Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 2/24/2025

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for coming.

I love seeing a full chamber on a diversity of issues, so thank you for being here.

It's Monday, February 24th, and the special Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee meeting will come to order.

It is 9.36.

I am Sarah Nelson, Chair of the Committee.

Council Member Solomon is excused today.

And then I want to note that this is also a noticed public hearing for this legislation.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Here.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Solomon.

Chair Nelson.

Thank you.

I want to note that we are also, we are joined by Port Commissioner President Hasegawa and Commissioner Calkins as well.

Okay, moving on, this morning we'll have a public hearing on Council Bill 1203, residential uses in the stadium transition area overlay district, and then following the conclusion of the public hearing, we'll have a panel discussion on the same matter with representatives from the port, the Freight Mobility Commission, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

There are some time issues that we're still working out.

and that was at the request of Councilmember Kettle.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we'll open the public comment period for the public hearing and accept public comment on items within the purview of, well, of the governance, accountability, and economic development, but primarily only on this legislation.

let's see the council bill the the public hearing agenda item council bill 120933 relates to to the same items on the public hearing topic so if you wish to speak to the items on today's agenda Please sign up for the public, make sure you've signed up for the public hearing sign up sheet is basically what I'm trying to get you, get out of my mouth here.

I just want to restate that that is really important so that you are on the record for the public hearing.

If your comments relate to the housing in the stadium district, we need you to please hold that for just a few minutes for us to start the public hearing.

So your comments can be part of that record.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up to speak today?

As of now, we have one virtual public commenter in regards to general public comment.

Okay.

All right, we will have the one general public comment speaker, and then we will move on to public comment, the rest of our agenda.

Go ahead.

And he can have one minute, please.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll call on the speaker in the order they sign up to speak, starting with virtual commenters, as we only have one.

Speakers will have one minute.

When you hear the chime, you will have 10 seconds left.

If you exceed that time, your microphone may be cut off so that we can move on to the next speaker.

If you're offering remote comment, please make sure to press star six to unmute yourself.

And the first speaker for the virtual public commenter will be David Haynes.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Council President, I'm not seeing David Haynes as present.

Okay.

Then we will move on to the rest of our agenda.

So if that's the case, then that concludes the public comment for the purviews of the agenda item.

Thank you.

Okay.

So then, Will you please read the item that is, now I will officially open the public hearing portion of our meeting.

Would you please read that item into the record?

Agenda item number one, council bill 120933, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending sections 23.74.002 and 23.74.008 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow residential uses in the stadium transition area overlay district for public hearing.

Thank you.

So I have no doubt that the people in this room know exactly what we're talking about and what this legislation does.

However, for the benefit of the public and for the people that might watch reports of this later on, I'll just explain that this legislation would amend the provisions of the Land Use Code, and this is primarily from the Central Staff Memo, which is also linked to the agenda.

This legislation would amend the provisions of the land use code to allow residential uses as a conditional use in the stadium transition area overlay district, S-T-A-O-D, what I call shorthand stadium district, and as was stipulated in the mayor's preferred alternative of the final environmental impact statement produced in 2023 for the industrial land strategy and zoning legislation.

In 2023, the area within this STAOD was primarily rezoned to the urban industrial UI zone, but unlike other UI zones, most residential uses were prohibited within the STAOD.

The proposed bill, what we're talking about today, would amend the SGAOD provisions to allow residential uses under most of the conditions that apply under other UIA districts in Seattle, one of which requires that a minimum of 50% of the dwelling units are made available at affordable rent or affordable house sale price, specifically by affordable 60 to 90% area median income for a period of 75 years.

The condition prohibiting residential uses within 200 feet of a designated major truck street would be removed to allow that workforce housing for a two-block stretch between Edgar Martinez Way abutting T-Mobile Stadium and South Holgate Street, and between First Avenue South and Occidental Avenue South.

And I just put this forward because not only do we desperately need workforce housing, more workforce housing, but primarily to increase more affordable light industrial spaces for small makers' businesses and the jobs that they create.

And this is supported by the Pioneer Square and neighborhood and public stadium authorities and...

uh, the CID in part for the increased public safety that 24 seven activation would bring.

So those are the three policy goals that I'm trying to get at.

And, um, and I will now, uh, as presiding officer open the public hearing on council bill one two zero nine three three.

Go ahead.

Clerk, please tell me how many speakers are signed up today.

Of course.

At this point, council president, we have, 10 virtual remote speakers and we have 50 in-person speakers.

All right, we will go ahead with, everybody gets one minute and we'll start with the, let's go ahead and I would like to call on folks that have come here first.

Let's do 20 in-person, then switch to the remote, please.

Go ahead.

And then we'll go back and forth, but I just wanted to make sure that I privileged the people that took off from their jobs and came here to be able to give comment today.

Before that, I will read the instructions.

So speakers will be called in the order registered.

The public hearing registration will remain open into the conclusion of this public hearing.

The rules applied to the public comment period also apply to this public hearing.

Each speaker will be provided one minute and a 10 second warning to wrap up comments.

Speakers mics may be muted at the end of the allowed public comment time.

Only public comment related to council bill 120933 is being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

The first, as council president mentioned, we'll do the first 10. So please, if you have cards one through 10, please come on down.

My apologies.

First, we'll start with Poor Commissioner Ryan Calkins.

Oh, yeah.

My apologies.

I must...

I also forgot our tradition of permitting elected officials to provide comment first.

So, excuse me.

Well, shoot.

I thought I was going to have a few minutes to prepare my...

I think I'm ready.

I can't hear.

You ready?

Wait.

There we go.

The mic...

I don't know.

I can't hear.

Maybe you can speak into the mic.

Let's see if it's turned on.

Is that better?

How about now?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Getting close.

Thank you.

Thank you.

From our days as the last supply stop for Klondike prospectors to becoming a hub for timber exports and eventually the birthplace of aerospace, Seattle has always thrived on trade.

And it's no accident either.

Seattle's deepwater port attracted railroads interested in export opportunities and became our region's gateway for goods like grain and seafood to ship to markets around the world.

But a port is more than just the docks.

It's an ecosystem of heavy haul roads, railways, and housing.

The area south of downtown, known as Soto, is the gritty backbone of that support network.

And we need to maintain it.

We had a deal, and we look forward to continued negotiations.

But this amendment creates a roadblock to that future progress.

We all agree we need more housing, and we think that we can negotiate an opportunity for more housing near the stadiums that doesn't put those maritime jobs at risk.

Thank you so much for your time.

I'm going to do the jazz hands rule.

Please refrain from clapping because it does slow down our speakers.

Go ahead, next.

Thank you, Port Commissioner.

Next, we will resume for cards 1 through 10. Please file down and you're on deck.

Thank you.

My name is Tia Petrovich.

I've lived in Pioneer Square for over three decades.

I and a thousand other residents live on the north edge of the building and it's our backyard.

We're a bookend or a mirror image of what a maker's district could be just to the south by the ballpark.

We're only a block and a half away.

As residents, we've never had any impact on the port.

We're half a block from the streetcar, a block from the waterfront, two blocks from light rail and sounder, three blocks from the ferry system, four blocks from where I shop.

It's a really great neighborhood.

Like most of Pioneer Square, my home, the port, the stadium, the ballpark, the Highway 99 underground tunnel are built on and through landfill.

We know how to safely build on and through landfill.

We need to put housing where appropriate and possible.

And this project is possible, and it's the right thing to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we get number 235678910 down to the public comment?

Number two here.

Thank you.

I'm Joe Wall, and I work as a longshoreman in Seattle.

I have a few thoughts on the proposed changes.

I'm opposed to anything that erodes our industrial base, including this proposal.

It's in zoned industrial land.

We're not making any more land.

I had a takeaway from last meeting I hadn't heard about makers.

It's interesting to hear about it.

And I noticed that the stadium districts were involved in this, and I went looking on the internet for makers and stadiums.

I couldn't find anything, but I did find quite a bit about luxury housing and around stadiums in Washington Post, CNN, Mortgage Note.

Stadiums are the new anchor for redevelopment.

Billionaires are snapping up real estate, developing movie theaters and retail parks.

So, I suspect that this is an incremental plan, and we're just seeing the front end of it.

And I don't know that makers have a place in their future, the future development here in reality.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And just a reminder, there will be a 10-second warning to wrap up public comments.

Next, we have number three.

Hello.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Hello.

Oh, hi.

Hi.

Hello, my name is Diane Squires.

I own Street Treats.

We're a full-service dessert company, and we also own an ice cream truck.

I'm here today as a member of Seattle Made to ask the Council to support Council Bill 120933 for Stadium Makers District.

I have been in business for 14 years and have had numerous times where I've had to find a convenient location affordable in Seattle.

Last year, I personally paid close to $4,000 a month for a kitchen space, and I own most of the equipment, both small and large.

These high costs are stifling growth and innovation for small businesses.

We need more affordable kitchen options in a centrally located place in the city to support local entrepreneurs and foster a vibrant food community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we please get 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 down to the public hearing?

Four, decided not to do public comments.

We'll go to five.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm John Marchione.

I'm the executive director of the Public Stadium Authority with Lumen Field.

The Stadium Authority is fully supportive of Council Bill 12933. Adopting allowances for housing and small businesses creates a new neighborhood that will create jobs, housing, transportation, and entertainment for the whole city.

An active community provides safe spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy.

In a broader sense, the Stadium District will provide a transition zone from downtown to industrial land and is complementary to its neighbors, the CID, Pioneer Square, and Soto communities.

This debate has been going on for 14 years and we haven't seen much change in the property.

Create a legacy, approve the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll have public commenters number six.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you so much for your service to our community.

I am grateful for your commitment to Seattle and small businesses like mine.

My name is Jennifer Porter, and I operate Satsuma Designs, where we manufacture school uniforms and offer contract sewing services in Wallingford.

I'm here today as a member of Seattle Made to ask the council to support Council Bill 120933. I started my business in 2007 with the goal of manufacturing my children's wear in Seattle.

I'm proud to share that I've been able to do so over these many years.

My success and longevity owe much to the maker community in our city.

The network of small manufacturing businesses that combine creativity, hard work, and job creation has been essential to every step of my growth.

While we face many challenges, I am hopeful about our maker community's future in Seattle.

Guaranteeing our collective business health with a dedicated Makers District in Soto is a wise investment in local business and our economy.

Thank you for your attention today.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Billy Hetherington with Labor's Local 242 and the Seattle Building Trays.

I rise before you today in support of Council Bill 120933. And besides the obvious amount of jobs that it would create and apprenticeship opportunities to living wages that a project of this magnitude would create, and also we have a strong coalition, as you heard some of them here today, community support, small business makers, trade unions, housing leaders among the public facility stadium district.

And a couple things that would be ensured within this project that has been talked about a little bit is the amount of affordable housing.

500 units of affordable housing that this would provide is one-sixth of we just went to the Seattle voters last November and asked them to approve over a billion dollars for affordable housing.

That is privately funded would produce one-sixth of what that levy would do, among other things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Nicole Grant.

I use she and her pronouns.

I'm a journey level electrician and a member of IBEW Local 46. And we're here in support of Makers Housing.

Proud to stand with the Coalition of Affordable Housing Advocates of makers, small business people, and artists, of communities like Pioneer Square and Chinatown International District.

But we have our own reasons as electricians for supporting this legislation.

The truth is, we have over 1,000 members of our union who have been out of work for over a year.

And for us, union-built affordable housing is one of the primary ways we see people getting back to work.

Imagine what that's like for a family, to not have a wage in their family.

I know you can picture what it's like.

Please, put us back to work.

We got public commenter number nine, and then following that, number 10.

Good morning.

And good morning, council members.

My name is Monty Anderson with Seattle Building Trades.

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

I want to share my strong support of the Makers District, and I want to emphasize what it is and what it isn't.

This project will create jobs, it's gonna have apprenticeship, it's gonna help makers have an affordable space and create generational wealth.

Here's what the facts say it will not.

They say it will not impact freight, the EIS is clear.

I also represent 200 port workers who do maintenance on the port.

So this idea that we're just creating work in a vacuum for the building trades is not true.

I would not stand here representing those workers if I thought that would harm them with their ability to provide for their families.

So I stand here, like I said, as with a part of a broad coalition to help get them across the line.

And thank you very much for your time.

I also want to say that I support the Painters Union, and if you don't have a bug on your sign, you're holding a non-union sign.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council members, my name is Scott Courtright.

I'm a hay and forage exporter from Moses Lake, Washington.

I'm also a member of the Washington State Hay Growers Association.

I represent the Agriculture Transportation Coalition as well.

So we respectfully stand in opposition of this movement.

We represent over 50,000 agriculture employees that work in the hay and forage business.

For those of you that don't know, hay and forage is the largest containerized export off the West Coast.

More than 50% of the cargo between Seattle and Tacoma goes from the port of Seattle.

A change like this would absolutely destroy jobs and opportunity for us.

We were so excited when Terminal 5, the terminal was, the modernization effort was completed.

It was several hundred million dollars put into that terminal.

We responded and made heavy investments in the agriculture sector on the east side of the state.

A change like this would derail a huge portion, and make no mistake, We compete on a global scale.

If this effort does go forward, we'll lose business to many other countries.

So respectfully, we stand in opposition.

Thank you.

Hello, city council members and everybody else that's here.

My name is Deborah Vandermar, and I'm a long-term veteran of the soft products industry here in Seattle.

After retiring from my role in production and technical management, I taught vocational classes focused on manufacturing in this sector.

I developed a relationship to a number of companies in the stadium district.

who have over the years offered to hire graduates from the programs that I taught.

The graduates generally declined jobs because they could not afford to live in the city or pay for transportation or parking.

So companies like Outdoor Research, which is in the area we're talking about, moved out so that they could attract workers in Kent and in Tukwila and in other lower cost areas.

So I am obviously promoting this because I would like to see people stay in the city to work.

And also one last plug is the makers movement is one of the foundations of the e-commerce movement and Seattle is very much a part of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We'll have public commenters 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Come on down.

Good morning.

My name is Erin Adams, and I'm the executive director of Seattle Good Business Network, the nonprofit home to Seattle Made.

And it's nearly 700 members, and I'm here in support of the Stadium Makers District.

Seattle Made was developed in response to the acute need to bring together and support our city's urban manufacturers and producers who struggle with access to affordable production space and other resources in this very high-cost city that has not intentionally invested enough in this sector.

The stadium makers district is an important step towards making that investment, which will not only support makers, but will contribute to the urban manufacturing multiplier effect, where each dollar spent generates significantly more economic return by creating additional jobs, stimulating demand for local service, and leading to further investment.

I'd also like to state that we would not be supporting this if we believed it would cost more jobs than it creates.

And having been part of the original process to review industrial lands under Mayor Durkin and agreeing to table this issue until an EIS had been done to determine negative impacts on traffic, among other things, we now know we can have both preserved jobs and industrial lands as well as creative makers district.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll have number 13. My apologies.

Hi, my name is Najee Su Chang.

I'm a family run business.

We supply gluten-free bakery goods to hotels throughout downtown Seattle.

Currently my kitchen is in Everett and the commute has been drastic to even do any field research in Seattle.

So a lot of businesses have been struggling since COVID and it's up to us.

I understand the initiative says to revitalize, but we need to be mindful as well that it takes a lot in accountability and we're holding everyone accountable to make sure that our businesses do succeed in the near future.

So I wanted everyone to be thankful for the programs we do have, such as Seattle Made and Seattle Restore that look out for wholesale businesses as well as retail businesses.

So coming together as a collective and understanding what we truly feel and our thoughts will definitely keep our businesses looking out for one another.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Number 14.

Hello, my name is Brendan.

I'm Brendan Bloom.

I have the privilege of working as a security professional here in Seattle.

I stand before you today along with my union, SEIU 6, in strong support of the Makers District to provide vital job opportunities and enhance public safety.

Currently, the area near the stadium is underutilized.

Many of the businesses there are run down, and conditions have led to an increased security concern.

Dark alleys, vacant buildings, and lack of foot traffic that invites crime rather than commerce.

The increased business activity from the proposal means more jobs, not only for these entrepreneurs, but for security professionals, maintenance workers, hospitality staff, and many others.

Seattle has always been a city of innovation, craftsmanship, and opportunity.

The Makers District is a chance to turn an overlooked area into a hub of creativity and commerce, one that is safe, welcoming, and economically beneficial.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Sam Hems, Sheet Metal Workers, Local 66, and president of Seattle Building Trades Council.

I'm really thankful to be here this morning.

I wanted to talk about some of the affordability pieces and the housing.

Seattle is in need of more housing, right?

And in particular, affordable housing.

The housing level levy that passed in 2023 was $970 million, right?

That's providing 3,100 new homes, both rental and home ownership, over a seven-year period.

That's approximately 443 units per year at $313,000 per home.

The Stadium Makers District proposal will provide 500 homes at no public cost.

These are in addition to the public plans.

Affordable housing is required as part of the urban industrial zone.

50% of all housing plans for the district will be affordable for households between 60 and 90%, 75 years.

Let's get to work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Trina Chapa.

I'm from Local 46, and I represent our limited energy electricians.

I'm here to tell you that we can't afford to live where we work.

And it's been quite a struggle for all of our union members.

And it hits home quite frequently.

So in order for us to stay competitive and to continue to recruit and train with these amazing apprenticeship programs, then we need to offer them a place where they're going to be able to live and support their families.

So as we move forward, I hope that we can work together to get this pushed through, because not only will it help the makers, but it'll help our community, and it'll help our union members, and that's what we're looking for.

Thank you for your time.

Hi, I'm Jamie Fleming with Teamsters 174. We are actually speaking against this.

I'll let my brothers and sisters at the long shore talk mostly about how this is not creating jobs, but shifting jobs from one union to another.

But I think more so as a human being, I am against the idea of basically jamming poor people in a landfill.

I mean, this piece of land could not be more polluted.

It's hard to imagine.

It's a liquefaction zone.

The environmental study was jammed through at record speed.

And it is just, there is no way that this housing is going to actually be affordable.

I think everyone in this room is in favor of affordable housing.

I think that is a beautiful piece of wrapping paper that they've wrapped around a poor idea that has not been thought through.

There is a major freight corridor through this area.

You're talking about now where you're going to put poor kids in a place where they're going to get hit by a truck.

Our members don't want to hit anybody with trucks, obviously.

And I think anyone in this area generally just, We don't want to see poor people in a landfill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, people, I'm trying to apply the rule of no clapping in between either side, so please be respectful.

Go ahead.

That concludes the first round of 20, so now we will move into the virtual public comment.

As a reminder, each speaker will have one minute and a 10-second warning to wrap up.

Comments, speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted public comment time.

Only public comment relating to Council Bill 120933 is being accepted at this public.

There is...

Apologies.

My apologies.

I got too excited.

Going back to number 17. My apologies.

20. Anyway, go on.

Hi, my name is Christine Dennett, and I'm the owner of Command Knitwear.

I make clothing and accessories here in Seattle using exclusively American wool.

I'm here today as a member of Seattle Made to ask the council to support the one nine three three for a stadium makers district.

I currently manufacture my products in Ballard in my home studio because manufacturing space in the city is too expensive.

This is not a long term sustainable solution.

We need more affordable and accessible maker spaces to help make small businesses like mine to be able to stay here and thrive.

Thank you.

My name is Brandon Brent, manager at SSA Marine.

SSA Marine is a leading independent marine terminal operator.

with activities at 250 locations throughout the world.

We are proud to be headquartered here in Seattle, and we have a long-term commitment to the Port of Seattle, where we have been operating for decades.

Today, we and our partners manage operations at Terminals 5, 18, and Pier 91. We want to express our concerns regarding Council Bill 120933. The working waterfront is the economic backbone of the City of Seattle, Our maritime industry is foundational to our state status as a global industry leader.

We must not sacrifice freight mobility and the precious industrial land near our deep water seaport.

These industrial are unique and irreplaceable.

Thank you.

Go ahead now.

And my apologies for the remaining public commenters for that first round.

Now we will go to the virtual public commenters.

As I mentioned earlier, speakers will be called in the order register.

The public hearing registration will remain open.

The rules apply to the public comment period also apply to this public hearing.

Each remote speaker will have one minute and a 10 second warning to wrap up comments.

Speakers mics will be muted at the end of the public comment time.

Only public comments relating to council bill 120933 is being accepted at this public hearing.

And then the first public, the first remote commenter we have will be Joshua Curtis.

Please unmute yourself, Joshua.

Good morning.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Jocelyn Curtis.

I'm the executive director of the Washington State Ballpark Public Facilities District.

This morning, I would like to address the concerns regarding liquefaction raised by opponents of housing in the state industry.

This is an issue that was addressed in the city's EIS and in fact has been addressed in the building code for many years.

Our own ballpark, which covers 20 acres in the liquefaction zone and can host almost 50,000 bands, address this issue through seismic reinforcement over 25 years ago home plate center the office complex right across the street completed in 2012 did the same any new buildings in the area whether those allowed currently or new residential would be constructed with up-to-date seismic standards that were designed to mitigate dangers of liquefaction indeed the older derelict buildings in the area are not built to these standards and poses safety issues As the EIS knows, in fact, new structures built to size and standards lessen the danger of a liquid vacuum event in our era as they further statelize the soil.

Issue is a red herring and begs the fourth question, will the city...

Just a reminder, folks, if you hear the 10-second chime, time to wrap it up.

Next, we have Chris Marr.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Good morning, Chris.

We can't hear you.

Try again.

Yes, can you hear me?

Hello?

No, we can't hear you very well.

We'll go on to the next speaker and then come back to you.

If you could get to a different mic or something.

The next virtual remote commenter will be David Haynes.

David, please unmute yourself.

Location inhalation, what causes cancer?

Shut down the port during game time.

Council wants to change the law to allow for industrial truck route to impose on housing, to appease Seattle sellouts who don't want people moving into their residential zone areas, while doing the bidding of a billionaire donor and trading political favors, selling out for re-election support from unqualified nonprofit warehouse echo slum developers who can't and don't build 21st century first world quality housing.

While council audaciously claims that they're going to make it safe in the neighborhood for the Mariners and the Seahawks by sacrificing sacrificing innocent people like sacrificial lands who are going to be tasked with bearing the brunt of living amidst evil criminals, all while we have a toxic industrial zone that is unsuitable for caregivers to provide care because people are going to suffer from the lack of fresh air.

And I don't understand why we only have one minute for this.

This is more important than one minute.

I know your council has better things to do than the actual business, but this is revolting.

Thank you, David.

Uh, next, next.

Try the person that came before Chris, Chris, Chris Marr.

We're going to, Chris Marr.

We're going to try it again.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Can you hear me?

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Council members.

I'm Chris Mark, chair of the baseball public facilities district that oversees T-Mobile park, a half a billion dollar public assets that brings many benefits to Seattle.

Last year, the PFD shared our disappointment that the maritime and industrial package omitted a limited number of housing units.

Despite the director's report conclusion, it would not negatively impact the Port of Seattle and our industrial neighbors.

With adoption of this revision proposed by Council President Nelson, Seattle has an opportunity to correct this omission and embrace a vision for a more vibrant stadium district with much needed jobs and affordable housing.

Please join 170,000 union workers and hundreds of small manufacturers and affordable housing developers in supporting this effort.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we'll have Peter Schrapen.

Good morning.

My name is Peter Schrapen, and I serve as the Vice President of the American Waterways Operators, which is the advocate, resource, and united voice of the tugboat, towboat, and barge industry.

Our industry, which supports thousands of family wage jobs in Seattle and Washington State, serves as a vital part of Washington's supply chain, opposes Council Bill 120933. You've already heard from a number of my colleagues today.

We stand with the We Had a Deal Coalition.

Once industry lands are replaced with homes, they are gone forever.

Our coalition ended our most recent letter to you with a simple message, and I'll conclude with this.

This is not just about protecting what we have.

It's about building a future where our maritime industry thrives, our workers succeed, and our state continues to lead in global trade.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next we'll have Jamie Lee.

Star six, Jamie.

Hello.

Hello, I'm Jamie Lee with the Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation Development Authority.

We are in support of Council Bill 120933. Allowing residential uses will be greatly beneficial for our Pioneer Square and Soto partners.

Seattle needs more housing, and including this in the Stadium District will bring almost 500 new affordable homes to the area.

The zoning will also bring social and economic benefits to the district, supporting preservation while also bringing small businesses and jobs.

This will not only support and enhance the livability of surrounding neighborhoods, but also improve the south downtown as a whole.

Please pass the amendment under the full council for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Jeannie Dorsett.

Please press star six.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Jeannie Dorsett.

I am the vice president of operations for Hudson Pacific Properties.

We own and manage 2.5 million square feet of commercial office space in downtown Seattle, 1 million of which is in Pioneer Square.

I am in strong support of Council Bill 120933 to allow housing, half of which must be affordable housing in the stadium district.

This will not only help to address our city housing crisis, but will also serve as an economic engine to create a stadium makers district.

Small manufacturing businesses are predominantly owned by women and BIPOC community members, and they add both a means for creating generational wealth to those in need of it, and a richness and vibrancy to our city's culture.

I would greatly appreciate a yes vote by you on Council Bill 120933. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Patience Malaba.

Good morning.

I'm Patience Malaba and I am the Executive Director of the Housing Development Consortium.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of the Makers District proposal.

The Stadium Makers District is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shape the future of our region for generations to come.

This is a proposal that is forward-thinking and it is inclusive in terms of development, balancing the needs of industry, small businesses, and housing.

It transforms underutilized warehouses.

If you haven't toured the location you must, it turns the warehouses and vacant lots into a vibrant mixed-use area where people can live, work, and visit year-round.

We are in an urgent need for more housing in our city, especially affordable housing, and we ask you to hold on to the innovation that we've always held onto as a city.

This is a common sense proposal and please support it to move forward.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to Andrea Sato.

Please hit star six, unmute yourself.

Good morning.

My name is Andrea Sato.

I'm a member of the board of directors of the baseball stadium PFD and past president of the housing development consortium.

I want to express my strong support for Council Bill 120933. The PFC Board has been working very hard for many years to enhance the area around the ballpark as a vibrant and desirable neighborhood, a neighborhood that can coexist with our existing maritime and industrial uses.

Housing is the engine of revitalization, economic diversity, and vibrancy.

In Seattle, we have an affordable housing crisis, and the Makers District represents a unique opportunity to build truly mixed use, affordable workforce housing without using our precious public dollars.

This is an opportunity that cannot be missed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then the last remote commenter will be Jared England.

Go ahead, Jared, star six, tell me yourself.

Good morning.

My name is Jared England, and I'm calling from the agriculture area in Lake Chelan, representing approximately 100 small local farmers in the capacity as president of Mansa Growers Cooperative, and we oppose Bill 120933. In Washington State, we produce some of the world's best apples.

Our tree fruit growers export the majority of our crops to Asian markets.

Efficient and affordable transportation routes are critical for the movement of this fruit to these markets.

In talking to the truck drivers who haul our fruit to the ports, they often comment that the long distance and mountain passes take less time than the shorter distances once closer to the ports due to already high congestion.

Protecting industrial lands for industrial use is critical to our ongoing efforts for efficient flow of our state's products to international markets.

We respectfully oppose this bill.

Thank you.

All right.

So now we'll go back to the remaining in-person public commenters.

We'll start with number 21 and we'll go down to 30. So feel free to make your way on down.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Steve Gray.

I'm a Seattle-based entrepreneur, and I'm strongly in support of 120933. My company is The Peep Show.

And council members, before you get too excited, I make video birdhouses so you can watch baby birds from your smartphone.

And one year ago this very week, I made it to Shark Tank with my birdhouses.

And over 35,000 businesses applied to be on that show that year.

Mine was one of them.

It took 18 months and six auditions to bring my company to the national stage.

But do you know what the most difficult part of the process was?

It wasn't facing down Mr. Wonderful.

It was starting manufacturing here in Seattle.

So I'm here to say that a vote supporting a Maker's District is a plan to keep small-scale manufacturing like mine here in Seattle.

A vote against the Maker's District is a vote against innocent baby birds everywhere.

Thank you.

Hello.

Good morning.

My name is Joe Burnison.

I'm just curious if anyone else in this room owns a brewery.

No?

Only you.

And breweries are a named light industry in this new maker's district.

You're not a developer.

You're a custodian of a public port.

Please don't jeopardize this to enrich yourself.

To your colleagues, to your council members, please vote this down.

Thank you.

Good evening, or sorry, good morning council members.

I'm Nick Sten and I'm a proud District 1 resident.

And I'm here representing the ILWU and it's 1,000 members and casual workforce that depend on the poor to support their families.

I'm also here representing farmers in eastern Washington and steel mill workers in West Seattle who depend on Seattle's protected deep water ports to ship their goods.

We love and respect our brothers and sisters in the building trades.

and the ILW supports union-built affordable housing.

But the stadium district is the wrong place.

Traffic is bad in this area.

This will make it impassable for freight.

It's already impassable for freight.

when these games are going on.

The idea that adding more housing and people to an already busy area is going to somehow make this area safer is ridiculous.

Local city government has already approved two locations for affordable housing in Seattle, including Georgetown.

How come we're not talking about building there?

I'll tell you why, because billionaire Chris Hansen doesn't own those areas.

This whole thing isn't about affordable housing.

It's about a wealthy billionaire and those supporting him.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sarah Esch and I'm a Seattle Longshoreman.

I am against this proposal.

Tens of thousands of jobs across our state rely upon efficient operations at our maritime port of Seattle, including all of our agricultural partners.

The port also supports over 7,000 direct jobs on our waterfront.

Not only are these family wage jobs, but jobs that have provided generational pay equity for women and people of color.

As we look forward to securing a new customer at Terminal 46, we need to show that we are serious about industry.

Housing in this area is directly contrary to that point.

This area is rated lowest on the access to opportunity index according to the city's own equity analysis.

There are no schools, green spaces, houses of worship, or other amenities found in a neighborhood.

Measured noise levels within these areas exceed city and state regulations.

And since these lands are built on fill, material that was filled in over 100 years ago in order to support the marine industry, it is a liquefaction zone which would place residents in harm's way in the event of a natural disaster.

Finally, we had a deal, a deal signed just over a year ago that prioritized freight mobility and the conservation of these marine industrial lands.

Thank you, thank you.

Hello, I'm John Hitzfelder, a District 7 voter.

I've lived in Belltown longer than I've been a longshore worker, which I've been since 2011. If you want makerspace vacant buildings downtown, have plenty of that.

You can get some jobs rehabbing that.

Revitalize downtown away from trucks and trains.

Seattle Longshore workers have been working our waterfront since before 1900. We have their union banners in our hall from back when we were riggers, as well as Longshore and Stevedores.

Decade after decade, we've worked those jobs, and we want to work those jobs another century.

But if a terminal is gone, those jobs will never come back.

Thank you.

Number 26?

Good morning.

My name is Jeff Bellard.

I'm the Chief Operations Officer with the Northwest Seaport Alliance.

Cargo activities at Northwest Seaport Alliance support hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout our state.

There's a direct relationship between the amount of cargo we process through the Gateway and the number of people that we employ by this activity.

We feel a great responsibility to preserve and grow cargo volumes in Seattle.

The port business is competitive, and reopening these conversations about housing makes securing new business more difficult.

We need certainty on the waterfront.

Putting housing along the freight corridors right around the corner from the marine terminals jeopardizes this cargo movement and the jobs that they generate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Number 27 pulled their name from the public hearing, so we'll go to number 28, please.

Hello.

Hello.

My name is Nathan Dollison.

I'm with ILWU.

Hello.

I am with ILWU and Local 19. We are talking about a solution about housing.

Okay, we have housing downtown.

What is it going to cost?

Look at everybody.

You know, people can't afford housing right now.

The problem with the housing is we need to lower the cost so people can get into housing.

If you've ever been poor or out there or something like that, you can't get into housing.

What about jobs?

Deport allows us to have jobs, take care of our families, medical, and this and that.

We're looking at this situation and blowing it up.

Let's fix our problem downtown first before we want to add on to more stuff.

and look at our freaks, in and out, imports and exports.

We don't have it coming in, we don't have it going out.

How are we gonna get our goods?

And the bottom line of it is, I support our union.

Let's keep our working going.

Stop the chaos with all this housing stuff.

It'll cause crime.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll have number 29. And to wrap up the first 10 will be number 30 afterwards.

And as the people that will be speaking next, please, we can kind of line up.

Hi, my name is Kalina Bruce and I'm the owner of Noir Luxe Candle Bar.

We use candles and interactive experiences to bring people together through scent and storytelling.

I'm here today as a proud member of Seattle Made to ask the council to support Council Bill 120933, First Stadium Makers District.

Our business started in my kitchen and grew into a brick and mortar space.

We recently received funding through Seattle Restore to expand, but unfortunately finding affordable Locations in Seattle has been a major challenge, even as demand grows for our business.

Seattle is known for being a hub for innovation and creativity, but small makers like myself are struggling to find and keep affordable space.

High commercial rents, ongoing displacement, and a lack of dedicated maker spaces create barriers to growth, especially for underrepresented entrepreneurs like myself who are already facing systemic challenges in accessing capital.

Many of us want to expand.

If we want these businesses to stay in our city, we need real investment in spaces that support our work.

Thank you.

Good morning, council.

My name is Amber Wise.

I'm here on behalf of UFCW 3000 representing over 50,000 workers and their families in a wide variety of industries all across Washington State and beyond.

The cost and availability of housing in Seattle is a crisis, and our members are at their absolute breaking point.

This development could be part of critically needed solutions that we have to address this issue.

Development of the Makers District, including workforce housing in the stadium area, would be a huge economic opportunity for our city.

The fact that it would be developed with private funds and include project labor agreements is just even more compelling.

We believe that we can support Seattle's traditional and important maritime and industrial job bases while also creating this vibrant Makers District.

It's an exciting opportunity to add living wage jobs and provide other opportunities for those who are typically furthest from them.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next we'll go from number 31 to 40. 31 will be Dennis Martinez.

Good morning, your honorable council members.

I stand here today to support the Makers District project.

My name is Dennis Martinez.

I'm a proud 46-year retired union member of Local 32 Plumbers and Steamfitters.

I'm also an elected council member for the city of Tukwila, as well as an eight-year member of our planning commission.

I say this to help you understand why I support this development.

This project would increase housing stock that is desperately needed in our work area.

Workforce housing is an all-time low, with people spending upwards of 45 to 60 minutes commuting to their jobs in Seattle.

This creates a hardship for working families and added stress to long-time commute.

As we just attended the All Washington Cities Legislative Conference last week, we heard that all cities must start pushing more workforce housing and affordable housing.

Legislative bill, House Bill 1491, Transit-Oriented Development Bill will increase the density and reduced regulations for the transit area housing.

Please support this bill.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Lisa Howard and I'm the Executive Director of the River Pioneer Square.

I am here today to express strong support for Council Bill 120933 and the creation of the Stadium Makers District south of Timo Mobile Park.

Pioneer Square and the surrounding areas have long been home to innovation, industry, and craftsmanship.

The initiative represents a forward-thinking approach to economic development, one that builds with our city's industrial legacy while creating new opportunities for small-scale manufacturers, artisans, and local businesses.

Importantly, this proposal is both well studied and carefully balanced to compliment existing industrial uses rather than detract from or damage them.

By activating this underutilized space, we can generate jobs, support entrepreneurship, and provide a meaningful extension of our historic district's creative economy.

And yes, we can provide just a few units of housing along the way.

Thank you.

I urge you to pass Council Bill 1209-3 and help shape the future where Seattle's creative and industrial spirit thrives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Number 33.

And subsequent people, if you could be ready to speak right afterwards.

My name is Joe Duggar.

My mother graduated from Chief South High School in 1964. Seattle is home.

I'm a 28 member of IBW Local 46, who represents over 6,200 members.

Many of those, hundreds in fact, work maintenance to Port of Seattle, down here on the waterfront and up at the airport.

I am here in strong support of Council Bill 120933 because it's a win for workers like me who power Seattle.

This bill ensures fair wages, safe jobs, and protections for skilled tradespeople.

For decades, I've seen our union fight for dignity and respect, and this legislation aligns with that legacy.

It backs our union's fight.

It supports apprenticeship for the next generation, like my five-year-old and three-year-old who I'm currently raising.

Seattle thrives because of working initiatives like this.

Please pass this bill to keep our jobs secure and our community strong.

Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Ron Manuel, Local 19. I speak in strong opposition to Council Bill 120933. The arguments I've heard for changing this zoning are nonsensical.

Placing housing in an area that is prone to crime as a way to stop crime makes no sense.

The absolute lack of transparency as stacking the deck at the last meeting of this committee showed complete disregard to the citizens of this city in the multi-year process and negotiations that led to the current zoning.

If the Seattle City Council wants to clean up the blight and crime in the area, all they have to do is direct the city police and prosecutors to make crime illegal again, direct the police to arrest the lawbreakers, direct the prosecutor and attorney's office to do their job and prosecute crime.

The council's president's words were just how fun it is to walk down there without any interest or caring for the jobs destroyed.

Closing those streets, that's the goal.

Getting rid of our freight mobility is the goal.

If the Seattle City Council wants housing to be affordable, we need to lower costs to build housing, remove the impediments to building housing, remove excessive building permit fees, lower Seattle's extreme property taxes, work with state legislatures to remove unreasonable burdens placed on building housing.

Thank you, sir.

Honorable members of the City Council, I'm Andrea Ornelas.

I'm a LIUNA Laborator 242 member.

And I wanna thank you, Sarah Nelson, for the opportunity to speak today in support of the proposed Maker's District.

It has the potential to transform an underutilized area into a vibrant, productive, and community-focused hub.

The district will provide much-needed housing for those in need, but also creating jobs and economic opportunities for local artisans and entrepreneurs.

The Makers District will also bring consistent daily activity to the area.

Increased foot traffic and community engagement are proven methods of reducing crime, enhancing public safety, and fostering a sense of belonging.

When an area is thriving with business workshops and public spaces, it naturally discourages illicit activities and strengthens community.

By supporting this initiative, the city council has the opportunity to promote housing shortages, sustainable economic development and invest in safer cities.

I urge you to listen to the voices of many and approve the makers district.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Number 36. And if we can get the remaining 36, 37, all the way down to 40 in the line, that'd be great to keep going.

Good morning council members and fellow community members.

My name's Chelsea Reisler.

I'm a fourth generation longshoreman.

Proud member of district one and I'm here against developing our functioning industrial lands.

I'd like to start with the fact that this city was built on our ports and our waterways.

It wouldn't be the city that it is today.

Our jobs have provided for intergenerational wealth and allowed my family to go to college.

You know, I was the first member of my family to go to college.

Brought my grandfather, my immigrant grandfather, out of working in the coal mines out of Pennsylvania.

The ILWU support our brothers and sisters in the trades, and I'm an artist myself.

I would love to see a maker's market in Seattle.

Let's put it somewhere where it won't interfere with our global economy transportation routes that need to get to I-90.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Number 37. Good morning.

My name is Charlie Bendock.

I'm a lifelong resident of the city of Seattle.

I've been working at the docks as a longshoreman now for almost 20 years.

And let's talk plainly about what this is really about, because this is a problem not just here in Seattle, but around the country and the world.

A billionaire hedge fund manager bought a bunch of property that had certain zoning attached to it, and he thinks he gets to change the rules to his own benefit.

He thinks he can use his influence with government and other leaders to change the rules for him.

And let's talk about the jobs too that we're talking about here.

Smith Tower is right out there a few blocks away, built in 1914. I don't think there's many construction trade jobs there anymore right now, maybe a few maintenance guys.

The Port of Seattle, officially established in 1911. We're still employing thousands of people and we're serving the entire union.

This is selfish.

to say, we don't want housing in our neighborhoods.

We're going to put it down here and impede the rest of the state and the region.

Thank you, sir.

Hey, this is the last time I'm going to ask what appears to be one side that keeps clapping after their side is talking.

Let's be fair.

Let's just respect the rules that I've established so that we can go through all of the members.

Good morning, John.

Good morning, my name is John Burian, ILWU Local 19, Labor Relations.

I rise in opposition to Council Bill 120933. As you can see by the signs out here, we had a deal.

Apparently today we're here, that's not the case.

It was not long ago we accomplished the passage of the Maritime and Industrial Lands Policy of 2023, yet here we are again fighting for the livelihood of working class jobs and a viable working waterfront.

You've been brainwashed by the smell of a rich billionaire landowner's money and his greedy investment group.

If you vote this up, I and many others will question your word, your character, and your integrity.

As long as the ILWU and all the signatories that rise in opposition of this bill here today continue to be a part of this city and port, we will not stand down.

This will and always be a working waterfront.

My name is Whalen Robert.

I'm a merchant seaman, a renter in District 3, and the political director of the Sailors Union of the Pacific.

The Sailors Union of the Pacific has been on the Seattle waterfront since 1885. Our industry has been the most consistent source of revenue for our city for over 100 years.

Our port is over four hours closer to the world than Tacoma is.

We can always have this industry if we protect it.

Every day we have about 9,000 trucks that are going through this corridor.

If we build housing, this is gonna compromise our access to the docks.

I ask that you oppose this bill and that my members have a future in this city with continued access to our waterfront.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Number 40.

Hi, my name is Angie Watkins.

I'm brand new to my career as a longshore worker.

And I'm new to this career because I decided that I needed what would eventually be a family wage job, not a living wage job, which is the bare minimum.

As I go through this process, I work part-time at Belltown.

I've worked there for three years.

Reference to Belltown was made in the last meeting as an example of a densely populated urban area where there's not a lot of crime, hypothetically.

Working in Belltown, I can tell you that more density in population hasn't, from my perspective, every day working down there doesn't seem to make a positive effect in the amount of crime and disparity in that neighborhood.

I believe that densely populating people into another area as an idea to clean it up and make it safer for the people that work there is simply not true, per my lived experience.

Thank you everybody for coming out and listening and don't throw away long-term family wage jobs for short-term living wage jobs.

Thank you.

Council President, there are two additional remote commenters.

May we go back to them?

The two remaining.

How many have we gone through now since the past 10, 20?

These were two late sign-ons.

Yes, but the last batch of in-person, have we gone through the 20?

No, there's 10 remaining.

There's two remote commenters and then there's 10 remaining in-person commenters, Councilor President.

We will continue with the 10 remaining and then the remote commenters can speak at the end.

Confirmed.

Alrighty, if group number 41 to 50 can come on down and form a line, we'll start with number 41 with, my apologies, with Mr. Can I pronounce last name?

So let's go 41.

Tyrone Harvey, a longshoreman, 27 years.

I'm originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

I am opposed to this.

Bottom line, I don't want Seattle to look like Pittsburgh in 1975. When we lost steel and lost other different manufacturing, What ended up happening was parts of Pittsburgh became a ghost town.

I'm 14 days younger than Mark Cuban, and he's a billionaire.

He's not in Pittsburgh trying to change things and destroy things.

And once again, I oppose this.

I hope Seattle can maintain some sort of semblance because I saw it as a young child in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, what would come here.

Thank you.

Number 42.

Hi, my name is Aaron McKay and I've worked down at the port for 20 years.

My dad worked at the port until his death.

Does this building, building these buildings offer that?

Thousands of jobs are dependent on the port.

In order for the port to be successful, you need to have freight mobility to and from the freeway.

This corridor is crucial for the port to be successful.

If you dump 1,000 or more cars on the street, driving at all hours of the day, it will seriously jeopardize the port and our jobs.

These are family wage jobs.

that lasts a career.

You can make a lot of money if you're an out-of-state billionaire and you wanna buy cheap, polluted industrial land and wave your magic wand and turn it into expensive 100 plus unit apartments.

When these jobs are gone, they're gone forever.

The Maker's District is making us not have any jobs, so that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, all right.

Council President, council members, thank you.

My name is Lars Turner.

I'm the international secretary treasurer of the Masters Mates and Pilots Union.

I live in Seattle 6th District.

Our maritime industrial lands are bedrock economic foundations for our city, for Seattle.

Our industrial lands support long-term generational wealth.

We must protect this area.

Once it's developed with residential, hotels, makers district, we will lose it.

This land is important to the trade in and out and through our state.

I urge you to oppose 120933, support our maritime industrial lands.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Carlin Smith.

I was born and raised and still live in this city.

I'm here taking another day off to come speak to you to try to convince you to stop threatening my work and livelihood.

and that the comprehensive compromise struck just two years ago was the right one.

This action by the council president should serve as a stark warning to anyone currently working with the council on any compromise or so-called comprehensive plans that they say are roadmaps for the next 20 years because as revealed in the last committee meeting, someone is in the hallway telling parties just wait a year or two and come back for a little more piece of the pie.

Just give a little now and they'll be back for some more in a year or two.

I want my brothers and sisters in labor and construction unions to have lots of work, but it would be extremely short-sighted to compromise our generational jobs that have been done here on these shores since before Seattle was a city.

for two or three year construction jobs.

These family wage waterfront jobs can and will go away.

They'll move to Prince Rupert, they'll move to Tacoma, they'll move to LA where industrial gateways are preserved and improved, not squandered and given away so some hedge fund billionaire can make some extra money on industrial lands they wanted to put a stadium on.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council and Chairwoman Nelson.

Thank you for the opportunity.

My name is Peter Hart.

I'm the secretary-treasurer for the Inland Boatman's Union.

I come out of the maritime industry, and I'm here to help represent the maritime branch of the work on our waterfront.

We represent not just jobs, although many of our jobs are entry-level, but more importantly, these jobs .

These are careers that help sustain our community.

We speak strongly in opposition to the bill in the interest of protecting these community sustaining careers.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Allie Vekic, a proud Longshoreman and Local 19. I live in District 1. I've worked at the Port of Seattle for over 20 years.

It is unconscionable that after the lessons we learned during the supply chain crisis of the pandemic, that we would even consider encroaching our maritime industrial lands.

We need more, not less, maritime industrial lands in this city and everywhere.

Over 854,000 family wage jobs depend on the Port of Seattle to move cargo and keep cargo moving.

840...

854,000 people are going to know who to blame when Seattle decides it doesn't want to be a port city anymore.

Thank you.

My name is Jordan Royer.

I'm with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, and we represent marine terminal operators and shipping lines that serve the West Coast.

We work on this particular issue in every port that we operate in.

They tried to put a baseball stadium on Howard Terminal in Oakland.

We fought that successfully.

And so the port of Oakland is still operational.

I was on the original stakeholder group that came up with the deal in 2023. We thought we had a deal.

We thought we didn't have to come back and keep doing this.

I know it's very uncomfortable for everybody, but I will say if you send a signal that you can buy cheap industrial land and get it rezoned so you can sell it at a much higher price, this is gonna keep happening.

And that's my big concern.

That's why the deal in 2023 was so important because everybody said, hey, We have a deal.

We don't have to keep arguing about this anymore.

We're respecting what we need to function as a port city.

And so I would just urge you to continue on with that and so we don't have to keep coming back over and over again.

Thank you very much for your service.

Thank you.

My name is Hazel Pemberton.

I'm a member of ILWU Local 19. I'm a second generation Longshore worker.

My little sister is right behind me.

She's just starting her career at Longshore.

I grew up in the Central District and currently live on Beacon Hill.

I'm opposed to this bill.

This would curtail our economic development and it is What I keep thinking about is I'm not sure who's gonna live here because I'm down there every day and I go to sleep at home still hearing the sound of the trucks backing up, still having the smell of exhaust in my clothes.

I don't know a single longshore worker that would want to live so close to the port, even though many of our members live very far away.

Also, I would like to make the point that this area is already zoned for business, so that wouldn't be a new change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Irene Pemberton.

That was my sister.

Wait.

I am a lifelong Seattle resident.

I grew up in the central district and I just wanted to address at the last meeting, Lizanne Lyons told us in reference to the housing covenants that residents would be required to sign acknowledging that they're living in industrial area, she said.

I would also just say on covenants that the Wave and the NOLO are examples of residential developments there on the north lot of Lumen Field and they did sign covenants and they do complain about stadium and port activities.

But at the Wave and the NOLO, they did sign covenants and they've been very effective in terms of no lawsuits.

So she told us that there have been complaints by the residents and that the covenant is effective in protecting the property owners from lawsuits.

So to me, it looks like this legislation is not interested in protecting residents from the noise and air pollution that they will be constantly exposed to.

When Seattle asked for affordable housing, this is not what we asked for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Hi, my name is Scott Surdyke, and I do not work for a billionaire.

I am an affordable housing consultant, most recently working with ArtSpace, which has expressed interest in building 100 units of affordable housing for artists and industrial makerspaces below.

And when artists are gone, they don't come back either.

So I'm standing here in support of this bill.

But I also want to remind you of something about, I keep on hearing about freight mobility.

New market rate units usually do a 0.5 parking ratio.

Affordable housing is usually the demand is for no parking.

And especially considering that this is right near the link light rail, we think that this would be envisioned as a transit-oriented development transit-oriented community, and 1,000 housing units, half of which would be affordable, there'd be a 0.5 parking ratio for the rest.

So we're talking 250 parking spaces.

On any given game day, there's 20,000 to 30,000 cars making their way.

So this is a drop in the bucket and will have minimal, if any, impact on freight mobility.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have number 51, last remote or last in-person public commenter.

Please make it right up to the front, please.

Good morning.

My name is Lizanne Lyons.

I'm a consultant for the two public entities that own and operate the stadiums.

I think one thing that has not really been noted here is that this land has been zoned commercial and for office for over two decades.

Housing actually has lower trip generation rates than office or commercial.

So there is an alternative.

If this is not a maker's district, these old warehouses and vacant lots will get developed at some point.

And it will most likely be bland, mid-sized office buildings or an entertainment district, which will actually have a greater impact on freight mobility.

And I think we also have to remember there was an EIS, and there was a very granular study done of this that determined it would not impact freight mobility and would not harm our industrial and maritime base.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council President, may I go back to the two remaining remote public commenters?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, we're switching gears back to remote public comment.

So give me a quick second here.

All right, Chad, Chad C, please press star six to unmute yourself.

My name is Chad C. Board President of the Washington American Federation and Executive Director of the Free Development Coalition, part of the North Pacific Fishing Police.

I wish to express my strong opposition to the amendment to Council Bill 120933. I served on our city's stakeholder committee on the zoning of our industrial land.

I am proud of the work of that committee.

We had a deal.

We should not be revisiting this agreement to address what amounts to a single stakeholder interest.

We support affordable housing, but we need it where to work.

Change in land use in the city and district impacts the movement of goods across our state to our largest support gateway, including from our seafood industry that supports thousands of working families in Washington.

Today, seafood and agricultural stakeholders alike are facing multiple challenges to our livelihood.

We should not be creating new roadblocks to the work of our fishermen and farmers.

I urge you not to move this action forward.

Thanks.

Thank you, Chad.

Next, we'll have Paula.

Hi, my name is Paula McVeigh.

I'm a Longshore with Local 52. I rise in opposition of this thing.

Sorry, I forgot the number.

I want to talk about something.

The safety of families going in this area is one of the biggest concerns If you walk down in the Soto area or where this is planned to be built, it is not safe.

And trying to put kids and families in the middle of where trucks are rolling through, we need to protect the industrial area and keep it industrial.

This is not a safe place for families to be living.

I understand the need for affordable housing, but this is not it.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chuck, may I continue the in-person public commenters?

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Number 52. Number 52 for the public comment.

Come on down.

Is the chief's hat?

No.

Sir, yeah.

You are wearing a chief's hat, so I just wanted to make sure.

Dan Quinlan, Seattle Longshoremen.

The Soto area is pretty much zoned and set up for industrial businesses.

You can't move these businesses to Wallingford, let's say.

You know, these provide essential stuff.

Everything you have probably came from a warehouse in the Soto area.

Everything in a five-state area.

And warehouses are an appropriate place, consisting of your peers and the rail yards and all that.

And you just displace it, but the business can't go anywhere else.

And we're out, you know, jobs and everything.

It's kind of counterproductive.

Council President, that concludes both remote and in-person public comments for the public hearing regarding Council Bill 120933.

All right, thank you all for taking time away from your jobs to come here and give public speaking points on this important legislation.

That was our last speaker to present at this public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120933 is now closed.

All right, moving on, we'll now have a panel discussion requested by Council Member Kettle.

I will, if anybody needs to use the restroom now would be a good time to do that while people are coming to the table.

Thank you very much, everybody.

What?

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you for your patience.

I'm a little nervous here and there.

You're doing great.

Thank you.

We're gonna take a five minute recess here while people are clearing the rooms so that the speakers can come to the table.

So 11.05.

Please continue your conversations as you're leaving the chambers.

Don't they have to say five minute recess?

Could you just put a five minute recess up there?

Just say we're in brief recess.

Thank you.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll after the recess again?

Yeah, give me a second, Council President.

As we are resuming the meeting.

She'll come.

I just wanna get- Alrighty, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Solomon.

Chair Nelson.

Present.

Three present, one excused.

Well, one will be here.

Oh, one excuse.

Yes, that's Council Member Salomon.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record.

Agenda item number two, Port of Seattle, Seattle Fright Advisory Board and ILWU Washington Area District Council panel discussion for briefing and discussion.

Okay, this has been included in today's agenda, the request of Council Member Kettle, so I will let him briefly explain why.

Well, first I'll introduce the presenters.

Are you all, is anybody else going to come to the table?

Please, presenters, come to the table.

Please, someone else, come to the table.

I thought there were going to be three presenters.

Only three.

I've invited our Deputy CEO, Don Esterbrook, from the Northwest Seaport Alliance, in case anybody has questions about logistics from the trade and commerce side, and Executive Director Eric Fitch of the Washington Public Ports Association, in case anybody has questions about statewide implications for supply chain, ag producers, suppliers, et cetera.

OK, that is elite.

We were trying to keep an equal number of advocates and opponents at the tables in our panels so if there are specific questions that can only be answered by the additional guests I will have to accept that because I don't want to make a scene but we are trying to keep things sort of we are trying to maintain parity okay go ahead Councilmember Kettle

Thank you, Council President.

I appreciate this opportunity.

It's important.

I think it's important for the port, but not just the port, but to have the freight logistics piece also spoken to as well.

One of the things that's important is understanding all the dynamics, and there's a lot of dynamics that relate to the shipping industry, that relate to port operations.

And I think these pieces are a little bit underserved, and I think it's important to have this panel speak to it, particularly having the Commission President from the Port of Seattle along with IOW and the Freight Advisory Board, which can speak really well to the topics at hand.

And I admit the Commission President has some backup, but as Council President, you realize sometimes it's good to have some backup when topics come up.

So that is the main reason.

So I really appreciate everyone coming out today.

And now it's been a long time.

We've had a lot of public comments, so I don't want to delay any longer.

So I will turn it over to you and for the panel.

Thank you.

Okay.

Traditionally, when a council member has legislation that they're advancing, they get their proponents at the table, etc.

That is why that was not included in the beginning of the discussions about this.

But...

Council member Kettle and I are close allies and we are also, he's also the vice chair of this committee and so we're making an, I'm making an exception for that general tradition.

Go ahead, please introduce yourselves and begin your presentations.

I'll just go ahead and go first and lead into mine, and then I'll pass it over to my co-presenters.

Well, good morning, Council President Nelson and members of the committee.

My name is Toshiko Hasegawa.

I'm president of the Port of Seattle Commission and co-chair of the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the state's premier marine cargo operation overseeing international and domestic trade terminals.

I thank you for the opportunity to share with you directly our concerns with this proposed legislation, as well as the importance of maritime and industrial lands and our work and vision to build a port for the future.

Our position today is simple.

Do not proceed with this bill and please enable the certainty that we all agreed to in 2023. It's important that we all be honest about what this legislation does.

It puts housing on the front step of industry, eliminating a 200-foot buffer between residence, primary, heavy hall, corridor.

It's a special carve-out for a specific property benefiting one billionaire developer from California and would undermine our goals for a healthy economy, environment, and quality of life for all residents.

To start, the proposal compromises safety.

Putting pedestrians in direct conflict with freight and trains is reckless urban planning.

The FPIS' companion transportation resolution, championed by Councilmember Strauss while he led the Land Use Committee on this important work, leaned on the city's own race and social justice toolkit, and it clarified that heavy trucks should not move through residential spaces.

I'm a D2 resident who knows the very tragic, real impacts of traffic fatalities from pedestrians in conflict with key transportation routes.

The legislation's dangerously short-sighted and undercuts the city's Vision Zero goals.

Next, this legislation is a housing justice issue.

People deserve housing and access to the neighborhood amenities that SOTO lacks, like libraries, schools, grocery stores, and green spaces.

And people who live in industrial areas experience significant quality of life impacts.

like noise pollution from loud trucks, the sound of heavy machinery and train whistles, glare from lights, and importantly, exposure to air and water pollution.

This aspect in particular is something the port has invested millions to address.

It's called environmental justice.

Take it from the port commissioner who spent countless hours hearing from residents living in the Duwamish Valley and South King County about their hardship and our responsibility to remediate.

People living near industry and transportation hubs suffer disparate health impacts like a higher incidence of cancer, asthma, low birth weight, and infant mortality.

Residential in areas where people live next to industrial operations experience a lower average life expectancy by 13 years.

This proposal is not housing championship.

People deserve better, and marking this for affordable housing is akin to redlining.

Regarding business, our working waterfront and industrial lands are a fraction of Seattle's space, but deliver an outsized 30% of revenue.

When we're meeting with customers attracting business to our gateway, we hear often about the certainty that is needed to operate in Seattle.

In fact, our Northwest Seaport Alliance CEO, John Wolf, is in Asia right now talking with potential customers.

We are a discretionary port, which means that we have to compete with other ports in order to get business.

And these are bottom line companies that are making decisions based on operational efficiencies.

They need reliability, and they need consistency.

And we're operating in a very difficult environment, with President Trump only intensifying relations with our greatest trade partner, China.

Putting housing across the street from our deep water terminal and on our primary freight route is a serious logistical problem.

You will drive business to Canada or to California, and without volume, longshoremen don't work.

Despite the Trump administration's attack on sustainability, I am here to tell you today that the global clean energy economy is thriving.

We're doing what Seattle does best, leading on our progressive values, supporting the blue maritime economy through decarbonization, and pushing for a supply chain transition that promotes the green economy globally.

and the work is well underway.

It looks like shore power at our cargo and cruise terminals, adoption of clean fuels, and green corridors by sea for cruise and cargo ships.

It looks like investing into Maritime's future workforce through Maritime High School, the Youth Maritime Collaborative, and Maritime Blue, an innovation incubator program we support in partnership with the state of Washington.

It looks like Coast Guard expanding its base right here in Seattle, thanks to our congressional champions, and its record of decision is coming in spring.

And we have the vision of activating Terminal 46 as a two-birth omni-terminal that can support state-of-the-art carbon-neutral vessels that supply the region with goods.

This work is a big deal with tremendous economic and environmental potential, but this bill puts all of that at risk.

If you pass this legislation, you compromise our ability to compete for cargo market share and lead on our vision for sustainability, transforming industries, and fighting climate change.

And you impact longshore and other maritime jobs.

In 2023, it was an honor to join Mayor Harrell as he signed legislation that would protect industrial lands for what we thought was a decade.

And we appreciate the quarterly meetings we've held with him in thought partnership for the future of our region.

Ports were created and industrial lands protected to promote public benefit from public resources and to ensure that the people benefit from these assets in perpetuity.

So I ask you, why this property?

And why now?

We agree that housing availability is a crisis.

Public safety is a priority.

We believe in creating union jobs for our labor workforce.

I was raised in a labor household, and my parents taught me that we need to stand up with and for each other.

In the age of drill, baby, drill, trade wars, and union busting, I've been saying to our community members with a full chest that local government is our first line of defense, and we should be standing in solidarity.

We should be working together to create opportunities for our communities to thrive with each other, not at each other's expense.

And we certainly should not be cow-toeing to the interest of an out-of-state billionaire.

I have deep respect for the livelihood of every person in this room.

Indeed, we need to build the industrial infrastructure and port of the future.

This legislation disrupts the careful thought and holistic framework that our constituents deserve, and it's been divisive.

Are we truly so far apart?

We need true leadership from the council to lead us to the one Seattle future worthy of this transformation and to be responsive to the overall needs of this moment.

Thank you.

If I could, before going on to the next speaker, my understanding is that you had a time commitment or a time, potential time conflict.

I don't see a clock before me.

Well, you covered a lot of, what did you say?

I couldn't hear your answer because I was talking.

Anyway, go on.

We don't have a clock before us, so we can't time ourselves.

Okay.

Well, if it's okay with you all, because I believe you have to leave a little bit earlier or that you are on a crunch, as I was told before the meeting.

If it's okay, we will.

Can I ask you a couple questions now before moving on to the next person since you're here?

Yes.

One question I have that's been on my mind since the very beginning is, why did the port not challenge the EIS that showed little to no adverse impacts if mitigated, et cetera?

So that's what I want clarity on so that I can better hear the freight mobility person on your panel.

Certainly and I'll say the FIES is problematic now as it was then knowing what we know now if we had known it then we would have challenged it at the time but the truth of the matter is as we had already moved forward in conference with the mayor and other stakeholders which came to the compromise package which included a provision for hotels which we believe would give us the certainty that we need most of all for at least the next 10 years but I will say that Problematic as it was, Councilmember Strauss, as I mentioned in my remarks, championed a companion transportation resolution, which included analysis of freight and the race and social justice initiative toolkit was applied.

And it did find that housing should not be put in residential places.

I appreciate that.

And there's a, you know, anybody who's ever tried to wait for the DNS or an EIS to be done knows that the analysis that goes into that is tight.

is quite timely, so I don't know how to compare that to a resolution, but thank you for answering that question.

And then, so basically didn't challenge because you know now things, information has come to light since then that didn't compel the port to challenge the EIS at the time, correct?

Is that what you're saying?

We had moved forward into conference with our stakeholders and the mayor, which led to the compromise legislation that we were all there for the signing for.

Okay, well, it's my understanding that at some point in the compromise development, the port agreed to or was at the table when numbers like 3,000 units of housing were proposed during the whole process.

That was reduced to, I don't know, 1,500 or something and then it was in the preferred alternative and then didn't end up in the legislation.

May I?

Yes.

So I was staffing the Port of Seattle Commission at the time.

The Port of Seattle Commission sent a 22-page comment letter on the EIS and all the concerns that we had with the EIS.

At the time, that letter clearly stated that we did not support an alternative that included housing in this area.

That was the alternative that obviously came forward as a compromise featuring many stakeholders, a compromise in which I would say nobody got exactly what they wanted.

At the time, in our comment letter, we did acknowledge that certain areas, did allow for housing development, just not the areas that we're talking about today.

So that, I think, explains a little bit about why there was not a challenge at the time, in spite of there being quite a bit of concern with the final document.

Well, I understand that the urban industrial zoning requirement of 50% affordable housing at 60 to 90% AMI applied to all the parts, all the neighborhoods where the UI zone was.

until the last minute when it was removed from the stadium overlay district by the prohibition of no trucks within, or no housing, residential uses within 200 feet of the truck heavy truck routes so it just seems you brought it up but it is you're right that the UI did allow for housing in most places and then and then when before it right before the legislation came forward the exception was made for the stadium district okay any other

Okay, go ahead.

Council President, I thought we were going to wait until the end.

You told me at the beginning of this meeting that there was a potential conflict with our commissioner's participation in this panel, and the request was to put the panel before the public hearing.

I didn't want to do that.

I want to make sure that they were...

Please don't interrupt.

If you have a question for the port contingent of the participants, go ahead, please.

May I?

I just want to say for the record that I can stick around if you guys need me to stick around.

I think that would be good.

Go ahead and then we'll just continue with everybody else and we will not interrupt.

Thank you, Council President.

I appreciate, Commissioner Hasegawa, what you talked about in terms of your union family background.

I too am a daughter of someone who was in a union and we seem to have very many union members that came to testify today.

some in support, some in not.

So it seems to be there is broad feelings around this from our labor partners.

So I wanted to state that as you were discussing that, because I want to make sure that we're being true to what we heard.

And so we have heard from many different labor partners, both in support and not in support.

My question is related to the area.

I'm trying to get more information.

I was not part of the negotiations when this all happened.

So I'm wondering, the area's already zoned for commercial and office, which already would have an impact on traffic.

So I'm not sure I understand the difference between then allowing for limited workforce housing in the area, given that it's already, there are big buildings there that are commercial and an office space.

So what's the difference between housing versus office space within the area?

It's not what's the difference.

I understand the difference between housing and office space, but commercial also brings a lot of people and traffic.

So I don't understand.

I'm sorry.

It's an entertainment area.

Go ahead.

Yes.

I mean, that's part of the, well, I consider that commercial too.

But so there's more activity in that area now, which means more traffic.

So I don't know why allowing for limited workforce housing is really going to have much of an extra impact than already is there with this commercial use.

That includes hotels, entertainment, and then office space and the sports complex.

So it is already zoned for hotels, and that would bring additional foot traffic, some of the activation that I think some of the stakeholders were willing to see, which is why that was a point of compromise two years ago when we got to what we thought was an agreement.

The difference about housing is that these are permanent residents, that over the course of time, they will be exposed to the impacts of industrial operation.

They're gonna be there all the time.

They're not just coming in for a hotel for a night and then they're gonna leave.

You're going to hear from these constituents who are living in and next to an industrial operation.

An industrial operation that, if we're doing it right, will only grow.

So in addition to the freight mobility impacts with people who are living there day in, day out, that's where they're coming to and from.

Pedestrians in conflict with freight traffic, I thought it was very compelling to hear from a Teamster trucker to say, I don't wanna hit anybody with my truck.

We're talking about what the long-term safety impacts are by putting pedestrians in conflict with freight.

So we do have an RSJI initiative toolkit assessment that the city of the city's own making that identified that as a rule, freight should not be put in residential areas.

And yet we have residents in Pioneer Square, which is right there too.

And I am not surprised that they're advocating for more amenities.

But it still doesn't answer my question about traffic.

I'm just trying to say that that Other uses are currently being allowed that is bringing more traffic to the area.

Council member, we do have a freight mobility expert at the table.

And so I recommend that you either let my co-panelists say their piece as well, or let him also answer the question.

I'm happy to take any other questions you may have at this time.

Let's go ahead.

We can go ahead and I can read.

Let's go ahead and I'll follow up with my questions about the equity analysis and the conditions that are already set on the housing that will be built anywhere in the UI.

But go ahead and continue with your presentations, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Council members, I'm Dan McKissa.

I'm a member of ILW Local 19 and President of the Washington Area District Council.

I had my first shift on the waterfront in 1986. I also, since I was a casual, I had to take another job.

I worked at the rail yard, the Burlington Northern SIG yard.

So I've been in Soto my entire career in Seattle.

I've seen all the changes, and most of these aren't good for industry.

And I just want to talk about STIOD, or the stadium, or what's being referred to as the stadium district.

The real name of that area is the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District.

That was put into effect specifically to make a buffer between the city and the stadiums and industry.

Since 86, I've watched the leak of industrial lands, and it's been a problem.

I mean, we have a lot more people down there, and it makes it a lot more dangerous, and it's harder to move freight.

I'm going to talk about jobs for a minute.

The Washington Maritime Federation study from 2022. Statewide, we have 23,500 direct jobs associated with maritime logistics and shipping.

Statewide, we have 2,500 registered longshore workers, which means for every registered longshore worker, there are nine associated jobs.

On average, those workers earn 112 annually.

Longshore jobs depend on ships calling the port of Seattle.

No ships, no jobs.

It's that simple.

Longshore work, when available, is ordered by the employers 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

When it is busy and you're willing to work overtime, you can earn more than $112,000, and that's without a college degree.

We conduct two dispatches a day, one in the morning, one at night.

When all terminals are operating, we can work 22 ship gangs on days, 20 ship gangs on nights.

When at capacity, we can move 10,500 containers to and from ships in a 24-hour period.

Those containers move in and out of the port through freight corridors, either by rail or truck.

Our ag exporters depend heavily on safe and efficient movement through those corridors.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on freight infrastructure to improve safety and efficiency.

We also have been promised mitigation and projects that never happened.

For example, pedestrian improvements were promised when they rebuilt the stadiums and built the baseball stadium.

Never happened.

There's been no improvements to pedestrian access in that area.

And then you have SR 519. That's on Atlantic Street.

That was original project was supposed to be four lanes to I-5 and I-90.

And then the other half of the project was four lanes off of I-90 to Royal Brougham.

Somehow the city allowed that not to happen by letting other structures be built in during that time.

So we have 50% of that project done, 50%.

And you guys know what it's like on game day.

We don't move freight through there.

It's just too dangerous.

Our Local 19 through the ILBA, that's our building association, have owned property at our dispatch hall in Soto since 1980. We have dealt with many of the same problems that are being put forward as reasons for housing in the stadium transition district.

Homelessness, safety, and parking.

As property owners, we've worked with the city to address those problems and to make our environment safer.

We've not seen that effort in the STAAD.

And if simply adding housing to a neighborhood would solve homelessness and crime, we would not have any of those same issues in already well-established neighborhoods.

Maybe we should be focusing on those neighborhoods.

Soto Industrial Lands have for decades consistently had a 90 percent occupancy rate in good times and bad.

Even during the 2007-2008 financial crisis, our local actually grew by 30 percent, and COVID, The occupancy rate did not drop below 90%.

Downtown Seattle is still experiencing up to 30% vacancy rates in many buildings.

SOTA consistently produces jobs.

12% of the property in the city, 30% of the tax revenue.

We had a slide deck, but we don't have time for it, so I'd just like to point out, and you guys got a copy of it, This page, I think it's page two, it's a final environmental impact statement, Soto Sub Area.

It talks about why housing's not good down there.

This is specifically in the EIS, why housing isn't good down there, it's unsafe for people.

Look, the property's flanked on three sides by major truck streets, Atlantic, First, and Holgate.

And they're talking about closing Holgate, right?

Amtrak wants to have a study about talking to Holgate.

How are we gonna deal with that?

We're gonna need to mitigate that.

The B and Sig North is one block to the east, and there's a reason why the original legislation provided a 20-foot buffer between major truck streets and housing.

It's simply safety.

It's a safety situation.

You know, we talked about hotels, right?

All those additions to the transition District, we didn't like any of them, still don't like them, but compromises were made.

You know, we gotta make sure when that first hotel is built that we're building sidewalks and pedestrian access that's wide enough for the other hotels that it's zoned for.

But we haven't seen that planning over the years.

It's just let's build it and hope people can get through there.

You know, we thought we had a deal.

You know, the stakeholder group, which we had representation on, sent an agreement to the mayor's desk that had no housing in it.

And then the developers ran up there, asked for housing.

So then people negotiated hotels, was not happy at all about that.

Absolutely not happy about the hotels because it's a problem for pedestrians.

So with the work of Councilman Strauss, we got the resolution 32097, which is the study of the impacts of non-industrial uses in the area.

That study hasn't even had a chance to be implemented.

It's two years from the signing.

We haven't even reached that.

We're already back at the table.

We thought we had a long-term agreement on industrial lands.

Instead, we created a black cloud of uncertainty over the Port of Seattle and their customers.

Port users plan 20 to 30 years out, and having to continually guess what the city is doing creates uncertainty.

Finally, we ask that the city joins with maritime workers in the Port of Seattle and farmers and truckers and everybody else associated with the port, the jobs, that we create an atmosphere of certainty for our local, state, and international customers who depend on our port.

Simply, our jobs depend on it.

Thank you.

Good morning, counsel.

My name is Dan Kelly.

I currently serve as the chair for the Seattle Freight Advisory Board.

Been there for about two years.

I'm a new resident to the Seattle area.

Been here about six years total.

For my day job, I work for a domestic tug and barge operation that services Alaska and Hawaii.

I've worked for them for about 36 years now.

We own or operate about 100 acres of property along the Duwamish is where we go out of.

It's a critical link to those areas, connecting them to the region and internationally through groceries, everything that they consume, as well as their products come south, seafood and whatnot.

As far as the Fred Advisory Board, I'm sure the council has received and read the letter that we provided to them.

I don't think I need to go through all the talking points there.

A lot of them have been repeated today.

Excuse me.

As far as trucking in the region goes, an effective supply chain and trucking operation relies on predictability.

And I don't think that we could describe that region right now, myself and our operation, being predictable that we go to down there there's lots of disturbances that we have we want to protect the major truck lanes that we've got that we currently have we want to maintain the industrial zones and protect those that we have Adding any residential to a major truck lane is going to cause disruption.

That's going to be there.

Merely the construction that's going to happen is going to cause a major disruption and access to the port.

And when I think of this issue, I just don't think of this particular issue, but I also think of, and I think it was stated earlier by some of the comments, the precedence that we'll set moving forward and how that might further erode the major truck lanes and industrial lanes we've got.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

I just wanted to thank the panel, the three panelists with some backup here, and your testimony.

It's really important.

I also wanted to note we do have a briefing that I would like to submit into the record.

Everyone has a hard copy here, and we can do that separately.

It highlights a lot of things that's out there already publicly.

but it just highlights some of the issues regarding the environment in the SOTO, the maritime industrial area, so thank you.

I really appreciate, you know, one of the things As many have said here, first, by the way, in addition to thanking you all for coming, I'd like to thank everybody who's come from the port, but also the makers from the building trades, everybody who came for public comment, consultants.

I really appreciate everyone coming.

reporters coming and presenting and speaking their truths.

Because there's a lot of truths here.

I mean, we do need housing.

You know, we do need areas for Makers District.

And I believe that there's other many areas that we could do that.

And to include potentially in Soto, the housing is the challenge.

So I really want to appreciate it because it is important.

One of the things I say in my committee all the time is that we do listen to public comment and we incorporate it.

We've incorporated many amendments within public safety.

So thank you so much for coming out.

I also wanted to note, I really appreciate, obviously my position, you know, stepping through some of the main areas was made clear in the last meeting.

But I think it's really important for the two points to understand, and I really appreciate, Commission President, you highlighting the discretionary report piece.

There are major headwinds that we're facing, and then also mentioned, I think Mr. McKissom said, you know, uncertainty.

We're in competition with the world.

We have some advantages, Deepwater Point, further north, Great Circle Route.

Everybody here probably knows Great Circle Route, but many don't.

understand that and what an advantage that is to LA Long Beach, for example.

And we need to be ensuring that we take advantage of our advantages because there are so many challenges.

We have so many competition, and we need to be able to set them up for success.

And because of that, there's not much free board left.

If ships end up at Anchorage or because the The mobility side wasn't there.

That shows up in stats.

The shipping industry is brutal.

The decision makers are brutal.

You know, again, the discretionary port.

And so I would like to ask anybody, you know, to delve more into that because I think that's a point that's not understood in terms of the challenges that the shipping industry, you know, presents for the Port of Seattle.

And I add, like I said in the last meeting, the Port of Seattle, the Port of King County, the Port of State of Washington, the Port of the Pacific Northwest.

And as we saw, it doesn't take much if the LA fires were to the south and took out LA Long Beach.

This is a port for our nation.

So with that, can you speak to the challenges in this very, from a business point of view?

Go ahead, Don.

Yeah.

Thank you for the question.

My name is Don Estabrook.

I'm the deputy CEO at the Northwest Seaport Alliance, and well said.

The competition is fierce.

Backing up just a little bit, what we're faced with right now is an opportunity to take advantage of our very strong value proposition.

So in the short term, the trade volumes ebb and flow.

But over the long term, we've seen world trade to continue to grow.

So we have to ensure that we're in the right position to take advantage of that, and we are.

We have a very aggressive growth strategy, one that has us doubling our throughput volume through the Port of Seattle over the next five years.

And the reason we feel so bullish is the fact that we have these advantages you just highlighted, our proximity to Asia, our deep water ports, our connectivity with the railroads.

But most importantly, we have the available capacity today to deploy and the ability to expand into the future.

But as Commissioner Hasegawa said, customers have choices.

So if we are not able to offer our customers this highly efficient, reliable, consistent service, they have alternatives.

We would have alternatives.

There are competitive ports up and down the West Coast, but within our own region, we have a real formidable competition in the BC ports, Vancouver, BC, and to the north, Prince Rupert.

Sir, can I interrupt you just a minute?

You're not listed on the agenda and I'm giving grace by allowing more presenters to amplify information that the presenters don't have.

So please answer Council Member Kettle's question fairly soon.

Yeah, my apologies.

We are in a position of growth.

We have a very strong value proposition, but the bottom line is the competition is fierce.

And if we cannot provide best-in-class service, they will find a port that can.

And I would add to that that in order to compete for market share in the global economy, we have to offer best-in-class service.

And part of the components class service looks like the hours of availability, the turn times for the truckers to be able to go pick up, drop off their loads to their onward destination, into the middle of Washington state, and onwards to proliferate throughout the country.

the first five miles in and five miles out of the port of Seattle are the hardest to get through.

And so there's actually interactive live dashboards that customers can look at to understand how long our turn times are.

We have to be able to pitch and sell them what?

Certainty, operational efficiencies.

We're happy to bring you on tours.

Many of you have already come, for those of you who haven't.

But it's a complex logistical process And it requires all of us doing our part as part of those maneuvers.

So, you know, we are doing our best to actively attract customers to be able to improve volume through our gateway.

But if you look at it from Asia's point of view, and if they're gonna have more, if they're gonna get no tariffs going in through Canada or better efficiency going in through California, then we're gonna be in serious trouble.

The only line of business that we have built in and into our business model is our ad producers that are in Washington State who are gonna go out through the North Harbor.

And we need to make sure that we're supporting our local state economy as well.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I just, in response to, this is where I keep coming back to the EIS that said a limited amount of housing there would not cause adverse effects on nearby industrial activities, which that this whole traffic piece and being able to get your freight through, the EIS said that having a limited amount of housing would not impact that.

So it seems to be incongruous with what the EIS shows.

And so this is a piece that I, you know, I don't, and you didn't appeal the EIS.

So it just seems to be not consistent with what the EIS showed.

And so I feel like, is it just, I mean, I hear you're disagreeing with the EIS, but we do these environmental impact studies to show what the, what is, truly going to be what we can see in terms of adverse effects.

You are disagreeing with the EIS and what we have to go on when we make these decisions are these important environmental impact statements.

I just, that I'm struggling with that, a piece of this, because you're going back to the freight piece seems to be the main piece, and it is inconsistent with what we heard from the EIS.

So...

I'm happy to clarify.

So to be clear, the freight mobility is already a challenge.

Making changes across from our primary freight route, our heavy haul corridor, will exacerbate those problems.

If we wanna talk about activation in Soto and other areas, then we can have that broader conversation, but it should be part of a more comprehensive conversation.

legislation is not that.

This is a Humpty Dumpty approach to break apart our industrial lands piece by piece, year after year, to the point where we can't put them back together again.

And so my question for you, if we're gonna come to the table and talk about what we can do to support some of these other operations, a maker zone, mixed use office space, we will always come to the table.

And to be clear, the port has compromised time and time again.

That's why we came to hotels back in 2023. But, you know, this legislation doesn't allow the timeline for us to be able to do that.

I appreciate...

Do you have a quick follow-up?

I do have a follow-up because this compromise piece, too, you talk about having a deal, and we heard last time about this deal.

And the deal in and of itself, is that that last minute deal where the original mayor's preferred alternative proposal was changed seemingly at the last minute, it sounds like?

Is that the deal that you're referring to?

Is there a different deal?

I'm just coming up to speed with what the deal that has been raised today is.

It's the agreement that we were all at Fisherman's Terminal two years ago signing into law.

It's an agreement.

It set an expectation of what the future of industrial lands would look like.

Now if we wanna have another conversation about these lands, then what the Port of Seattle would need to satisfy our tenant, core tenant, a no net loss to industrial lands, and certainty that this isn't gonna come up year after year after year.

Because a trail of breadcrumbs does not exactly exude transparency or confidence and whatever we're gonna come to agree with.

It's just gonna come back again next year.

I hear what you're saying.

That's what other people, can I have my hand?

Okay.

Getting back to the, First, let me say that this whole issue of the impact of vehicles associated with housing in the stadium district and me trying to get to the bottom of it was what I was trying to figure out.

That was my main question last in 2023. If I were convinced from the documents that were produced in the leading up to the legislation in the EIS, I would not be trying to do this because of course, if there were evidence that this would have adverse or significant adverse impacts on port operations as an economic development agency, as someone absolutely committed to economic development as well, and the, you know, I'm trying to get small businesses and industrial jobs, I would not be doing this.

And so that is why we're pressing on this whole, why didn't you appeal the EIS?

Impacts on freight, and especially coming from Eastern Washington is the main issue that is, well, it's one of the, let's just say it's the main issue of the foundation of your opposition.

And so it seems as though that was a, that conclusion from the traffic analysis in the EIS would be the thing that you would, that the port would, but definitely tried to appeal.

So maybe I had a question for the freight mobility folks.

Do agricultural products, I say that because that's been a lot of the comment, and I certainly want malt and hops to get to the waterfront, but what routes do agricultural products take when they're coming over 90 to get to T5 or to the granary?

Can you?

Yeah.

The granary, they come by train.

Okay.

Okay.

The granary, they come by train.

The, the SR519 corridor is the fastest way to the port.

Literally, if you were going east, you're three lights from Boston.

So walk it back for people that don't have the map.

Okay, so.

And then what do they take off?

Ag products, their goal is to get two trips a day into the city and into the terminals to drop off their, their products.

So getting in there and the fastest way is through SR519.

That was brought up earlier about housing down there, right?

we haven't even seen the effects of the additional zoning that's already been added to that area.

I mean, there's no plans to get pedestrians across SR 519 when there's freight, except for one crosswalk.

And the other thing is you put housing down there, you don't have anything else there.

You don't have churches, you don't have schools, you don't have grocery stores, you just don't have the basics.

So that's not a great place for housing.

And then I want to give an example of South Lake Union.

They changed the zoning there, and Foss Maritime ended up having to stop a shift because there were so many complaints about the activities there that had been going on there for 100 years.

And then they ended up moving out of that terminal.

When you add people that live there year round, they're going to have complaints.

It's just normal.

That's why we always wanna buffer between the port and housing because when they buy their property, there's lights and there's noise.

It's not going away.

In the whole zoning down there, there's a higher threshold of noise that can be allowed.

You think those people aren't going to start complaining about the higher threshold and come back and try to get that changed?

I appreciate that.

Before you continue, Mr. Kelly, you're the freight advisory board.

So when they come off of, they're coming down 518 or what sometimes do you?

519. 519. And then to get to T5, what did they do after that?

So I'm not part of the international.

It might be better to, I'm a domestic carrier that's coming through, so I don't know that I'd have the...

Well, once we get the great project done, the heavy haul corridor in East Marginal Whale, East Marginal Whale, they'll go west till they hit East Marginal Whale and they'll make a left.

Either go to 40, well, they can go straight into 46 from there, but 46, then 30, and then 18 and five.

And that's to avoid the traffic on I-5.

So right now they take first when they get off of?

No, I think probably to get to Terminal 5 right now, they're probably using the freeway.

But this is a route that they can use when the freeway is backed up.

I understand.

Because I went on a tour.

I'll have everybody know that I went on a tour and I learned a great deal.

And I did see that there are trucks on first and a lot of other traffic as well.

So I recognize that and I was just trying to get a handle on where are the agricultural products going that come over from Eastern Washington, granary or by train.

And then south, the freeway is the most, I'm hearing the freeway is the most but then that's sometimes backed up, I understand.

And then regarding, I did signal that I had some, you mentioned the impacts of the people that are actually living there, that could live there.

Because I agree, it's both a health and an equity issue.

And the urban industrial zone does come with several conditions, including Gosh, it's many, it's a lot of conditions, but when it comes to noise, let's see, all dwelling units must have sound insulating windows sufficient to maintain interior sound levels at 60 decibels or below in consideration of existing environmental noise levels at the site.

The applicant shall submit an analysis of existing noise levels and documentation of the sound insulating capacities of window Capabilities of windows, it's part of the conditional use.

All dwelling units shall have a permanently installed air cooling system and a balanced ventilation system which may be combined.

The ventilation system shall filter any outdoor air supply through filters rated MERV 13 or higher as determined by the American Society, et cetera, et cetera, the long acronym.

It has to be located in a certain way, and really what I think, and I was going to ask for this amendment until it was pointed out that it's already in here, which is that the owner of the residential building must...

must agree to Covenants basically saying that the environmental conditions that are currently in existence are, that they acknowledge that those conditions exist.

So that is what some of the, some people in public comment and myself had been asking.

for and noting that that would be important because I don't, it's not a good thing to have residents in opposing the conditions into which they lived.

And that, you know, that is an issue that will, could come up in the BINMIC when a block was removed and turned into residential uses.

But I do understand that point.

Go ahead, I'm sorry.

I was gonna say with all those conditions, doesn't that kind of point to the incompatibility of those?

residential and industrial areas, all those requirements.

That's a good point.

And we do need to, you know, I mean, yeah, it does.

And so there are, you know, there are buildings in the, what about the terrazzo?

And so let's, it is true.

We do have a, you know, there are people that are living in Pioneer Square, same thing.

But there was, when this was being worked out with the mayor's team, and the stakeholders, the conditions were applied to the urban industrial zone to accommodate the compromises that were being sought during the stakeholder process.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President, and I appreciate the exchange.

Just a few quick points just to close me out.

First is, and I understand the point regarding the FEIS.

I still believe the F stands for flawed, and I really appreciate having the industrial impact statements that are being made today because I think that is super important and not accounted for.

I appreciate the comments from the freight advisory board regarding transit.

and trying to do all these things to ensure that just-in-time capability for the port, again, for all the reasons mentioned in terms of being a discretionary port.

On the environmental piece, in the last meeting I talked about Love Canal, which is a super fun site.

I don't think we have Love Canal to our south in Soto, but there's a super fun site a little bit further south and to the west, and so one never knows exactly the challenges, but just noise and air.

Let's just look at noise and air.

That will be a problem.

And I understand there's covenants, but again, and there's some military folks out here, I see some, those covenants are not going to mean anything, particularly after some time goes by.

And you can look at military bases across the city, across the country, and you'll see that.

And we don't have to go far.

Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, gets hit again and again and again, noise lawsuits.

And, you know, and each Indeed in Island County says there's a naval air station plus a practice field, but that gets ignored.

And I could see history repeating itself in SOTO.

I think it's really important.

I think it's a very valued argument to say, hey, we have the massive 23 industrial maritime agreement legislation passed in 23. and letting it play out, because all the impacts of that, as we move through in terms of the changes that came out of that legislation, I think that's really important.

And that doesn't even mention, really, it doesn't take into account what the Coast Guard is going to do.

Coast Guard is huge.

It's like the 800-pound gorilla here.

And not only that, there's environmental pieces that are going to be in play.

Another 800-pound gorilla.

So the timing goes to this.

And I just want to end on one last thing.

And trust me, I know because I am I'm looking to change legislation left, right, and center.

We just passed a less lethal weapons bill that undid two very poor pieces of legislation that were done in years past, not too distant past.

And I understand that.

And we did some other things relating to different policies and all.

But the legislation is like a commercial contract almost.

And I think it's important to honor that contract.

to give that stability.

Again, the point about uncertainty, but we need to have the atmosphere of certainty.

And that's really important to have essentially a commercial contract honored.

I know it's a little different, and I know we do change legislation, like in public safety, we're doing it.

But when it comes to commercial pieces that impact businesses, major businesses, by the way, not just some little pieces here and there, 30% of the revenue, good times and bad.

You know, that's so helpful when we go through a global, you know, the Great Recession.

or we go through a global pandemic.

These are the things that I look at, and I really appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you, Council President, for this opportunity.

Because I think this is a value, in terms of the democratic process, I think it's super important to have the speakers here today.

And I admit there's two additional ones.

I understand that.

But I think it's really important, in addition to the public comment, I think it's massively important to have this panel here, too, on this topic, particularly as it comes out of the you know, the massive legislation that our colleague, Council Member Strauss did not too long ago.

So thank you very much.

And again, I appreciate the opportunity.

I appreciate literally everyone coming today.

Thank you.

Council President, council member Strauss also had his hand up as well.

What's that?

I don't have a zoom link, so I was hoping to ask a question.

Oh, I didn't.

Did you raise your hand after Maritza or before us, council member?

He can go first since I've already had an opportunity.

Go ahead, colleague.

I've got two statements and six questions, so just.

Just so that we all know where we're at.

And a clarification, so we'll add to that.

Clarifying what I believe Dan McKissin said was the fastest route into the port is I-90 and then onto SR 519. For everyone else in the city, Dan, I know that the state routes are your bread and butter.

For everyone else in the city, that's Edgar Martinez Way.

So just being really clear, and your point to getting to East Marginal Way, which is directly connected there by Alaska Way, to say that is where you would go to get to T5 in the future because the fixes are underway right now to improve that transportation efficiency.

So to ask how would you get there today during a construction project is...

It's like asking how would you get down the sidewalk of the sidewalk that's being built.

Asking to get to the, how we get to the grain terminal is kind of like how asking, if I was to ask you, how would you get your trucks to the airport?

But today we're focused on T46, T5, the port down here.

I'm not talking about Smith Cove today.

That was my clarification.

Statement is the industrial and port activities are the backbone of our economic, strength here in the city of Seattle.

Over the course of the recession that has been in place and the downstream economic impacts from the pandemic, Seattle has underperformed national averages in every single sector except for port and industrial activities.

They stay constant year over year.

They don't get really high and they don't get really low.

And so in good economic times, it's very easy to overlook the backbone of our economic strength here, which is port and industrial activities.

Today, in bad economic times, it is literally what we are relying on to balance our books.

Statement number two, Mr. Kelly, I think you undersold what you do.

And I say that because Alaska Marine Lines is the connection to many roadless communities in the state of Alaska.

So beyond I-90 connecting our port to Boston, Massachusetts and the heartland of America and Eastern Washington, it is also connecting us to the roadless communities of Alaska.

I'm kind of proud because while some of the biggest tech companies are located and headquartered in District 7, District 6 has the largest domestic seafood producer in the United States as well as Western Tow Boat that builds their own tow boats between Fremont and Ballard.

I won't get into that argument.

We've got enough on our plate today.

They build those tow boats in our community.

And you are the connection to roadless communities in Alaska.

Last time I checked, it is very difficult to fly a freezer or an appliance into an Alaskan airport.

Thank you for connecting Seattle to Alaska.

So I've got questions, and they are stated in past, present, and future.

Councilmember Strauss, I ask that you honor the rules that you set out in your meetings, in other meetings, and so could you...

ask them all together at once and please be mindful of the time.

Thank you.

Yes.

And council president, you've brought that up a number of times to clarify.

I allowed everyone to speak for their duration.

And then if somebody else wanted to speak that hadn't spoke, we would go to them.

So I've got, however you want to, if you want me to ask one question and then come back to my other five, I'm happy to do that.

I do have these questions that I would like to ask on the record today.

Um,

So you would go ahead and ask them all and then we'll...

With due respect, as a separate...

No, please do not interrupt.

I will ask them one at a time.

You ask me a question and we'll go ahead and go through all of your questions and then leave them on the table.

But we do have other questions to get to.

Council President, as I stated, I will ask these one at a time.

And if you need me to just ask one right now, that's fine.

But I do have about six questions that I'd like to ask on the record.

I know that.

So this is clarifying, and we're going into the past.

One of the things that I heard today was the compromise from 2023. Dan McKissons in particular, you didn't like it then.

You don't like it now.

Because it does go against your no net loss of industrial lands.

framework.

So here's the question here.

It's coming back to I keep hearing these questions about if this was so bad then, why wasn't the EIS appealed?

And I'm gonna repeat back what I think that I heard, which is that the EIS was not appealed because there was an agreement made that the housing wouldn't be part of the 2023 final product.

And the reason that that wasn't appealed while that appeal window was open was because that would have delayed this process even further and potentially undone this entire nearly a decade compromise.

So that is getting back to what I heard you say, Dan, which is that you didn't like the compromise then, and I know that because you had some very choice words for me.

Hard conversation, but we're still sitting here.

And that's when we talked about this transportation resolution, because it's my understanding that the transportation dynamics on the road are not working today, much less with any change.

And so that's my question here is beyond And within that, the compromise that was real central to me is I heard very loud and clear, you did not want hotels down there.

And there are now hotels allowed.

So did I have the correct understanding of the EIS process?

Can you share with me again the difference between hotels and housing?

And can you just give me the summary right back of from that EIS conversation, that to the side, why was it that we needed to do that transportation resolution?

Thank you, Councilmember.

First, I want to say I was representing the local 19. You said it was my decision.

It's not.

I have a mandate to our local as a mandate that we need to protect industrial lands at all costs because our jobs depend on it.

You know, the EIS, I wasn't involved in.

But when we were told this legislation came out of the stakeholder group and was sent to the mayor's desk, there's no housing in the in the stadium area overlay district.

We had long conversations about that.

And then the hotel compromise came up.

And we were furious because we don't see as that's compatible down there either.

Talked to the city a lot.

They promised, well, they're only going to build a Mariners Hotel or they're only going to build one more.

And I'm like, okay, they build a Mariners Hotel on first in Atlantic or SR519 or Edgar Martinez Way, whatever you want to call it.

Are you going to build sidewalks big enough for the other five potential hotels?

There's no answer.

There's no planning.

There's no future planning on getting pedestrians across that major freight corridor.

So the compromise we worked on was that resolution to step back, see what the non-industrial, how the non-industrial uses impacted that area.

We haven't even got to that point.

I hope that answers your question.

Yes, thank you.

Council President, would you like me to continue with my questions now?

Let me ask another question.

I'll switch to Maritza, then you can go ahead with your other one.

Sounds good.

Yeah, seems good.

This is stemming off of that.

In 2023, and this is my last in the past question, so after this we'll move into the present.

If there had been an amendment, so it was transmitted without housing in the stadium transition overlay district.

If there had been an amendment put forward either by myself or anyone else who was sitting on the committee, what would that have done to that conversation?

Would that have changed the port's position on the citywide compromise?

Do you think we would have been able to finish that compromise?

And Mr. Fitch, I kind of look at you because I know that you were working on the project at that point.

I know you don't speak for the port necessarily today, but that's my question.

2023, we're negotiating this.

The EIS says housing has minimal impacts on the transportation network, which I disagree with.

We have the bill transmitted that does not have housing.

If housing was added back in as an amendment, Where would the conversation have gone?

Do you think we would have gotten a final agreement?

Yeah, thanks for the question.

I'll be brief.

Honestly, I'm surprised there's so much of a focus on the lack of appeal.

It was a very difficult, years-long compromising process that was resulting in a package that all sides could support.

We thought that was a really incredibly good outcome.

We didn't like the EIS.

We had 22 pages of comments about concerns with it.

The EIS's transportation analysis at the time took an area-wide analysis, a programmatic analysis.

It didn't look at specific proposals and what impact they would have on freight.

Traffic has been a problem in that area since the stadiums were built.

It will get worse with more development.

That's been the port's position for a long time.

But to answer your question, the decision not to appeal, I don't even think it was an active decision.

We were working on a compromise that would not have been possible if all sides weren't giving.

And I think that was the understanding at the time.

So, yeah, I'm a little surprised there's a focus on why it wasn't appealed then.

It was part of a compromise where everybody was giving something.

But beyond the EIS, we're talking about the citywide agreement and negotiation.

Had housing been put back into the stadium transition area, how would that have changed?

Do you think we would have been able to pass that compromise?

I doubt it.

That has been a bright line issue for the Port of Seattle for some time, as you know.

And you think you have a tough conversation with Dan.

I got the call from Dan about just the hotel being in there and knowing how labor felt about that.

So I can't imagine how our labor partners would have reacted to housing being in there and the port would have, I think, been sincerely concerned with that.

It's safe to say.

Thank you.

Got some questions about the present.

I got about four more, but I'll save them for a minute.

Go ahead, please, Maritza.

Thank you.

I, too, want to just thank everyone for being here today.

I really want to thank Council President for having both.

There were two different panels.

It's important for us to hear from everyone, and it's important for us to be educated about the decisions that we make.

I will say, Mr. Fitch, you're surprised about why we're asking about the lack of appeal, and it's because some of us were not here when all this was happening.

And EIS's environmental impact statements are really important.

It guides the decisions that the city makes when it's exploring land use legislation.

So they are important tools to help guide the conversation, and that's why you're hearing at least some of us asking.

I was not here, and so that's why I'm focused on that, because typically what we see is when folks are not aligned with what the EIS says, then there's the appeals process.

That is your avenue of how to get something different.

So that's why you're hearing that.

I also, one piece is I know that, sorry, I have my notes here, but I believe that the port agreed to almost 900 housing units in traditional industrial areas like Georgetown, South Park, and the Ballard Manufacturing and Industrial Center.

So this makerspace workforce housing is a small, it is a small area.

And I understand and I'm compelled by all that has been discussed in terms of industrial lands and the importance of our maritime work.

And I know this is a small area, so that was allowed, or at least the port was agreed to do that.

then, but this wasn't allowed.

So I'm curious as to that, you know, why that you seemed fine with that and not this, because I think that's important.

It's, you know, can someone talk about that piece of it?

I'll go and I'll let the commissioner jump in just to say, you're totally spot on that it is allowed in every other urban industrial zone, except for this one.

That was part of the compromise.

I think that's why there's some resistance because there are folks on the concern side who are wondering why development is being pursued in the one urban industrial zone in which it's explicitly prohibited rather than in the other urban industrial zones.

It was a compromise.

I think that was one of the essences of the compromise.

I'll say, too, you mentioned not having been there and the deal was made, I was intrigued by the people who are expressing concern, the shippers who ship their products from eastern Washington, the terminal operators who operate the terminals.

So I think the people who are telling you traffic is an operational issue are speaking with a pretty clear message, and so that's just an additional...

I don't know if you have more to add.

I would just add that a lot of the places that are currently zoned for residential have not been developed into residences yet.

And so part of our concern is why are we developing or attempting to rezone other areas that would have a known impact to our operation when we haven't even fulfilled the promise of other areas that are currently zoned for residential.

Is this area different?

I'm wondering why the compromise was made for wherever you're allowing the 900 units or so and not here.

It's located on a heavy hall corridor established by the city directly across the street from an international container terminal.

So, yeah, it's considerably different in the eyes of the port from the other urban industrial zones.

Thank you, Eric.

And then I had another couple of questions, but I can reach out.

So thank you so much.

I don't want to take up more time, Council President.

Thank you.

OK, my goal was to have this.

I'm not going to cut people off, this panel off.

But my goal was to try to get out by 1230 because folks have to get to lunch and then get to their jobs.

But go ahead, please.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm going to stick on the urban industrial conversation.

Now I've moved out of the past, now I'm in the present, we'll move to the future in just a second.

The present, I'll kind of answer the question that I just heard asked, which is what is different about this than every other area was rezoned?

The answer in my mind is that every other area that had net loss of industrial zoning because of the allowance for housing was on the border of our industrial lands that was already abutting residential zones.

But I'll ask that question again is how is this place different than the rest of those zones?

Anyone can answer that, but really the question is how is, and I'll lead the question here, which is how is the half mile between T-46 and I-90 any different than two to 400 feet off of Leary Avenue, Leary Way in Ballard that's up against Finney Ridge?

You're describing what was formerly known as the industrial buffer zone, and you're right.

They were all on the edges of mix, and the difference is that this is across the street from an international cargo terminal adjacent to a heavy haul corridor in the center of the

Next question from there.

But I do want to point out that the property that was transformed from, the property that I referred to before in the bin mick was in the industrial buffer zone and it was made into neighborhood commercial, I believe.

So that is why I keep saying that there's been an inconsistency in how the This has been applied and that was your amendment.

I appreciate that comment.

The consistent aspect across this entire plan is that there was compromise.

Was that there was not...

And a floor amendment.

There was not a all-out opposition.

And if there was, we mitigated it.

And that's when not everything in this plan is...

I don't like everything that was in the plan.

And that's what compromise is.

So Council President, you keep coming back to site-specific places throughout the city, and what I can answer you with, the product that you saw passed was a result of the compromise, and that's why it was in there.

Back to the present, within the urban industrial, there's a 200-foot prohibition of housing from freight routes.

Mr. Kelly, if you want to jump on that or anyone else, why is that important to have a buffer between the freight route and the housing in an urban industrial zone?

Well, I think there's a traditional incompatibility between the industrial lands and residential lands.

That's why you have the zoning that you have.

And that buffer allows some measure of safety between those activities that you've got there.

So I think that's basically why they're on the books.

So if a building was being built along Leary Way that's up against Finney Ridge, it has to sit back 200 feet from that freight route because noise, pollution, safety, and incompatibility between housing and industrial zones.

Is that correct?

That would be my summation, yes.

And the compromise to put housing up against Finney Ridge is that there's already housing up against Finney Ridge.

The question coming back to within the stadium transition overlay area, there's not a 200-foot setback from freight routes.

What is the impact of that?

Noise, safety.

I mean, you're...

These people have got to get from south to north.

They're not going south because that's the industrial areas.

They need to cross that Edgar Martinez way, SR519.

And there's no great way to do that now.

I mean, freight stops when there's a stadium event, mostly for safety and access.

And we need those corridors open.

Remember, that project, we only got 50% of that project.

We would have four lanes.

going directly to the freeway, and four lanes on Royal Brougham if it had been done.

And this leak's been going on for years.

I mean, the industrial zone used to start at King Street, right?

Then we put the stadiums in, and it's just been leaking further and further south.

And you put housing in this transition area, then the next step's going to be, let's cross Holgate.

And why keep taking away lands that are 90 percent occupied?

Thank you.

Last question is a two-part transitioning from the present to the future, which is I guess a little bit of the past, which is it took about six years of facilitated conversation for the agreement to be even presented to the city of Seattle.

That was a long and facilitated conversation among stakeholders that don't agree, sometimes ever, on anything.

There's more compromise there.

With the process before us, how is this process going?

Is this increasing or decreasing the amount of communication, trust building, or anything else that would lead us further?

into the future, the future question that is tied within here, the two-parter, is in the future to continue this conversation, what would you see, what would you need to participate in continuing this conversation?

So how's it going and how do we need to go in the future?

I will say that the port is always committed to come to the table and talk about what the ideal vision and what would be in the best interest for the residents that we're all here to serve, just like we've come to the table for the last six years and are coming to the table with you today.

housing across from T46 will never be viable for us.

If we want to have a broader conversation about zoning and the best spot for a makers district and other uses, well, first we need time.

And a surprise piece of legislation in a crunch timeline is certainly not the thought partnership that we would expect or be able to operate in.

but primarily the Port Commission voted long ago to uphold a tenant of no net loss of industrial lands.

So if there's anything to be identified within the MIC, then there's gonna have to be a long negotiation about where we would be able to add industrial lands so we don't lose a single square foot.

The other thing that we need is certainty.

We are tired of every time we come to what we think is an agreement that, We have to come back and defend the integrity of our industrial lands and so respectfully councilmember I posed you the question.

What would it take for this to not come up again next year?

It's a good question That's an important question I did not expect to see this piece of legislation on a surprise introduction referral calendar that was only published after the council briefing was closed a little hastily, I would say.

Closing remarks, I'll pass it back to you, council president, is that I was the land use chair for longer than any other of my colleagues have served in total.

And in those four years, we had today a legally required public hearing, which is why it was different than the public comment period at the beginning.

I don't believe that I saw any legally required public hearing lasting more than 10 to 15 minutes in my entire time as the land use chair.

Today was very different.

Thank you, Council President.

I completely agree that there is high interest in this and that is precisely why I didn't want to push this issue in 2023 when I was told that that would really ruin the whole effort that led to the approval of that legislation.

It was so important.

And I didn't want to mess that up.

And so when I was wanting to advance it, it was basically, wait, don't mess up this legislation some other time, et cetera.

Do it not now.

I've made clear that what I want is more workforce housing, more space for small makers, businesses that can make products and perform activities that are not permitted elsewhere in other commercial zones and better public safety in that area.

So those are the things that I would like and I just want folks to know that that is the motivation for me doing what I am doing.

So I really appreciate your your participation here, and I will let the person who convened this panel have the last word.

Thank you all for coming though.

I will not stop for four more minutes.

That will take us to 1230. I'll take four seconds.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Council President, let me start to conclude the meeting.

Oh, wait a minute.

I'm supposed to officially adjourn.

Sorry.

Okay.

This now, it is 1227. Thank you all for coming.

This officially adjourns the meeting.

Our next meeting will be.

Our next meeting.

The next meeting is on Thursday the 27th.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you all.