Up next is Jordan Royer followed by Peter Nitze, Dan McKisson, and Matt Ventoza.

Good morning, Jordan.

Morning.

Morning, Council Members Nelson and Strauss.

Thanks so much for all the work you put in on this.

My name is Jordan Royer.

I'm with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.

We represent container lines and marine terminal operators on the West Coast.

I'm also a board member of the Washington Maritime Federation, all of which support the bill that you have before you, as crafted by the mayor and his fine staff.

They did a really good job.

This is my third go around on this.

I think overall I've worked on this for probably the last 20 years.

This is the closest I've ever seen to getting something really substantial done to protect industrial lands and really support those jobs that we all say we want.

So let's go and support them and you guys are doing just that.

I really want to thank you for all the work you've done and hope it gets through.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jordan.

Well said, this has been a very long process to get here.

Up next is Peter Nitze, followed by Dan McKisson, Matt Ventoza, and Stefan Moritz, and then Waylon Robert.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Council Chair, Council Members, my name's Peter Nitze.

I'm a principal at Nitze's Dagen & Co.

I was a member of Mayor Durkin's Advisory Royal City Advisory on Industrial Maritime Lands, and a co-founder of the Alliance for Safety, Affordability, and Preservation.

I'm here today to speak in support of Amendment 14 to the legislation.

I think it would advance three critical goals for the city.

First, it would support industrial transit-oriented development around light rail stations, specifically the Lander station, producing new developments that would provide industrial and technology job clusters around transit and leverage the investment we've made in these new stations.

Secondly, it would encourage URM retrofits.

These are unreinforced masonry buildings.

We have over 1,000 of them.

It's critical that we actually upgrade them to seismic standards, and this would create an incentive for private development and investment in URM upgrades in the industrial areas.

And finally, it would modernize industrial spaces.

The II Industrial Industry and Innovation Zoning requires development of modern industrial spaces that would provide for clear heights, new developments that would encourage new jobs.

I support Amendment 14 that Council Member Herbold has.

Thank you, Peter.

Up next is Dan McKisson, followed by Matt Mendoza and Stephen Moritz.

Morning, Dan.

Hey, good morning.

Thank you, Chair.

Dan McKisson with the International Longshore Warehouse Union Local 19. I want to go on the record.

I'm for something.

I'm for industrial lands and the jobs it brings.

And that you got to remember during the Great Recession, industrial lands did not see the problems that the rest of the city saw.

Our local actually grew by some 30% during the Great Recession.

So these jobs are here to stay.

Over the years, we've seen a lot of erosion in the industrial lands and we don't like it.

We're hearing more with amendments that are gonna erode our industrial lands with office buildings and things like that.

We need to pay attention.

The only reason some of these industrial businesses are leaving is because they're being driven out.

And we gotta keep them close, close to the city and close to the poor.

Finally, you know, housing in the industrial lands and the stadium district.

And the stadium district now just has industrial in it, but it's also,

Thank you, Dan.

Up next is Matt Ventoza, followed by Stefan Moritz, and then Waylon Robert.

Thank you, Commissioners.

I'm Matt Ventoza, the Vice President of the International Longshore Warehouse Union here in Seattle.

We're in favor of the Mayor's plan as it is right now.

Freight corridors are crucial to a working waterfront.

Changing the zoning and industrial lands to build housing or hotels that would impact the functionality of the working waterfront is detrimental to the working waterfront.

We already have housing vacancies in Seattle and adding more does nothing to keep the living wage jobs related to our industry.

And we're against building housing.

We're not against building housing, but just not in this area.

Our history on the waterfront creates lifelong contributions to the local economy as well as globally.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Up next is Stephan Moritz, followed by Waylon Robert.

Stephan.

Good morning, council members.

Stephan Moritz with Unite Your Local 8. I want to paint a vision of the Makers District, a partnership with unions representing more than 30,000 members, tens of millions in wages and benefits for the construction trades, including local hiring into powerful living wage careers.

A fair process to organize for hundreds of hotel workers due to assigned, binding, and forcible agreements covering virtually all privately owned land in the Stadium Overlay District.

Workforce housing equaling possibly one year's worth of production of the upcoming housing levy and the tax revenue from this project could be used to improve freight mobility, moving this from, as the EIS states, no impact to actually improvements.

I think every member of this Council at some point has said we need to use every tool to improve the housing crisis and we need to create good jobs.

Turning this down makes no sense and I urge you to include an amendment to allow housing in the Flourishing Makers District.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Waylon Robert.

Oh, and then there's another side to this.

Then Monty Anderson, it looks like Nicole Grant is signing up now, so we'll do these three next.

Thank you so much, Chairman Strauss.

Waylon Robert here, Sailors Union of the Pacific.

I ask that you approve the mayor's land package as it was submitted without amendments.

We at the Sailors Union of the Pacific anticipate two more ships a week from Mattson Navigation Company.

It is critical that that our freight lanes stay unrestricted, which could happen with new development.

Our industrial maritime economy represents nearly 30% of our city's tax base while only taking up 16% of the land.

Adding housing and other office uses can potentially compromise this use.

So we just ask that you pass the mayor's land package as it was submitted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Waylon.

Up next is Monty Anderson followed by Nicole Grant.

and then we'll move to online.

Thank you very much.

I'm over here.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, council members, for being here in person.

My name is Monte Anderson with Seattle Building Trades.

I represent about 20,000 workers here in King County.

I'm here to talk about some common sense.

I know that we've all been talking about this for a long time.

We know that the EIS says that it would not impact the freight.

to have that housing there in Soto.

We know that offers like this are very rare, where we're talking about hundreds of units for working class people, hundreds of spaces for people in our community, the makers of this community.

I'll tell you what, when I started on this journey, I learned a lot about the community here.

And I'm proud to say that I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with Stefan and the Makers Zone and a lot of citizens here in the CID, here in the Pioneer Square group.

I think we really need to take a good look at what the community is asking for here.

We're not asking for something that was never approved.

It just got taken out because of a political ask.

So please consider what,

Thank you, Monty.

Up next is Nicole Grant, and then we will move to the online speakers.

Good morning, Nicole.

Good morning, Chair Strauss, members of the committee.

My name is Nicole Grant.

I use she, her pronouns, and I'm a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 46, who I'm here representing.

I was also the co-chair of Mayor Durkin's Industrial Lands Advisory Committee, and I'm here to speak to the issue of a maker's district.

When the Industrial Lands Advisory Committee was meeting, the makers were present and part of the conversation.

And when the city did the EIS, it was determined that with CARE, this district with housing and creativity and union construction jobs could be created in a way that's safe for the maritime industry.

So I am with a coalition of neighborhood advocates and housing advocates and we are asking that an amendment be made and that the council seriously consider adding a makers district to the mayor's proposal.

Thank you, Nicole.

And the sign-up sheet remains on the table.

If anyone here wants to sign up, you have the ability to.

We're going to now move on to online public comment.

Megan Cruz, Tiffany McCoy, Natalie Quick, Chad See, who is present, Peter Gishiro, and Jesse Simpson.

Megan, I see you're there.

Star six to unmute.

And welcome.

Take it away.

Yes, good morning, I'm Megan Cruz speaking on CB 120587. It raises SEPA review thresholds in downtown residential development from 20 units to 200. This drastic increase was not based on studied impacts, but to expedite permits.

A list of SEPA substitutes covers temporary construction impacts, but for the other long-term impacts, it suggests adding them to design review, just at a time when new legislation seeks to eliminate design review.

These bills slam the door in the faces of a 100,000 downtown residents concerned with unaddressed environmental and livability issues.

With more zoning proposed, now's not the time to limit safeguards without replacing them with consistent database standards.

This will help everyone evaluate whether their downtown investment is or will remain sustainable.

The 200-unit threshold is not required by state law.

Please amend the threshold to 150 units.

and require actual study before considering a further raise.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Up next is Tiffany McCoy, followed by Natalie Quick and then Chad See.

Tiffany, I see you there, star six.

You're off mute.

Take it away.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Tiffany McCoy.

I'm the Advocacy Director at Real Change, and I'm asking you to walk on the proposed amendments to Zone Change Ordinance Implementing the Industrial and Maritime Strategy.

The discussion around the stadium district seems to have boiled down to you either support the Port of Seattle's wishes or you support more housing.

This is a false dichotomy.

The city's own director's report from the Director of the Office of Planning and Community Development's analysis leads us to believe that some limited amount of housing would be compatible with the surrounding use pattern and would not cause additional adverse impact on nearby industrial activities outside of the STAOD if carefully implemented.

I'm asking you to please reject this false dichotomy and walk on the proposed amendment and add a maker's district.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tiffany.

Up next is Natalie Quick followed by Chad See and then Peter Kishiru.

Natalie.

Good morning, council members.

I'm speaking today on behalf of NAOP, our state commercial real estate association, which includes about a thousand members, many of which are longstanding industrial landowners.

We've been participating in the industrial lands conversation for more than 20 years, many for much, much longer.

We deeply appreciate all the hard work it has taken to get to this point from all sides of the conversation, including leadership from the mayor's office, committee chair Strauss and the council.

The modest expansion of the industrial and innovation zone in Soto within a half mile of the Lander street light rail station will become the heart of the new modern industrial and maker space, creating industrial and industrial tech jobs near transit.

We agree with Council Member Herbold's amendment that modestly expands the I.I.

area within that half mile walk shed, which will add capacity for new modern space with industrial specifications and support reinvestment for heritage URM buildings.

That said, amendment 3B from Council Member Brown recalls participation in MHA on top of the industrial incentives already in the I.I.

zone, which would make these projects financially infeasible.

With this in mind, we ask you to adopt Amendment 14, but not- Thank you, Natalie.

Feel free to send in any additional comments as well.

Chad, see you're up next, followed by Peter Kishiru.

Then Jesse Simpson is our last speaker.

If anyone else wants to comment, now is the time to RSVP online or sign in on the sheet at the dais.

Chad, I see you're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Thanks from stuff.

I'm Chad see an executive director of the freezer long coalition part of the North Pacific commercial fishing fleet base here in Seattle.

I'm off the board president of the Washington federation was a member of their time.

The mayor's industrial maritime land committee.

I'm here to today to support the mayor's industrial lands package about amendments to food housing in the city district.

This will strengthen sales working waterfront and let me wait jobs for preventing the portion of development shoreline.

A part of ports and rail infrastructure.

This proposal was supported by a broad coalition with some industrial partners expected to create.

We're pretty up in the region.

The economic vitality of a job base including that I'm a commercial fishing industry in the course of that our economic base in addressing it over the early crisis.

These jobs are essential to our maritime industrial ecosystem that has supported the commercial fishing industry in the city for years.

Workers in Seattle are incredibly skilled and important to our industry.

They provide exceptional work and the efficiency of scale to perform the work needed to support our operations.

As a member of the industrial and maritime land.

Thank you, Chad.

Please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

Peter, I see you are here.

Star six to unmute and then at your convenience.

Peter, I see you're in the meeting.

If you want to press star six.

Eric, if you could bring up Jesse Simpson while we're waiting on Peter.

Jesse, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

There you are.

I'm Jesse Simpson, government relations policy manager for the Housing Development Consortium.

We've joined with coalition to advocate for the inclusion of housing in the stadium makers district.

We view this as an important opportunity to create more housing, half of which must be affordable between 60 and 90% of the area median income in the areas around the stadiums.

This will both enhance the surrounding neighborhoods and create more live work opportunities close to jobs and transit.

The EIS preferred alternative called for allowing a limited amount of housing to be added in the stadium overlay district.

This approach represents a real opportunity to add housing and create a vibrant makers district in North Dakota.

It emerged from years of study, collaboration, and compromise.

However, the current proposal for the city's industrial and maritime land prohibits housing in the areas around the stadium.

I urge you to amend the proposal to allow housing that's not allowed use in urban industrial zones in the Stadium Overlay District.

OPCD's analysis shows that this use is complimentary and will not represent a harm to the.

Thank you, Jesse.

Please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

Peter, I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

My name is Peter Gichu.

I am the president and CEO of African Chemical.

Clerk, if you could reset the time.

Peter, are you with us?

Peter?

Your phone might be on mute on your end.

the joys of post-pandemic technology.

Peter, are you with us?

Peter, you're off mute on our end.

I'm going to give you about 30 more seconds.

Calling once, Peter.

Calling twice.

Peter, If you'd like to send any written comments in, please do so.

Or can you confirm that there's no one else physically signed up?

Great.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely or physically present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

As I was reading in the agenda for today, and Deputy Mayor, Director Quindongo, Amy and Lauren, please come on up.

I failed to mention a transportation resolution in the original Maritime Industrial Zoning Strategy.

There are transportation issues highlighted because these are land use bills before us, we do not have the capacity to make transportation choices so we will be passing a resolution at July 18th committee when this whole package comes and today it's just an informational item it will be introduced next week and we welcome any and all participation in making this resolution So up first, we have our first item on today's agenda is appointment 02302, Acting Director Rico Quirendongo's confirmation to Office of Planning and Community Development, Director for briefing and discussion.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Appointment 02302, briefing and discussion on Acting Director Rico Quirendongo's confirmation to the Office of Planning and Community Development as Director.

Thank you.

We are joined today by Deputy Mayor Tiffany Washington.

Thank you for being with us.

I know you've got a lot on your plate right now.

And Acting Director Karen Dongo and Deputy Director Lauren Flemister, did I get that correct?

There we are, all that part wasn't on the script.

Today's discussion is to satisfy my personal rule in committee to have items before the committee twice before final passage, that way it gives committee members full ability to interact and engage.

Today's discussion is just to allow Karen Dongo to provide an introduction.

I will move an amendment to the title of the appointment changing the notification of the appointment to the correct term date of July 1st.

2027. We will entertain questions and answers next week.

Interim Director Karen Dongo has provided 17 pages of answers to our questions.

So today is just an introduction.

Colleagues, if you have burning questions that you have to ask today, you are allowed to do so.

If you are able to hold your questions, we have 15 amendments to the industrial maritime lands package, which is the primary focus of today's committee.

These questions were submitted in August 2022 and additional questions were received.

These questions and answers are attached to the agenda today.

And I'd like to now turn it over to Deputy Mayor Washington and Acting Director Kieran Dongo.

Deputy Mayor, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss and Council Members.

Thank you for allowing me to join you today to introduce you to Mayor Harold's nominee for the Director of Seattle's Office of Planning and Community Development, Rico Quirindango.

Rico has served in his role for the last two years, and I trust you've known him to be authentic, honest, empathetic leader who loves our community.

He's drawn on his significant previous experience in the private public and academic sectors to uplift community and create welcoming places for all.

Councilmembers, as you well know, the director running OPCD carries a massive responsibility on their shoulders, expected to both anticipate and manage the influx of people we plan to welcome to our city in the decades ahead.

That's why the mayor took great care when making his selection to lead this essential department.

Before Mayor Harrell referred RICO's nomination to you, our office consulted with stakeholders, including representatives from the University of Washington's College of the Built Environment, the Nehemiah Initiative, the Pike Place Market PDA, the Seattle Planning Commission, the Historic Seattle Equitable Communities Initiative Advisory Board, the Seattle Industrial Maritime Strategy Council, and staff at OPCD.

Everyone who has worked with Rico knows that he cares passionately about the issues, but cares even more about the people those issues affect.

Through and through, he leads with his heart.

Rico listens, he absorbs, he collaborates, and he pushes to find common ground between groups that often disagree.

Further, he's truly admired and beloved by his staff, running an inclusive people-centered office.

We're fortunate that Rico is committed to serving our city because we all benefit from his most powerful gift, recognizing the wisdom held in our community.

I was taken by this expert in his written responses to your questions, and I quote, all of this work must be accomplished in partnership with community through robust engagement.

Local communities best know their needs, challenges, and current assets to preserve and build on the future.

Should you choose to confirm him, I trust our children's children will benefit from the caring, forward-thinking actions he makes in our city today.

Mayor Harreld would like to thank you for considering his nominee to lead OPCD.

And with that, I'm gonna turn things over to Rico for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

So thank you for having me before you today, Chair.

And thank you for your questions about my tenure as Acting Director and what we've been able to accomplish at the department since I've been here.

Having been with the Office of Planning and Community Development for nearly two and a half years and in the position of acting director for the majority of that time, I've been encouraged by our capacity and our reach and our ability to get good, meaningful, and impactful work done.

With our comprehensive plan major work update, we're leaning into conversation with community regarding what the future of our city will look like, how we accomplish growth, prevent further displacement in our existing neighborhoods and BIPOC communities.

With the industrial maritime strategy we're considering today, we're proposing to rezone all of our industrial lands to protect workforce jobs, preserve the maritime history of our working waterfront, and provide avenues for innovation and industrial growth.

With our community planning group and in partnership with Seattle Department of Transportation.

We're looking at the transit oriented development opportunities and station area planning for West Seattle to Ballard, the largest infrastructure project, our city has ever seen.

And finally, with the Equitable Development Initiative, we're on track this year to award another $20 million to BIPOC organizations that are leading their own built environment projects, community centers, gathering spaces, providing critical services, celebrating diversity, and countering displacement.

I'm humbled by and really grateful to the talented and diverse staff at OBCD that makes OBCD what it is, an office that leads with equity and executes programs and policy work with the mayor's office to benefit all communities and raise all votes.

I've never had a job that's more meaningful than this one.

I love Seattle and see this as my most meaningful way to give back and support the great vision that all of you have for this great city.

Thank you for your considerations.

Thank you, Acting Director Kierndaga.

I've had to add that word back in because I've just been pretending like you're the permanent director already.

Deputy Mayor Washington, your words are spot on.

I couldn't say anything better.

I will share with the public what I shared with Director Kirendongo some time ago, that you had really big shoes to fill as the second director of the Office of Planning and Community Development.

The first director, Sam Masefa, has very large shoes.

You have large shoes to fill.

Sam has gone on to do essentially have the same job as OPCD except for the entire state of California, which is I believe the fifth largest GDP in the world.

Could be wrong there.

I'm not.

I should have this in my script.

I don't.

But just demonstrating that, you know, and my initial skepticism was only because I had skepticism of anyone other than Sam.

and you have done an amazing job filling in those shoes.

You have done an amazing job leading the department.

I'm continually impressed and my expectations continue to be exceeded.

So I look forward to next week's committee meeting where we get to go through your questions and answers in a more diligent way.

I do wanna open it up for colleagues if there are any questions at this time.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Chair.

I do have a couple of questions.

I'm happy to wait until next week, but just to give you a heads up, Interim Director, I will be asking a little bit about EDI.

There's some timely issues that we need to resolve.

So happy to have a conversation between now and then, and then have a discussion at next week's committee.

Thanks very much.

Thank you, I think that would be most appropriate, just with the compression of today's schedule.

Deputy Mayor Washington or Director Kieran Dongo, anything else you wanna close out with for today?

No.

Nothing more at this time, just really appreciate being here.

Yeah, I mean, I'd say we're very impressed, we're very excited, and we can't wait to make this a permanent position, because I've just been pretending that it's so.

Thank you.

Thank you, friends.

Mark Weed is remembering the rule of no clapping and lots of jazz hands.

Thank you, Mark.

Oh, before I finish, I totally went off script, so I move to amend the appointment title and notice of the appointment by striking August 1st, 2026 term date and replacing it with July 1st, 2027. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the appointment title and notice of appointment by striking August 1st, 2026 and replacing it with July 1st, 2027. Are there any questions before we move to a vote?

Seeing no questions, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The amendment passes.

Acting Director Kirandonga will be back before the Land Use Committee next week on Wednesday, June 14th for questions and discussion and vote on the amended appointment.

Our next five items on the agenda today are on the Council, are on Council Bills 120567 through 571, which are all part of the Industrial Maritime Package.

Clerk, will you please read the short titles into the record?

We're going to read all five in at the same time.

Council Bill 120567, a briefing and discussion and possible vote on creating Chapter 2350A in the SMC.

Council Bill 120568, a briefing discussion and possible vote on the annual 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Council Bill 120569, a briefing and discussion and possible vote on creating a new zoning map with three new industrial zones.

Council Bill 120570, a briefing and discussion and possible vote on amending Chapter 2350 and Council Bill 120571, a briefing discussion and possible vote on modifying exterior sound limits within the BIDMIC.

Thank you, and I am having trouble finding my original schedule here, but what I can tell you off of memory is that this package before us today has been the process of many, many years.

The original facilities, I mean, there were many years of disagreement leading into the facilitated conversation beginning in 2019 that was paused during the pandemic and resumed before Mayor Durkan left office.

The facilitated conversation led stakeholders to an 85% agreement and that was after years of stakeholders who hold opposite opinions just not finding agreement.

So that facilitated conversation had great agreement.

This led to an EIS being created and delivered.

As Mayor Harrell came into office, then negotiated the final package that was then distributed to and transmitted to our Land Use Committee that was transmitted on April 12, 2023. We had a number of committee meetings with an amendment deadline of I believe it was correct.

Yes, just right about their We did mirror this process off of the tree bills process where we had a number of public meetings dedicated to that one subject.

There was a request from the Urban Forestry Commission for an extension of the committee conversation because they had not felt They had interacted with the legislation before it was transmitted, and there were 50, five, zero amendments.

This process has been different.

There was a facilitated stakeholder conversation for many years.

The mayor's office had stakeholder conversations, and then it was transmitted, and today we have 15, one, five amendments.

So this process has gone more smoothly than the tree conversation, which is why we are not extending the time and committee, as you may see.

Next week's committee is quite busy already and we have quite a bit of work that has been backed up.

due to both of these large, looming policies that have taken, for some people, 20 years to pass.

The last time we made zoning changes to industrial lands was in 2007. So after years of stakeholder engagement and public outreach, we have had the four hearings here in committee.

and we look forward to voting on amendments today and passing it out of committee.

Tim Burgess with Mayor Harrell's office will be joining us.

He has to pop in and out due to other commitments.

If we need him, I'll text, I'll give him a call.

Members, there are five bills that are interrelated and some of the proposed amendments affect more than one bill.

So to expedite today's meeting, I'm proposing the following approach.

Central staff will provide a brief overview of the base legislation and information provided for prepared for today's meeting.

The committee will discuss and vote on each amendment individually, effectively amending either one or more bills at the same time.

Each sponsor will be requested to move their amendment.

After a second, central staff will then provide an overview of the amendments before we proceed with discussion on each amendment.

After consideration of all amendments, the committee will then separately move each bill as amended.

I wanna just pause there.

Colleagues, are there any questions on the procedures for today?

I am not seeing any.

And for the viewing public, you may have seen that I put on the initial list of amendments that was published at or around May 23rd, many more amendments than I'm bringing today.

And that was because it was important for me to meet my own deadline and still analyze whether I was gonna bring them or not.

narrowed that list down a little bit.

And the committee, if there's no objection, the committee will consider amendments relating to items two through six, then consider the final votes on each bill.

Questions, comments, concerns?

We do have an afternoon session scheduled, hopefully We'll be able to move more quickly than that.

Lish, you have been stewarding us in this process here from central staff's perspective.

We also have Ketel Freeman.

We also have Jim Holmes and Jeff Wetland.

Lish, I'm going to pass it over to you to give us a overview of the base legislation and then walk us through each amendment.

Thank you.

And I'll share a presentation.

And for the public record, Council Member Herbold has joined.

I have invited, beginning before April 12th, I've invited all council members to attend every one of these meetings and I invited all council members to submit amendments.

Lish, back to you.

You have in front of you five different pieces of legislation that are interrelated.

Council Bill 120568 amends the comprehensive plan to lay the policy framework for the changes that are included in the other bills.

Council Bill 120567 is a series of amendments to our land use code, Chapter 23 of the Seattle Municipal Code, includes a new industrial chapter.

um, in the land use code, um, and creates three new industrial zones, um, Maritime Manufacturing and Logistics, or MML, Industry and Innovation, or II, and Urban Industrial, or UI.

Uh, Council Bill 120569, uh, makes changes to the zoning map to apply those new zones across our industrial areas, particularly within the manufacturing industrial centers.

Council Bill 120571 amends the noise ordinance related to areas near Binnmick.

And Council Bill 120570 is a more technical bill that relocates provisions related to the industrial commercial zone to the new Chapter 2350A.

Many of the amendments that you will be considering this morning will amend more than one of these bills.

And I will point those out as you are considering them.

And they are also listed in the presentation and in the amendment materials.

Any questions before I move on?

Colleagues, questions for Lish.

Great.

So just wanted to remind you that this package of legislation.

implements industrial and maritime strategies that were developed through a stakeholder engagement process.

They seek to support environmental justice and climate action, provide stronger protections for industrialized land, support high-density industrial development where appropriate, provide healthy transition areas near urban villages between residential and mixed-use neighborhoods and industrial areas, generally allow no new residential uses, implement specific goals for Georgetown and South Park neighborhoods, which are neighborhoods surrounded by our industrial areas, and lay the groundwork for future master planning for two large state-owned sites that are in industrial areas and are likely to be redeveloped, the Waska site in Soto and the Interbay Armory site in Interbay.

We have 13 amendments in front of you.

And we'll go into those in a lot more detail, but I just want to highlight that the amendments with a star or an asterisk on this table are amendments that will require additional environmental review and opportunity for public comment after The committee acts.

These are amendments that are similar to, but we're not studied under the is that was prepared for this.

package of legislation.

And so if the committee votes to approve any of these amendments, we will need to provide an additional opportunity for public comment.

And we are anticipating publishing an addendum to the EIS that discloses the environmental impacts of those changes.

Any questions on that before we start heading into the amendments?

Just to clarify, Lish, if these amendments are adopted that have the asterisks, this is why we will be taking the time until July 18th for final passage, is that correct?

And we will not, for the viewing public today, we will be passing this bill out of committee today.

It will not come back before committee until July 18th, and then we will pass the bill at full council July 18th.

I have again asked since before April 12th that no amendments be brought to full council because of the years of compromise that have gotten us to today.

As with the tree bill, if there are substitute or technical changes that need to be made at full council, we will welcome that.

Granted, I cannot legally prohibit any of my colleagues from bringing amendments.

I just ask politely, considerably, I've been giving you notice since before April 12th, please don't bring amendments to full council.

And I would just add that both the Growth Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act have requirements that.

amendments that are not within the scope of what was analyzed in the EIS will need further public notice and review under SEPA.

And so amendments coming before a full council, they will be limited to the sort of scope of what could be considered at that time.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson.

So just earlier, Chair Strauss, you said that today we were not going to be considering the amendments passed number 10. Did I misunderstand?

I understand that there are some that will require an addendum and then another discussion and vote.

But did you say, Chair Strauss, that we were just going to be doing one through?

Ah, sorry, considering amendments relating to items two through six on the agenda, which are the five bills, let me get that right, we're just gonna be looking at the bills related to maritime and industrial and amending those right now.

Is that a correct understanding from the script?

Yes, that is correct.

Which, just for my, does that exclude the 3A, 3B,

We, the amendments that you see on your screen right now are the amendments that we will be considering today.

Okay, perfect.

Yep, great, sorry.

Lots of different numbers.

This is why we call trees tier one, two, three, and four rather than significant, exceptional, and love to have.

Apologies for the side commentary.

Lish, back to you.

All right, so I think the process that we're going to take is I'll just read the title, and then the sponsor of the amendment will move it, and then we'll have a discussion.

So Amendment 1, our technical amendment sponsored by Council Member Strass.

I move to adopt Amendment 1 to, is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1. Lish, back to you.

These amendments are all technical corrections as we've been working with this weighty package of legislation.

We have identified some clerical errors in the drafting and these amendments seek to fix those.

Thank you.

As Lish said, this is a technical cleanup.

Correction and clarifying corrections throughout the legislation.

Are there any questions on this amendment?

Seeing no questions, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment one?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Thank you.

We are going to move on to amendments 3 A and 3 B.

Councilmember Morales you are recognized to move your amendment.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt amendments 3A and B.

Council Member Morales is the sponsor of these amendments.

You are recognized to discuss the amendments.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, colleagues.

I am excited about these two amendments, especially on the heels of our historic committee passage yesterday in the housing levy committee, historic investment.

We have another opportunity to contribute to the immense task of building the housing that we need that is affordable for neighbors, especially for working families.

These amendments would add much needed affordable housing funding that could allow us to build connected equitable communities, something that we should be striving for whenever we can.

I'm going to explain both of them, but I do want to first thank Ketel Freeman on central staff for helping craft these amendments and trying to help estimate the potential impacts.

So 3A, this amendment would reinstate the transfer of development rights via MHA commercial in lieu fees to be applied to commercial developments in the stadium overlay district, which would pay for housing in other neighborhoods as is current policy.

This amendment doesn't allow housing to be developed in the area, I will say, but it does capture funding that will allow us to see it as a compromise between some of the competing voices that we've been hearing about in the last week.

We'll be able to preserve the area for industrial and other housing in our city that's accessible to people working in these industries and would also cut commute times in the Seattle area by allowing people to live in the neighborhood where they're working and reduce our climate damage.

All of this while also preserving the balance that the mayor's office and OPCD and community partners found when developing the legislation.

We are trying to estimate what the potential impacts would be.

And I'm just reading from a note from Ketel, the amendment would primarily keep the city from losing potential MHA revenue.

And we could see increased future mitigation payments for whatever was anticipated by MHA, assuming the amendment passes.

We did share this amendment with the port, they have no concerns about it, and seeking support from my colleagues.

Amendment 3B, in the spirit of testimony that was given by Port Commissioner Hasegawa at the previous meeting that we had, this amendment would create an incentive for affordable workforce housing to be built off-site in areas of the city that desperately need more affordable housing.

Again, we've spoken with the Port about this amendment, and my colleagues will not be surprised to learn they do not have concerns.

They, too, want to see more affordable housing built for working families.

So this would allow developments in the industry and innovation zone to exceed the base far.

Much like developments in downtown.

The fee would pay for offsite affordable rental housing up to 80% am I.

And for affordable homeownership up to 100% am I to thresholds that many small community and cultural, cultural based developers in the south end have told me could really help their projects pencil and would help them to keep their communities in the city rather than seeing folks get pushed out.

My understanding is that there are approximately 2 million square feet that would be subject to the zoning requirements and that payment amounts if we're saying 1875 for gross square foot 325 for childcare.

could potentially generate about $37.5 million for housing and $6.5 million for child care over 20 years.

So I think this is an important opportunity for us to contribute both to the housing crisis that we have and to the opportunity to create more child care.

And again, I want to thank Ketel for helping craft this and providing the analysis to help us understand the potential impacts here.

Thank you, Councilmember Morales.

Lish, Keetle, Jeff, Jim, anything you want to share on this?

No, I think one thing I would add about Amendment 3B is that the proposed incentive provisions are in addition to the incentive provisions proposed by OPCD for non-industrial development and the industrial innovation zone.

Thank you, Ketil.

Council Member Nielsen, I see you've got your hand.

I am just gonna ask a few questions first, if that's all right.

Ketil, you just mentioned exactly where I was going with this, and I'm gonna ask Jeff and Jim, can you please provide us a summary of the additional fees that are placed on the II zones and in the stadium district overlay?

What I'm asking here, I know that you presented this in committee previously.

It was within a lot of dense information.

I picked it up because I've been tracking this for so long.

Can you please, it is my understanding that within these districts, we have applied an MHA style fee that is being used for other necessary and important development in our community, including fixing unreinforced masonry.

Can you please provide us an overview of the fee structures that are currently within the bill?

Yes, thank you, Chair Strauss.

The proposed bill has tiers of bonus development that a developer can access.

And the first tier of bonus development is accessed by inclusion of bona fide, high quality, state-of-the-art industrial space.

So that is proposed as a part of the public benefit in this case.

These are areas that are within the manufacturing industrial center prioritized to support industrial development.

They've lacked investment.

And so requiring the inclusion of high-quality, state-of-the-art, bona fide industrial space is the first tier of bonus.

And the second tier of the bonus structure for the developer to access the maximum amount of FAR under the proposal is to either construct using cross laminated timber construction methods or through transfer development rights to preserve and upgrade unreinforced masonry structure within the same manufacturing industrial center.

And those two features, either the cross laminated timber construction or preservation of unreinforced masonry structures were features that came through in the process, um, suggested by stakeholders and community members.

So I'm just going to recap quickly under the mayor's proposal.

Um, the, the bonus incentive features are a, um, creation of that state-of-the-art industrial space and then B, um, the choice of cross-laminated timber construction or, preservation of unreinforced masonry structure.

Thank you.

I'm going to just kind of dive into that a little bit more and correct me if I'm wrong, from one of our previous committee meetings, we had discussed the economic vitality, economic ability to build buildings in this area, can you be a little bit more specific about the cross-laminated timber and the URM fees?

So tell me if I'm wrong here.

To access additional bonus within these zones, a developer could pay an additional fee to access that bonus, and that fee would be applied to cross-laminated timber or URM structures.

Is that too simple?

Did I simplify it too much?

Maybe.

It's not a fee-based system.

It's that the developer would construct themselves using cross-liminated timber methods or upgrade the unreinforced masonry structure themselves, either on-site or in another site within the same mix.

So it's not a fee-based system for those.

It's just the developer doing those things.

And so the price point or the economic viability that I had seen presented in committee previously through these two bonus programs already put these structures at the upper limit of what is understood to be economically viable.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

That's an important point.

OPCD did a third party economic analysis with 10 development prototypes under the proposed zone.

And under like moderate conditions, we found that nine of those prototypes would be not feasible or marginally feasible.

They could become more feasible over time if economic conditions change.

But under today's conditions, most of the prototypes were not feasible.

So the position of the executive OPCD proposal is that adding the cost of the MHA requirement would make it even longer or potentially longer for the development types that we want to become feasible.

Thank you.

I'm going to summarize back, and you tell me if I'm correct or not, that through the current bill, we are at the upper limit of economic viability for the types of structures that we are allowing within these zoning changes.

If we were to add another layer of payment, it would put it on the other side, meaning that the prototypes studied would not have economic viability unless the market changes.

Is that correct?

Correct.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Thank you.

I see

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

they're infeasible under current conditions.

So Council Member Morales' proposal would not make them feasible.

They would impose additional costs, but the existing prototypes are infeasible under current market conditions today.

Thank you, wish, and I just want to clarify that the incentive program that was just discussed is only in the innovation and industry and innovation zone.

So, the area covered by amendment three be and not in the area covered by amendment three a.

Thank you.

Councilmember Morales, I saw you had a hand and then it disappeared.

I have a final statement to make, but I'll let you speak up if you so choose.

No, I just appreciate Lish and Kittle.

As I said, this is about trying to support what we all have been talking about, which is creating opportunity for building more housing elsewhere.

you know, if we are looking to find additional ways to do that, to do it off-site, this is an important opportunity for us.

And as market conditions change, I think the feasibility will be, question will be different.

Thank you councilmember Morales I will let the I see I'm just going to wrap up with my comments and then I'm going to pass it up to you.

Yep.

For me I cannot support these amendments today, affordable housing and MHA payments are incredibly important to me.

And it is important that the prototypes analyzed under this bill are given the best chance possible to be built because these structures are built for employment.

They are built for industrial uses on the ground floor and for office space above.

And if we did not have these other incentive programs already added in, I would be all for adding MHA in, but under the current analysis, it is my fear that this would put it on the other side of being viable to build, and it is important to me that we set this bill up for success.

I'm gonna now pass it over to Council Member Nelson, and then to Council Member Mosqueda, and then Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you.

I asked for a delay in the votes because until the 14th or whenever it was going to be next week or so, because it's one thing to see a list of amendments, but then to have this memo with a bunch of, a lot more information, and I, from reading this memo yesterday, I learned that 3A only, does not apply to all the, all the land in the, let's see, urban industrial zones.

It's very specific.

So I didn't, I wasn't able to see the map and that was unclear to me.

And then it wasn't, I didn't even know about 3B until I had my briefing with you.

And this discussion is just now bringing up the fact that this would be on top of cross laminated timber and URM incentives in which I am very, committed to and I'm concerned about 3B then rendering these buildings too inexpensive to build.

I'll be voting no on these, but I would like to know why 3A is applied only in the stadium overlay, if that's okay, and not elsewhere in not all the urban industrial zones.

Sure.

Currently, the stadium transition area overlay is mostly industrial commercial and mandatory hasn't the mandatory housing affordability pro CE program commercial program applies there.

So, it was one of those we were talking about the feasibility study.

That was one of the few areas where development was likely to be feasible in the future given the mayor's proposal.

3A primarily keeps the city whole from an MHAC perspective by maintaining incentive zoning, not incentive zoning, mandatory housing affordability program within that zone.

But there are other places where MHA applies in IC zones which would go away, go by the wayside in the mayor's proposal in favor of some other zone, mostly industrial innovation zones where an incentive program of 3B passes would be applicable.

I understand that it depends on the zone where MHA is applied.

I'm just wondering why it's treated differently in the same zone in this proposal, but go ahead.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson, and I can tell you that if we had, we spent a lot of time on your bill earlier this week, if it had gone to committee or any other way forward, we could have had a lot more time to discuss these.

These amendments have been out in the public for quite some time.

Councilmember Nielsen?

Councilmember Mosqueda?

There's, because there are several amendments, I don't plan to speak to each amendment.

I just wanna explain how, like the decision-making principles I'm applying to all of the amendments, and then I'll just simply vote on those amendments, don't plan to speak to them.

So if I, with your grace, I'd like to just have 90 seconds to explain my philosophy on the different amendments and my support for the overall package.

Under council rules, you have up to 10 minutes, but please, if you just want 90 seconds, I'd love you for it.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I want to thank the Harrell administration for their hard work on this complex update, these longstanding land use policies.

While there are several amendments today, they're relatively minor thanks to the effective stakeholder and process guided by the Harrell administration.

I also want to thank central staff analysts, Lish Whitson, Ketel Freeman, and my legislative aide, Toby Thaler, for tracking these five pieces of legislation.

So rather than speak to each amendment, I want to explain my overall decision-making principles here on the amendments.

In 2019, I pledged to my future constituents that I would do more to support the Port of Seattle and the permanent jobs provided by our port.

economic engine of our entire state, and that I would protect industrial maritime lands.

I believe this proposal from the Harrell administration to update this zoning was carefully crafted.

So for me, any amendment would need to jump a high hurdle for me to vote for it if the Harrell administration is not in full support of it.

So some exceptions to that would be to defer to district council members who know their districts best, as long as the public benefits are clear to me.

So if there's an amendment from a district council member for which public benefits might not be unclear at this time I'll just split the difference today and abstain on those amendments.

I want to thank everybody who spoke out about housing in the stadium district.

Personally, I believe that concept would need to be considered and legislated at a later time.

because I'm concerned making such a big change today would imperil the citywide update to these areas as carefully crafted by the Harrell administration.

Unless there are any surprise amendments today, I plan to vote for these bills with the exception I will be abstaining on Council Bill 120568. That's the annual amendments to the comp plan, just briefly to explain that, and then I won't talk for the rest of the day.

Let me explain briefly.

The excellent efficiency of this maritime package moving ahead today, and I support moving ahead with it today.

We're using up that annual opportunity to update the comp plan.

That requires us to move ahead, unfortunately, without the already docketed amendment to allow for what I view as a tax reform policy of transportation impact fees, Our ability to even consider the tax reform that could be achieved with transportation and back fees is squelched by some legal maneuvers and stalling.

Nevertheless, the overall package from the administration is sound, so I don't want to delay it.

So a no vote would delay.

So I'll simply abstain on Council one, two, zero, five, six, eight today.

I look forward to the council revisiting transportation and back fees in earnest, restarting hopefully in September.

And again, I want to thank everybody from the Herald ministration worked on this, OPCD staff especially.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks for letting me have another second here to do a little bit more research.

I appreciate as well the concern I think raised by Councilmember Nelson about wanting to have a better understanding of some of the impact of some of the amendments in front of us.

So thank the Chair for encouraging us to ask questions and have the dialogue here today.

If this continues to move forward, I appreciate that that's been the encouragement of the Chair and that our good Chair has taken on so much in the last few months with having to manage I think it's important for us to be supportive of this.

I think it's important for us to be supportive of this.

the density built in the stadium district, but also ensure that there was a payment going into building housing across our city, which we also desperately need.

And the ability to build higher and denser construction that allows for more affordable units to be inside is something that I saw as a win-win.

I do want to raise, though, that I have a concern about, you know, limiting ourselves to the type of construction materials.

I want to be supportive of these amendments because of the underlying effort here to try to strike that right balance.

So I'll continue to do that here today.

But I want to underscore the importance of us also using iron for construction.

We have the first affordable high rise in more than 50 years opening with the Plymouth and Bellwater.

housing at Blake House.

This includes permanent supportive housing and supporting the workforce that is constructing the building using iron and also supporting the workforce inside who needs to provide the permanent supportive housing services.

So my question is really for central staff.

With the payment into mandatory housing and the dollars that are made available from the incentive zoning provisions here.

Is it also true that we could continue to invest in iron construction to allow for more high-rise and denser, taller buildings that would yield more Blake house-like construction that allows for us to have different type of materials?

I understand the desire to to include cross laminated timber here, but looking at this model from Blake House that has Plymouth and Bellwether and Permanent Supportive Housing and union labor construction outside and inside, is that also where the dollars could go with an amendment like this?

Yeah, so that the amendment doesn't restrict the ability of the city to spend funds from either managerial housing affordability commercial in the stadium transition area overlay or incentive zoning dollars from the industrial innovation zone on any kind of product that OH thinks would work for the purposes of of the city.

So that is one way that they can do that, and that's by industrial and office development in the industrial innovation zone.

Is there a place in MHA or incentive zoning that would, is there a format for us to incentivize more of the iron construction that we're seeing at Blake House?

I think that's a good point.

Thank you.

I have some thoughts.

I guess mine is that that's probably a housing funding policy change that the city could make if the city is interested in more construction or iron, you know, concrete or construction or iron constructions or higher I'm sorry, you might have some additional thoughts on that.

Yeah, that was what I was gonna say.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Lish and Ketel.

Council Member Mosqueda, I'm seeing no further questions.

Do jump in if you do have some.

Council Member Nelson, you are recognized.

So is 3A required to, or is, what did, I would like some clarification on Council Member Mosqueda's comment just now about 3A being part of a compromise.

And I'm assuming that means to the comments that were made on housing in the stadium district.

and does that have to happen now?

And also, I just want to signal that I am not disrespecting our iron workers by calling out my interest in cross-laminated timber.

So my question for 3B is simply that, does wood Is there an implication that there is only going to be cross laminated timber and did you or council members chair Strauss, were you saying that there are demos that are enabled by this package but.

You're not saying that they will only be cross-laminated timber and not include traditional construction?

Yeah, thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Let me try to summarize in lay language and then OPCD and central staff, if you could correct me if I'm wrong here, which is that a building gets to be larger if they use cross-laminated timber.

And it was my understanding that the compromise negotiated by OPCD and the stakeholder process allows for additional bonus in the buildings to be larger and bigger if they are reinforcing unreinforced masonry.

Those two incentive programs mirror MHA, which is what puts the economic viability of constructing these buildings at the top end of that viability.

I don't know where the compromise statement came from regarding going above there.

It was my understanding that the compromise was we would be allowing these additional bonuses in if they use cross-liminated timber or they reinforce unreinforced masonry.

I'm going to pass it back to OPCD to see if my comments were correct.

Yes, that sounded good.

I want to directly answer Councilor Nelson's question and just say that a large building could still be built without using cross-liminated timber, using other materials.

Yeah, and the compromise that I was alluding to was was alluding to council members.

Mosqueda's comment on, I think, only 3A, not 3B.

And I just want to thank Council Member Morales for bringing this forward.

I mean, I think that this is brought forward in a good way with good intent.

So.

Colleagues, any other questions on 3A or B?

Seeing none, will the clerk please, Council Member Morales, any final comments before we call the vote?

I'm good, Chair, thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of First Amendment 3A?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

No.

Two in favor, two opposed, one abstention.

I think it fails.

That amendment fails.

Thank you, Council Member Morales for bringing it forward.

Let's move on to the next one.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 3B?

Council Member Vizcaya?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

Staying.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

No.

Two in favor, two opposed, one abstention.

The motion does not pass.

Amendment 3A and 3B will not be attached to the bill.

Thank you for that tough conversation.

Let's move on to hopefully some easier ones.

Looking at Amendment 4, this is my amendment, so I move to adopt Amendment 4. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt amendment four.

As the sponsor of the amendment, I will address this, which is during the tree ordinance conversation, tree protection ordinance conversation, there was great discussion about how the bill did not effectuate on industrial lands.

And that was because we did not have the industrial zoning bills before us as part of the tree protection ordinance.

This bill will extend the protections into the industrial zones.

And Lish, in your presentation, can you also share how the executive orders apply to the other aspects that are not contained within this amendment?

Sure.

So this amendment is specifically about street tree regulations where street trees are required.

Under the executive's proposal, street trees would be required on all streets in the industry and innovation zone and the urban industrial zone, and on the streets shown in green on this slide in the manufacturing, maritime, and logistics zone.

The amendment would require street trees on all streets in the MML zone, primarily adding east-west streets to the areas where street trees are required.

Related to the other tree regulations, many of the tree regulations that you just adopted last month will apply in the industrial areas.

The restrictions on tree removal outside of development are, do remain the same as, and were not addressed by the amendments that you made.

However, there are replacement requirements during development in industrial areas.

The fee-in-lieu program for tree replacement is in effect in the industrial area, and hazardous tree replacement provisions from the tree production bill are in place in industrial areas.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

And it was my original intention to bring an amendment that copied and pasted the entire tree protection ordinance into here.

So I will flag for colleagues if there's cleanup, cleanup language here that is needed, it may be included in a substitute bill at full council.

The idea here is that we protect trees in the industrial zone in the same way that we do throughout the rest of our city.

Colleagues, are there any questions here?

Yeah, I'll go ahead.

So there was, I understand that there was some opposition to putting to the mayor's proposal which had which added trees to some streets, correct.

And now this is adding it to the whole and manufacturing the MML zone, correct.

Has there been any input from the community about that and the impact on trees on freight or anything like that?

I just want to know what this means for freight mobility and if it complicates what people had already been concerned about earlier.

I will, thank you Council Member Nelson.

I will ask Council Member Peterson to represent the opposition standpoint to the tree protection ordinance here.

And briefly speaking around freight routes, if a tree is in a place that trucks will hit it, that tree will be destroyed.

And if not, it will be properly pruned to get out of the way of the trucks.

And so I don't have a lot of concerns here, I'll open it up to Lish and OPCD as well.

So the location of street trees is reviewed by the Seattle Department of Transportation.

And if they determine it's not feasible or inappropriate to put a tree in the normal location, the planting strip, then the street tree is required to be adjacent to a building on the other side of, for example, a sidewalk.

And so there are opportunities to plant trees along the street, even if they're not directly adjacent to the street right away.

That helps.

Looks like that helps.

Yep.

Council Member Peterson, do you want to represent the dissenting viewpoint on the tree protection bill?

I'm not sure that's necessary.

I support this amendment because I think it's neutral on it.

Excellent.

Great to hear.

Any further questions?

Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on Amendment 4.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Abstain.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

The motion amendment for passes and will be attached to the bill.

Moving on to Amendment 6. This is my amendment.

I move to adopt Amendment 6. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 6 as sponsor of the bill.

I will address it briefly and then turn it over to Lish.

There has been a lot of concern and disagreement regarding the stadium district.

Just kind of noting that.

And I think that at every opportunity, we should provide it maximum opportunities to provide us a vibrant neighborhood.

This amendment does increase the entertainment spaces.

So if you think of the Van Gogh exhibit or others, this allows for a greater amount of space to be used in those ways.

I see Council Member Herbold had something to say.

I couldn't quite hear it through this plexiglass.

and stranger things and stranger things.

I'm gonna turn it over to Lish.

Lish, do you have a presentation on this amendment?

Yeah, so very briefly, there's no size limit on these three uses under the current code.

Council Bill 120567, the Land Use Code Amendment Bill, reduces the maximum size limit for many commercial uses in the urban industrial zone in order to reduce conflicts and pressure on converting industrial areas away from industrial uses.

This amendment goes in between the current code and what's proposed under the proposed bill, By allowing information computer technology uses so computer technology office space with no size limit, increasing them maximum size limit from the proposed legislation from 25,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet.

and allowing general sales and service uses at up to 40,000 square feet.

So those are retail uses and normal types of services that you'll find in any business district.

Thank you, Lish.

Colleagues, questions on this amendment?

I'm seeing no questions.

I am going to move it to a vote.

So I'm gonna give you one more moment to ask questions should they exist.

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adopting amendment six.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment six passes and will be adopted to the underlying bills.

Moving on to amendment seven, Council Member Morales, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Okay, thank you very much.

This is, let me see, sorry, let me get to my notes.

Simple, this amendment would provide an increase to the quality of life for working families who are living near industrial areas to dampen the noise caused by industrial uses.

I do want to thank Lish for helping craft this and the next amendment.

our understanding is that this is supportive.

I need to move my amendment.

Move your amendment, please.

I am here to move Amendment 7.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Council Member Morales, take it away.

And I have spoken to it, so thank you very much.

All right.

Well then, sorry for cutting you off there.

That's okay.

I mean, wish any comments.

So the bill in front of you would require triple pane noise attenuating windows as one of the conditions for development of residential uses in the urban industrial zone.

This amendment would apply that requirement to the areas that are being rezoned away from industrial to commercial zoning in areas close to industrial.

I think this is a great amendment.

I will be supporting this.

Colleagues, any other questions on amendment 7?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment 7?

Yes.

Chair Schaus?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

Amendment seven passes and will be adopted to the underlying bills.

Council Member Morales, back to you.

We're going to recognize you to move your amendment and then we'll speak to it.

You are recognized to move amendment eight.

I move amendment eight.

I second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt amendment eight.

I'm going to take a quick human break.

Council Member Morales, you want to speak to the bill and then Lish take it from there.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, colleagues.

Again, the intent with this amendment is to mitigate climate impacts of building housing that is near industry, and particularly to address areas where there's a high threshold for heat.

So the amendment would require air and cooling and filtration in residential units in these industrial areas.

resulting in better air quality inside of homes that are likely to be in heat islands during our smoky summers and our increasingly hot summers.

The higher standard also means greener technologies such as heat pumps could be used for these purposes.

It incorporates some changes that STCI requested and is supported by STCI and OPCD.

Lish, I will hand it to you.

Right.

I don't have much more to add.

It requires a filtration system up to a higher level than is typical and requires air cooling.

Those could be a combined system and probably will be in most cases.

And that's all I have to add.

Okay.

As Vice Chair, until Chair Strauss gets back, I will ask if colleagues have any questions about the amendment.

I am not seeing any questions.

I will filibuster for just a moment and say that, again, I appreciate Lisha's assistance in crafting this.

I do think it's important.

We all know that our summers are getting hotter.

We have regular smoke seasons now.

Thankfully, not nearly as bad as what we are seeing on the East Coast right now.

But providing the ability for our housing to include cooling infiltration systems is going to be especially important as our climate change impacts continue to grow.

So I will call for a vote and we will do it slowly.

Oh, here's our chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

As you were saying, Clerk, will you please call the vote on Amendment 8?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Amendment 8 is attached to the underlying bills.

Moving on to Amendment 10. This is my amendment.

I move to adopt Amendment 10. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 10. I will briefly make some remarks on this bill or this amendment and then pass it to Lish.

The areas that you see right there are industrial buffer zones that were not changed through this legislation.

The majority of the changes that were made in this legislation were to the buffer zones, industrial buffer zones.

This was untouched, and this is an industrial buffer zone that is within an urban growth center, which is Ballard.

And so what is not shown on this map is to the north and west is Neighborhood Commercial 3. To the direct north is Low Rise 3, I believe.

This is all off of memory.

To the east is Commercial 2. And to the south is Commercial 3. And so this is an odd finger in an urban center that is still industrial buffer.

I'm moving to amend it to urban industrial for the majority of the block and neighborhood commercial three in the triangular block.

Questions?

Lish, any additional comments?

Just to mention that the current zoning and the zoning as proposed under the executive's proposal is industrial commercial, not the industrial buffer zone.

But otherwise...

That makes me feel better.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, any questions on this amendment?

Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment 10?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

All in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

The Amendment 10 passes and will be adopted to the underlying bills.

Moving on to Amendment 10. This is Leary in between 14th and 11th.

Oh, I have to move it.

I move to adopt Amendment 11. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

To adopt Amendment 11, I will provide the background on this.

To the north and to the west has become the Innovation Zone.

To the south is the Maritime Manufacturing and Logistics Zone.

This entire block is the Rudd Chemical Company in Ballard in the Brewery District Industrial District.

Initially, it was assumed that they would want to remain in the maritime manufacturing logistics zoning.

Through additional stakeholder outreach, they have requested to be changed into the industrial innovation zoning, which is more consistent with the entire map.

We don't have The big picture here, what I can tell you is this one block is a bit of a thumb that extends northward, that extends the maritime manufacturing logistics zoning into what is otherwise a comprehensive industrial innovation zone.

So making this change makes the map more consistent overall.

Lish, do you have any additional comments?

No.

Apparently I can play central staff on TV, but as per the last amendment, I can't do it correctly all the time.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions on this one?

Seeing no questions, clerk, will you please call the roll on amendment 11?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

4 in favor, 1 abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment 11 passes and will be adopted to the underlying bills.

We are going to move on to Amendment 12. And it is just my understanding councilmember nelson i'll come to you in just a second it is my understanding lish that this amendment does not change zoning it just removes it from the bin mic is that correct correct okay great so i'm going to move amendment 12 and then we can have discussion i move to amend uh to move amendment 12 to the underlying bills is there a second second It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 12 as sponsor of the amendment, I will address and then I will pass it to Councilmember Nelson.

This area is on the edge of the Ballard Industrial Manufacturing It's the edge of the bin Mick manufacturing and industrial center, not corridor.

This has remained as a parking lot for gosh knows how many years, probably since Ballard was its own city.

And the owners are interested in making adjustments to this parcel.

We are not entertaining changing the zoning within this parcel.

We are simply making the motion to remove it from the Manufacturing Industrial Center.

Council Member Nelson.

I have a procedural thing I have to do.

I have a disclosure that has been requested that I make.

I sent this email to the city clerk yesterday.

It reads, For the recommendation of Wayne Barnett copied, I am submitting a disclosure to the city clerk relating to the industrial and maritime strategy legislation now before the Land Use Committee of which I am a member.

I own shares in Green Lake Brewing Company, DBA, Fremont Brewing, headquartered at 47 Ninth Avenue Northwest, Seattle, Washington 98107, which is also the location of the brewery's main production facility.

My husband, Matt Linscomb, is CEO of Fremont Brewing and the signatory on the commercial rental agreement with the Fremont Dock Company.

I formally stepped away from all business operations before assuming office on January 3, 2022. The mayor's proposal proposed Council Bill 120568 and 569 contain a change to the zoning of the parcel owned by the Fiorito family directly across the street.

On Northwest 48th, it's not much longer, you guys.

Between 9th and 8th Avenue Northwest, from industrial buffer to urban innovation.

And Amendment 12 pertaining to both council bills that were entertaining right now, would remove the parcel from the BINMIC.

Because my family does not own the property or land where Fremont Brewing is located, we do not have a financial interest in any changes to land value that may occur as a result of the zoning change.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Do you need to abstain or not be called on during this vote?

I will abstain, but just to be safe, but I just wanted to put that out there that what was going on.

Great practice.

Lish, do you have any comments or presentation on this amendment?

Just to note that there is multifamily zoning to the north of these properties and neighborhood residential zoning to the east and so it really is a corner edge transition area.

Wonderful, thank you.

Colleagues, any further questions on amendment 12?

Seeing no further questions, will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 12.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Abstain.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Three in favor, two abstentions.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Amendment 12 will be adopted to the underlying bills.

Moving on to Amendment 13. This is my amendment.

I move to adopt Amendment 13 to the underlying bills.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 13 to the underlying bills as sponsor of the amendment.

I will make brief remarks here, which is, this is another edge property of the Ballard Industrial Manufacturing industrial center, BINMIC.

This would be a rezone from IB45 and NR3 to C240 and MML65.

This would also remove it from the BINMIC, which these are the very edges.

Just to the north is Commercial 2 outside of the BINMIC, and just to the west is multifamily and outside of the BNMEC.

So again, these are edge changes.

Lish, anything to add there?

This is the first of the amendments that touches multiple bills.

So this amends the comprehensive plan bill to remove this area from the BNMEC.

and amends the zoning map bill to rezone these properties.

The stair step to the right on this image is cleaning up some split zone properties that were adjacent to the area that's being removed from the BNMC.

Thank you, Lish.

Colleagues, any questions on this?

Sure.

Have you talked to the NSIA about removing Lynn from the BNMIC?

I have found no opposition in my conversations with stakeholders on this amendment.

As part of my procedure here is that because of seven plus years of negotiations around this bill, it is not my interest to bring amendments that have not been completely stakeholdered with consensus.

Seeing no further questions, I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll on Amendment 13.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Abstain.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Three in favor, two abstentions.

Thank you.

The motion passes and Amendment 13 will be adopted to the underlying bills.

Up next is Amendment 14, Council Member Herbold.

And Council Member Herbold, did you have a sponsor in committee as well?

Wonderful.

I'm going to, in your stead, I will move Amendment 14. Thank you so much.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved, seconded, third, and quadrupled.

I will pass it to Council Member Herbold to address the underlying amendment.

Thank you so much.

First, I'd like to thank Council Member Morales for agreeing to sponsor this amendment on my behalf.

I'm unable to sponsor amendments as a Council Member who is not part of this committee, and thank you very much to Committee Chair Strauss for facilitating this process and generously welcoming all of Council to participate today.

This amendment rezones three areas to industry and innovation.

The industry and innovation zone is the industrial zone permitted to acquire transfers of development rights from unreinforced masonry buildings.

These TDRs can provide funding to support building to protect against earthquakes in unreinforced masonry buildings.

These retrofits will not only protect the health of the building themselves and the lives of the people inside the building during seismic activity, but also the lives of people and buildings around them and the critical infrastructure near them.

These recommendations come from the Alliance for Safety, Affordability, and Preservation workgroup.

That workgroup is called Incentivizing Additional Environmental of the city of Santa Rosa, and the city of Santa Rosa, and the city of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa the Seattle department of construction and inspections and the office of planning and community development on work that will ultimately support the formulation of a solution to This work is being directed by Resolution 32033, which I sponsored in 2021. And I want to just say I really appreciate the regular updates that we've been receiving from ASAP, Office of Emergency Management, and SDCI to my Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

The most recent report in April on this important work included focus on the draft of baseline standards to identify models for retrofits.

As it relates to this particular amendment, the program would allow owners of each URM property required to retrofit their buildings to the URM standard yet to be designed, but it would allow those property owners additional development capacity or upzone credits.

It would also allow developers in selected areas to purchase upzone credits from the owners of the URM properties for a fee that would then help these owners of URM buildings pay for the estimated $1.2 billion in costs to retrofit URMs across the city.

This would allow developers to build denser buildings while also supporting the protection and safety of older and historically significant buildings.

This is a really important funding source for this life safety matter.

The three areas under this particular amendment would contain both sending sites and receiving sites for these TDRs, increasing the land available for The, the zoning means that there will be more demand for the URM TDR and more private sector investment to support expensive rehabilitation of these URM buildings.

The sub areas are all within the manufacturing industrial center as listed as criteria under Council Bill 120564. Sub areas two and three are within a half mile walking distance of the Soto light rail station.

And sub area is just barely beyond that distance, but I believe still within a 15 minute walk shed.

The rezone leverages are expanding light rail system by supporting transit-oriented development within the manufacturing and industrial centers.

And all three areas are in areas with high potential to attract new investment.

and buildings and infrastructure that supports dense technological employment as new restaurants and nightlife show up in the area.

And our light rail system reaches further corners of our city.

Many of the uses within the areas of this amendment are retail sales and services, food and beverage, or government uses.

and this makes them more suited for the industry and innovation zoning.

And if approved, this amendment would only increase the innovation and industry area zone within the Soto Station area by about 6%.

Hopefully, my colleagues will agree this strikes a fair balance between transit-oriented development and the traffic throughout the needs of the area.

And again, thank you, Chair Strauss, for inviting me to participate in the amendment process and speak today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Lish, anything that you'd like to add?

No, thank you.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, any questions, comments?

Councilmember Herbold, I appreciate you bringing this amendment to me and to the committee.

I have very, as I said, at and before April 12th and every step along the way, Soto and the Stadium District are the two places that I am going to be operating with.

the most conservative viewpoint.

Zones two and three are totally within my comfort zone.

Zone one is slightly out because it is half mile as the crow flies, but not half mile as you walk.

I will not be supporting this amendment today because of the conservative viewpoint that I have taken and I understand other committee members do not necessarily need to reflect such a conservative viewpoint.

because I have been part of this process since 2020. So, appreciate that.

Colleagues, any questions, comments at this time?

Council Member Nelson.

OPC did signal their support, so I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

And I fully understand I am in a different position than the rest of the committee.

No further questions or comments.

Council Member Herbold, do you want to close us out?

Anything further?

Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment 14?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Abstain.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

No.

Three in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Amendment 14 will be adopted to the underlying bills.

This leaves us with Amendment 15. Council Member Morales, this is your amendment.

Thank you.

I move Amendment 15.

Second.

Amendment 15 has been moved and seconded.

Council Member Morales, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Sure.

Thank you, Chair.

So for the last three years, my office has been working with community stakeholders in Georgetown.

They are trying to envision an environmentally just neighborhood.

They're really focused on trying to increase community development in the area.

especially given the sort of tight constraint of the geography of the neighborhood.

During previous budgets, we made a historic investment in Duwamish Valley, including funding to OPCD to assist in a visioning process to How we develop cultural space in Georgetown.

This amendment would make some minor changes to urban industrial and neighborhood commercial in Georgetown changes that were requested by the community.

and it'll match our fiscal commitment to the community as well.

It would allow some limited additional residential, it would increase pedestrian and bicycle activity, and consequently improve pedestrian safety in the neighborhood, and would support services in the particularly around the Georgetown playfield area.

This is a community request.

I want to thank Greg Ramirez from the Georgetown Community Council who sent a letter of support just this morning.

This is supported by OPCD.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Lish or OPCD, any further comments?

Just to note that there are two areas that are being rezoned differently than what was proposed.

The area to the West between 5th Avenue South and Maynard Avenue South is going to Urban Industrial.

That area includes scattered houses, and so the Urban Industrial zoning will allow for a few residential units to potentially be added to that area.

And then the area on the east is a block along Airport Way South, and the zoning proposed in the executive's proposal is being extended one block north.

a long airport way, the character is very similar on that block to the block to the south.

Thank you.

Colleagues, questions or comments?

Seeing none, Council Member Morales, well done with the amendment I'm supporting today.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment 15?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

I'll abstain.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

The amendment passes.

15 will be adopted to the underlying bills.

Council Member Morales, did you have something there?

Oh, I just wanted to, could you please retake the vote?

Would you mind?

Sure.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment 15 again.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The amendment passes and will be adopted to the underlying bills.

We are now at the conclusion of the amendment process and I want to talk about the next steps.

Since amendment Well, five was removed, we had 10, we have 12, 13, 14, and 15. Since they have adopted, we will need to publish an addendum to the Industrial Maritime Strategy, FEIS, and the Council shall hold a vote July 18th at the earliest.

If...

That's kind of the, did I just steal your job, Lish?

I'm sorry.

No, go ahead.

Wonderful.

Thanks.

So that's the next step in this process and OPCD, it's my understanding you will be leading the way on the addendum, is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

So now we are going to move on to the final votes of these five bills.

And before we move on to these final votes I want to talk about a couple things.

There are two different state laws that are driving needing to give additional time for public notice and comment under the GMA.

which guides all land use decisions we need to provide opportunities for the public comment.

We've done that with amendments that are within the scope of the EIS, and for amendments that are not reviewed under the EIS, members of the public didn't have sufficient notice of the possibility of amendments through the GMA regulations, which is separate from my May 23rd announcement of these amendments, which has given the public quite a bit of time, seeing as we are on June 8th today.

Since the committee acted on the amendments that fall under the GMA, which were not part of the original comment period, we are required to provide an additional public comment under State Environmental Policy Act, SEPA.

We are required to analyze any changes that were not analyzed on the EIS OPC to be prepared initially.

Since there are a number of amendments that fall within this category, they are similar to what was reviewed in the EIS and go a little bit beyond the EIS and what the EIS studied.

Those differences are at a level that we're going to prepare, OPCD will prepare an amendment, an addendum, let me slow down, which will describe the amendments and analyze whether there is the possibility of significant adverse impact which was not disclosed in the FEIS.

I don't think and we don't believe that there are those impacts and we still need to do our due diligence.

This will take a few weeks, after which we will need to provide members of the public at least 15 days to comment on the addendum.

So given both of these, we need approximately 30 days, maybe a little bit more, plus additional time to get notices published, which pushes us to July 18th City Council meeting at the earliest.

I would like to meet this deadline.

Colleagues, any questions or comments on the process to final passage at City Council.

I don't have any questions about the process or comments on the process, but I do have a comment on this package.

So are we at that point?

I would say we are at, yes, colleagues, if you have comments on the package at large, now is the time to make those because from here we will be voting in sequence each of these bills as amended.

So Council Member Nelson, I'm going to pass the floor to you.

I just want to thank you for bringing this forward and also thank our city staff, because this has been in process for a very, very long time.

I really appreciate all the work that's happened here and into the people that have spoken out.

and been involved for decades actually.

So I understand that there is a desire to make sure that freight is protected and that part of that means not wanting to have residential in the industrial lands.

And I do appreciate that.

And at the same time, I have to say that there are changes to the industrial lands that we are making that do add vehicles including in some of these towers and we're removing land from the industrial zone up north and so industrial lands are dynamic, and they respond, we have to respond to changing times and so I just want to make sure that it is recognized that we're trying to use the land at the highest and best use, and that is my interest as well, and make sure that our industrial lands are protected and at the same time that we recognize that this is not the same city as it was 30 years ago.

However, it's very important to keep industry going because Seattle is a working maritime industrial town.

Very well said, Council Member Nelson.

Colleagues, are there other comments on the underlying bills?

If I was to make comments, I would be reiterating what I've said about 10 different times, so I'm going to save that for full council where I'll say it again.

I just appreciate everyone's hard work on this.

Tim Burgess, your amazing work on this.

I mean, OPCD has worked so hard on this.

Chase Kitchen from the former mayor's office really put a lot of work into this.

Lish, both you and Ketel really shepherded this through.

This could have been a very difficult process, and it's been very smooth, so I appreciate that.

I'm seeing no further comments.

We will move into voting on each bill at this time.

So, I will move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120567 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Chair, can I ask a question?

Sorry.

Oh, yeah.

Let's take it back a step.

Questions, comments, concerns?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you so much.

I cannot see myself, but if you can see me, that's...

Okay, well, I wanted to just double check on the timeline that you just mentioned with the EIS and the public comment that needs to happen.

We're taking a vote on these bills here today to move out of committee, but then you're holding it from going to a full council vote until you get public comment back.

Is that the process here?

Yes, so as part of the GMA and SEPA requirements, as part of the addendum to the EIS because of amendments, I believe it was 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15, We will be taking public comment to be incorporated within the EIS, not necessarily public comment for City Council, public comment for that EIS process.

And to do so requires public notice of 15 days minimum.

And there's a couple days that we need to get that ready.

So we are being liberal in our understanding of 30 plus days, which puts us at July.

18th.

If we were to not move this out of committee today, that would push that deadline back even further.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so the public comment that you then received from the EIS, do we incorporate that or how do we respond to that, if at all, before the mid-July final vote?

OPCD?

Or LISH?

Um, well, so just there are two different types of comment that you'll be receiving comment under the growth Management Act, which will come to Council.

And could influence your final decisions on the bills that full Council or and comment on the additional environmental review.

which will be included in the record of the SEPA decision.

And we will provide that to council members, but there is no need to respond to it under SEPA.

Okay, so on the first part, is the process that we may or may not receive comment that may influence the final vote if additional amendments or an amendment is necessary?

No, it's members of the public need to have an opportunity to comment on changes that were not part of the original public hearing notice.

And so we will be providing that opportunity for additional public comment and making it clear that these are changes that the council is making to what was originally noticed and proposed by the executive.

And so I'll take it one step further, which is that Amendment 10, which rezones the block at Leary Way and Dock Street in Ballard, the amendment removing the Fiorito property from the BNMIC, the amendment that removes a few parcels from the BNMIC along Commodore Way, the additional and then the expansion in Georgetown, those items were not explicit within the EIS, FEIS, or SEPA determinations.

And so the public needs, under GMA, the public needs the ability to send in formal comment that will be attached to the EIS and final EIS through an addendum process.

Because these changes do not rise to the level of needing a supplemental EIS and do rise to the level of requiring an addendum.

So these public comments will be attached to that final document.

Did I get that right?

Yeah, there, there are two processes, one under the State Environmental Policy Act, SEPA, and the other under the Growth Management Act.

They both require an additional opportunity for public comment, one based on an additional environmental review that will be published in a couple weeks, and the other because they weren't, the changes weren't part of the public hearing notice that the Council published.

Thank you.

Colleagues, questions, comments, concerns before we move into final passage?

Not seeing any.

We are on the doorstep.

I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill, and so we're gonna go through here.

You see on the screen which bill is associated with which changes.

I understand Council Member Peterson will be abstaining from 568. We're starting with 567. So I move the committee recommends passage of- It was already moved and seconded.

Let's just do it again for the record because we took a step back.

So I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120567 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120567 as amended.

Any further discussion?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that Council Bill 120567 pass as amended.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

The Council Bill 120567 as amended passes and will be sent to full council.

We are taking the final vote now on item three, Council Bill 120568, the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

So I move the bill, 120568, is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to pass Council Bill 120568 as amended.

Will the clerk please call, or is there any final discussion?

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120568 as amended passes and will be sent to full council.

We're gonna take a final vote on item four, Council Bill 120569, which is the zoning map changes.

I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120569 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120569 as amended.

Are there any further comments on the bill?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that Council Bill 120569 as amended pass.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120569 569 as amended passes and will be sent to full council.

Moving on to item five, Council Bill 120570, which is the relocating of industrial commercial code.

I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120570 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120570 as amended.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing as there's no further discussion, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120571 as amended passes and will be sent to the full council.

Final item here, item six, Council Bill 120571, which is the noise ordinance amendments.

I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120571 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120571 as amended.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120571 as amended passes and will be sent to the full Council.

Jeff, Jim, I don't know how many hours you have dedicated to this work.

Congratulations.

It's not quite over yet, but we're on the doorstep.

With that, we are going to just have a quick, because we have an afternoon session, I would love to avoid it.

I'd love to just power through lunch, if that works for colleagues.

We'll talk about that in just a second.

We have two items left.

They are informational only at this time.

Up next is the transportation resolution.

which is attempting to do our best to address the items that were in the stakeholder process regarding the transportation items that were not able to be addressed through code because these are land use bills and not transportation bills.

So will the clerk please read the short title into the record?

Okay.

Will the clerk please read the short title into the record.

Informational item, one moment please, sorry.

2278.

Informational item 2278, Industrial and Maritime Transportation Resolution for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

Lish, I believe that you've been working on this and the brief overview that I will provide is that we are still going to have this in committee at a later date and that we are still accepting recommendations and edits to this resolution.

Do you want to just give us a quick brief overview of the resolution at this time?

Yeah, it's basically a resolution that states the city council's support for improvements to and maintenance of freight corridors and the importance that the freight and industrial transportation system provides to the city, the region, the entire state, really, in terms of movement of goods and service.

Yeah.

Wonderful.

Well, thank you, Lish.

Colleagues, I am going to bring this resolution back to committee twice before July 18th.

to have a more in-depth review once, because it is not yet introduced.

I wanted to have it at this committee as an informational item simply because we will be passing this resolution with the rest of the package, and I didn't want there to be any confusion as we, even though the chambers have emptied of all of our wonderful stakeholders, I wanted everyone to be eyes wide open about this.

Colleagues, do you have any questions on this item at this time?

Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you chair Strauss.

I'm having trouble getting it on the from the agenda.

Is it on the online agenda?

There may have been some difficulties.

We'll make sure you have a copy.

I can tell you just real candidly it's being introduced next week.

We are still accepting edits and focus points.

We just wanted to make sure it was on today's agenda so that folks are eyes wide open that this is part of the package.

Okay, I'll look forward to getting a copy of it.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Any other further comment, questions, concerns?

Seeing none, let's move on to our final item on the agenda.

Before we do so, I see that we are five minutes away from our scheduled break.

I would love to check in with committee members if we are able to just power through this final item.

I don't believe it will take very long, 15 minutes maximum, which would put us 10 minutes over the scheduled time.

This will take us five minutes, as Lish is telling me.

So I'm gonna suggest we just power through If you could raise your hand if you have objections.

Seeing no objections, our final item on today's agenda is a briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120570. That can't be right.

I thought we just passed that bill.

It's Council Bill 120587.

Council Bill 120587, which will amend SEPA thresholds for projects downtown.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Council Bill 120587, Downtown SEPA Thresholds for Briefing and Discussion.

Thank you.

We have Lish Whitson with Council Central staff here to present on these proposed SEPA changes.

Thank you, Lish, for your hard work on this legislation while also working on industrial maritime zoning changes.

We solicited feedback from multiple levels of government and stakeholders throughout the process of creating this legislation, such as WSDOT, tribal governments, the Port of Seattle, and regional agencies.

We held a 60-day public comment period, which is still open, to allow for members of the public to provide input, Due to this level of outreach, we received a request from WSDOT and tribes to bring additional amendments to create a formal way to notify government to government try, you know, in a government-to-government relationship with tribes and WSDOT of projects that are important to their either government or agency.

We will have that part of the discussion at the meeting next week where we will discuss the potential amendments.

We, as I said, received feedback from Suquamish Tribe regarding the need for notification and consultation in order to protect Potential unrecorded archaeological materials and other cultural resources said another way.

The tribes have a much better understanding of where there were culturally significant Either activities places or locations of of living.

They have a better understanding than we do as the City of Seattle, and it's important that they are notified of projects that may impact sites that are important to them.

I believe there are opportunities to build internal systems and understanding that fosters more authentic and sustained engagement.

in government-to-government relationships with tribal nations, and that the need to deepen engagement on cultural resource management is broader than just this piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, Tribal Relations Director Tim Raynon is unable to make this meeting.

We will continue to have discussions.

This legislation is necessary.

Because downtown Seattle and to exceeded the anticipated levels of growth that were estimated under Seattle's most recent comprehensive plan.

This legislation is also in alignment with the mayor's downtown activation plan to create more jobs and housing downtown downtown is not.

Downtown Seattle is not just a commercial heartbeat of our city.

It's the heart of our entire region.

The closest city that is similar in size is the Twin Cities or Chicago, Salt Lake City or Denver, Sacramento or San Francisco.

We are the most isolated city, well, granted, Vancouver, British Columbia is of similar size, but it is across an international border.

Seattle is the, most isolated city of our size in the nation.

It is incredibly important that our downtown become as vibrant and more vibrant than it's ever been before.

We have some more work to do, absolutely, and I think that by making these changes to SEPA, we will encourage the development and the building that is necessary to revive our downtown, We have incredibly important hardscape changes that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, with the waterfront being nearly complete, with the connection between the waterfront and Pike Place Market being nearly complete, with the aquarium, with the new convention center, with so many changes that have occurred to our city.

There's still more work to do.

There's still more soft work to do.

And I think that this will only encourage more engagement downtown because there will be less bureaucratic red tape.

Downtown's bigger than any of us.

It's bigger than any one committee.

It's bigger than any one entity, private or public.

And it takes all of us to work together to make it the shining gem we know it to be.

With that, I will pass it over to Lish to walk us through this bill.

Given the importance of downtown Seattle, this bill is actually fairly mundane.

Just as a reminder, under the State Environmental Policy Act, We are required to conduct environmental review of projects likely to have an adverse impact on the environment.

Projects below set thresholds that are unlikely to have a significant impact are categorically exempt from review under CEPA.

State law, the revised code of Washington and the Washington administrative code provide maximum exemption levels that the city can apply.

The highest threshold is tied to anticipate growth under the comprehensive plan.

Changes to the Washington administrative code that were adopted last December allow for increases to the exemption level in areas that have exceeded our comprehensive plan growth estimates.

So as mentioned in downtown Seattle, residential development has exceeded its growth estimate of 12,000 units in Seattle's 2035 comprehensive plan in the eight years since the plan was adopted in 2015. Currently SIPA is required for any project with more than 20 residential units.

Any project with 40 or more parking spaces is also required to be reviewed under SIPA.

And the bill will increase that lower threshold for times when the comprehensive plan estimates have been exceeded from 20 units to 200 units.

Again, any project with 40 or more parking spaces would still be required to undergo SEPA.

review.

And then for non-residential space, it would increase that threshold from 12,000 square feet of non-residential space to 30,000 square feet of non-residential space.

And that's it.

Wonderful.

I don't have any questions because I've been very close to this bill with the 60 day public notice hearing meeting with over a phone call with Squamish tribe meeting with wash dot colleagues, do you have any questions on this bill.

I'm seeing none, and so this will be back before our committee next week, June 14th, 2023, where we will have the 60-day noticed public hearing.

I will ask to suspend the rules to have the public hearing and vote the bill out of committee the same day because it will be the second time that we've heard the bill and because we cannot delay at all on providing downtown the opportunities it needs to be revitalized and cut the red tape that is needed to cut.

Seeing no further questions on that, I will move on to item E of our agenda, which is adjournment, unless there's anything for the good of the order.

Seeing none, this concludes the Thursday, June 8th, 2023 Special Land Use Committee meeting.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is the regularly scheduled meeting on June 14th, 2023 at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.