Seattle City Council Land Use Committee 5/24/23

Recording in progress.

Thank you good afternoon to May 24th 2023 meeting of the land use committee will come to order it is 2 PM I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Mosqueda.

Here in chambers, Councilmember Peterson presence, Vice Chair Morales here here Strauss present by present.

Thank you and you turn down the microphone a little bit now that folks.

are not all chatting.

Great to see you all today.

I think this is the most full this chamber has been since pre-pandemic that I've seen.

So welcome to it.

If you are sneezing, coughing, or otherwise exhaling, please wear a mask.

I will also just remind folks, if you want to show appreciation, you can do hand signals, but clapping makes everything go longer.

I am going to allow two minutes per speaker for today's public hearing.

If you don't need two minutes to get your point across, please don't use the full two minutes.

There's a lot of people and we will be spending a lot of time talking today.

With that, we have six items on the agenda today, five of which are part of the maritime and industrial strategies.

Council Bill 120567, Council Bill 120568, Council Bill 120569, Council Bill 12570, and Council Bill 120571. Separately, once the public hearing is complete, we will take up another agenda item, which is Council Bill 120582, a briefing and discussion on equitable development zoning.

Before we begin, if there is no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

Clerk, if you Actually, before we do that, I just want to say yesterday we passed the tree bill, which has been 20 years in the making.

Today we are taking up maritime and industrial land strategies, which has been minimum of seven years in the making.

Naomi Lewis, my committee clerk, does an excellent and fabulous job working on big policy.

So if we all want to wave our fingers at Naomi, that would be amazing.

Thank you.

With that, clerk, could you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

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

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Seattle.

And thank you for everyone being here.

That video is just the formal way of saying please be nice.

We are going to start with a couple housekeeping items on the agenda today are the list of amendments that have been submitted by the amendment deadline, which was May 17th.

I have a number of amendments that I put forward to meet my own deadline because I inadvertently scheduled it for sitting in my Norwegian Constitution Day, which is a big deal in Ballard.

And so I have not yet fully reviewed each of these amendments.

I may not be bringing them all forward.

I will ask my colleagues, we spoke in committee last time about the preference to have all all amendments in the public realm.

Colleagues, are there any colleagues that have amendments that are not included on the list that you think you may bring forward at a later time, which met the deadline of May 17th?

I'm not seeing any of my colleagues raising their hands, so I hope that that means that there are no amendments that are not held today.

Last couple housekeeping items.

Again, we're going to give everyone two minutes if you don't need the full two minutes.

Please don't use them because we have about 30 people in chambers and 23 online.

That's two hours of public comment if it's just if everyone uses the full two minutes.

So what I'm going to ask is I'm going to read names in series of threes if you want to line up here.

And here we can just bounce back and forth to maximize time.

I've also received a fair amount of written comments that I have with me today on my desk.

If you would like to submit written comments, they are always welcome.

Today is just the public hearing.

We will take up amendments at the June 8th committee meeting, which will start at 9.30 a.m.

We will extend that meeting into the afternoon if needed.

During the tree amendments, we had five zero fifty amendments, so that did take six hours.

We have far fewer amendments here, so I'm hoping that that will go quickly.

So 9.30 a.m.

June 8th is when amendments will be voted on.

The way we're going to go through this is I am going to take in-person speakers first, and then transfer to online speakers after that.

We will be taking elected officials at the start, followed by former elected officials directly thereafter, and it's my understanding Commissioner Hasegawa wants to go directly at 2.30 because she is in another meeting in her role as a Port Commissioner currently.

So with that, We're going to call Commissioner Ryan Calkins, and then Commissioner Deanna Keller, and then Commissioner Christine Ng, followed by Commissioner Fellman.

Let me make sure that I have not missed anything.

Oh, yes, of course.

I have to read the items into the record.

So our first five items on today's agenda are public hearing on Council Bills 120567, 568, 569, 570, 571, which are all part of the Maritime and Industrial Package.

We are going to combine the public hearing for these items since they are all part of the same package.

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

Council Bill 120567, a public hearing on creating Chapter 2358 in the Seattle Municipal Code.

Council Bill 120568, a public hearing on the annual 2023 comprehensive plan amendments.

Council Bill 120569, a public hearing on creating a new zoning map with three new industrial zones.

Council Bill 120570, a public hearing on amending Chapter 2350. and Council Bill 120571, a public hearing on modifying exterior sound limits within the BNMIC.

Thank you, and the public comment period is going to be pushed, for this general meeting, is gonna be pushed to after the public hearing since we only have one item on that agenda.

I do see a couple people signed up, then it's where it's confusing, so if you want to share public comment, just wait until the end.

Please, for everyone, speak to all five items.

So at the beginning of your testimony, you will be asked to share what item you're speaking to.

Just say all five, please.

With that, no further ado, Commissioner Calkins.

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

Am I good to go?

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment in support of the industrial lands proposal at today's public hearing, all five items.

I'm Port of Seattle Commissioner Ryan Calkins and I've been serving as your Port Commissioner since 2018. I'm also a resident of District 3. I'm here today to urge your support for the industrial lands proposal as transmitted by Mayor Harrell.

Seattle's historic manufacturing and industrial centers remain under constant pressure to up-zone during a unique time when Seattle has an opportunity to lead on greening our reindustrialization of the economy.

We have a real opportunity to fortify Seattle's working waterfront and protect union and living wage careers while also preparing new types of clean energy projects like offshore wind manufacturing and hydrogen production right here in Seattle.

We understand housing supply in a growing city can't get away from them, is an important issue and merits public policy consideration at a comprehensive citywide scale.

Seattle's urban villages are primed for growth, but at the same time, our industrial lands have historically low vacancy rates, and we are now building multi-story warehouses to accommodate demand.

We believe the proposed plan to allow for lodging in the stadium without residential housing is a reasonable approach that diversifies foot traffic in the stadium area, but also protects the viability of Seattle's working waterfront and critical freight routes that service the greater Seattle region.

If this package considers housing in the stadium area, the Port of Seattle can no longer support the legislation we have been working so hard to broker over the last 18 months.

Please support Seattle's working waterfront that creates over 70,000 union and living wage jobs.

I know that you as city leaders are working hard to attract workers and residents back downtown.

Please remember that our waterfront workers never left.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Up next is Commissioner Deanna Keller, followed by Commissioner Christine Ng, and then Commissioner Fred Fellman.

Commissioner Keller could not make it today.

Thank you.

Up next is Commissioner Christine Ng.

Good afternoon.

I am Kristen Ng, a Northwest Seaport Alliance Managing Member and Port of Tacoma Commissioner.

The Northwest Seaport Alliance was formed in 2015 in part as recognition that the maritime assets in both Seattle and Tacoma harbors, what we call North and South harbors, must be treated as regional resources.

The Northwest Seaport Alliance cargo activity employs over 58,000 people in our region and hundreds of thousands of other Washingtonians work for importers and exporters that use our facilities.

We formed the Seaport Alliance in response to global markets, the widening of the Panama Canal, and increased competition from Canadian ports.

Since 2007, our gateways has lost about 20% of our market share of containerized cargo to the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert.

When we lose cargo, we lose jobs.

Protecting the 58,000 jobs that depend on our ports requires that we operate an efficient, low-cost gateway for trade.

A key reason why we have struggled to overcome the challenge from our neighbors to the north is because Canadian federal government has designated the competitiveness of their West Coast ports as a national priority and is providing substantial financial and policy supports to ensure they succeed.

This includes policy leadership at the local and provincial levels.

Despite the importance of the Port of Seattle and Tacoma for the national economy, the U.S. federal government has not done the same.

Instead, we rely on our partnerships with other local municipalities like you and your Tacoma counterparts.

We are making big investments to improve port competitiveness in both harbors, including $300 million to modernize T5.

Yet many decisions that will determine whether we remain a top-tier gateway are in your hands.

Opening up SOTO to residential development will make it more difficult.

and for our truck access, waterfront, and reduce the supply of real estate for marine cargo trade, clean energy projects, et cetera, and the creation of jobs.

So on behalf of the Northwest Seaport Alliance, I urge you to pass Mayor Harrell's.

Thank you, and we are gonna have hard mic stops for everyone else.

Elected officials can run over a couple seconds.

Please don't, though.

Commissioner Feldman.

we will have a reader for Commissioner Keller after this.

Okay.

Council Chair Strauss and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the public comments and support of the industrial lands proposal before you today, including the amendments.

I'm Port of Seattle Commissioner Fred Felleman, and I've been serving in this capacity since 2016, which is when the Seaport Alliance was conceived and I've been a managing member ever since.

I'm also a Ballard resident and deeply committed to finding ways for the maritime and manufacturing industry to coexist in our communities in order to sustain living wage jobs and our quality of life.

The Port of Seattle enthusiastically urges your support for the industrial lands proposal as transmitted by Mayor Harrell with those amendments.

If this package deteriorates to include housing in the stadium area, the Port of Seattle can no longer support the legislation for which we've been working so hard to find common ground over the last 18 months.

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

This is especially true given the pressure that our industrial areas are subject to by this growing city.

We also very much appreciate the OPCD's efforts to solicit public comment, as well as you, Chair Strauss, in the development of this zoning package.

The proposal not only protects and provides access to industrial lands, vital to the region's economy, it also prevents communities from being exposed to the impacts from those associated activities.

Seattle's industrial zone lands make up approximately 12% of the city's total land area, but generate 30% of the city's tax base.

And this is only a growing opportunity as the clean energy economy continues.

These jobs depend on a diverse array of industrial lands associated with a relatively small, highly congested urban environment that includes working waterfronts, local airports, rail yards, and access to highways.

One sentence, the economic vitality of our industrial lands job base is a cornerstone to addressing Seattle's livability crisis.

Though many of these jobs are highly skilled, more than two thirds do not require a four-year degree.

So with your help, we will be able to keep this economic engine rolling and thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Commissioner Feldman.

And Lindsey, we will, Deanna, Commissioner Keller was first on the list out of everyone, so we're going to come back to you after all electeds have spoken, if that's all right with you.

Not a problem.

Up next, I have Commissioner Sam Cho, Commission President Sam Cho on line.

We're going to go back to you next, Commissioner.

Hello Council Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide public comment in support of the industrial lands proposal at today's public hearing.

My name is Sam Cho Port of Seattle Commission President.

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

The coalition letter we sent out to you yesterday is demonstrative of five years of meaningful engagement with Seattle's Mayor's Office and the Office of Planning and Community Development highlighting the critical importance of Seattle's historic industrial lands and job growth.

With over 45 coalition signers from maritime industry and labor including the African Chamber of Commerce ILWU WSDOT and many private sector stakeholders we ask you to honor our coalition's longtime efforts to develop a consensus-based land use solution that protects the working waterfront living waste jobs and the movement of freight and goods.

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

We understand housing supply as a growing as a growing city is an important issue and its merits in public policy considerations at a comprehensive citywide scale.

To consider housing and industrial land preservation however within the same ordinance is a disservice to both critical issues.

We believe the proposed plan to allow for lodging in the stadium area with a prohibition on residential housing is a reasonable compromise that diversifies foot traffic to address public safety in the stadium area but also protects the viability of Seattle's working waterfront and critical freight routes that service the greater Seattle area region.

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

I urge you to honor Seattle's rich history and heritage of fishing and commerce and support the package as transmitted by Mayor Harrell.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner President.

We do have Commissioner Toshiko Hasegawa available now.

So Commissioner Hasegawa, you are up next.

Press star six when you are ready.

I see you're off mute.

Good afternoon Chair Stroud and honorable members of the committee.

My name is Toshiko Hasegawa I'm a Port of Seattle Commissioner and Vice President and also a resident of District 2 and it's my honor to appear before you today to urge your support for the industrial lands proposal as transmitted by Mayor Harreld.

We believe that the proposed plan to allow for lodging in the stadium area with a prohibition on residential housing is a reasonable approach that won't compromise the viability of Seattle's working waterfront.

Housing supply is an important issue that merits public policy consideration at a citywide scale.

And as policymakers it's our job to think about how to equitably meet the needs of our growing region.

I'm here to tell you that industrial lands are fundamentally incompatible with a decent quality of life for residents.

Housing in the stadium districts will only create social problems as there are no grocery stores.

No green spaces.

No parks or schools or doctors or libraries.

No child care.

People deserve to live in neighborhoods which is why the port encouraged you to densify in currently residentially zoned areas.

Any residential housing in a historically industrial area creates unnecessary competition between our invaluable maritime economy and our supply chain with the voices of people who will complain about noise pollution and air pollution from industrial operations and Frankly they deserve better.

We at the port implore the city council to consider the question of residential housing separately from the question of how to preserve our historically industrial lands.

Do not create problems where they don't exist.

If the package considers housing in the stadium area the Port of Seattle can no longer support it.

We're really grateful to the mayor for this product that we worked so hard to broker over the last 18 months.

So please support Seattle's working waterfront, and I urge you to support the package.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hasegawa.

At this time, we are going to move Mayor Royer.

You're up next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Charlie Royer.

a resident of Pioneer Square in 97 South Jackson.

And I'm very pleased to be able to be here to comment on the maritime package.

Some background, I served while I'm living in Pioneer Square as founding co-chair of both of the Alliance for the Square City Committee appointed by the council and the mayor to oversee the viaduct replacement and the now nearly completed waterfront replacement project.

Before that, I was your mayor for 12 years and finally in retirement and maybe most relevant to your committee today, I chaired and served on the board of the Major League Baseball Public Facilities Committee District, which along with the Public Stadium Authority was charged with protecting the city's almost billion-dollar investment in public stadiums publicly financed stadiums in the district.

As it turned out, my friend Fred Mendoza, chair of the PSA and I, when we realized that the Waterfront Project was real and was about to happen and that we were both going to be involved, We felt we had a responsibility to work with the state and the city, and we developed a process.

The PFD and PSA together funded and organized the process, which produced essentially the comprehensive plan amendment that you have in front of you today.

With that background and with the support here today of some labor unions, neighbors in the square, and Chinatown International District, all the years of study and and the analysis conducted by at least five mayors, some of them serving, some not, and their committees, our nonprofit and private housing partners, and a host of artists and people who make things have come together to urge you to support relatively small changes in the mayor's recommendations, all based on the EIS preferred alternative.

that allows limited units of affordable and workforce housing.

Safer streets and parks, we believe will result in that neighborhood.

New light industrial jobs and limited parts of that MEC and the other industrial areas.

We hope the stadium district as well.

Planning director's report says housing as conceived will present no additional adverse impact to industrial lands.

We understand the concern of the port and the unions who take their livelihood from that important economic engine of our city.

But housing thoughtfully implemented can improve public safety and is not incompatible with the industrial areas to the south and west, according to the multi-year industrial lands stakeholder process.

Given this finding, and in light of Seattle's well-established need for more affordable housing, I wanna strongly urge you to restore the levels of housing that were proposed in the EIS.

And there's room here for a compromise and changes and working this issue.

A proposal which has the support of affordable housing organizations, neighborhood groups in the CID and Pioneer Square and many labor unions at last.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify for your service and for your consideration of this long-standing issue.

Thank you, Mayor Royer.

And for the public's awareness, I'm sure everyone noticed Mayor Royer went far over his time.

If any of you have been elected mayor three times over, I'll give you the same deference.

We will be moving in out of the elected section and into general.

Yeah, you're up next, Lindsay.

I will give you the fair warning that the chime is 10 seconds remaining and we will be reverting to the typical standard practice, which is the mic will turn off automatically at the end of time.

I do have A couple people who signed up on one, two, and three on different sheets, so we're gonna kind of bounce back and forth, and I'll check in with folks.

If you are newly in the room and would like to speak, you can sign up up here, and, Clerk, can you make sure that those sign-up sheets are still here?

Up next is Lindsay Wolpa on behalf of Commissioner Deanna Keller.

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

Thank you.

The Commissioner was not able to be here, so I'm just going to read her remarks.

I am Deanna Keller, Co-Chair of the Northwest Seaport Alliance and Commission President of the Board of Tacoma.

I attended a breakfast this month at which Mayor Harrell spoke.

He explained he talks with a lot of other mayors and how many other cities envy the maritime industry you have in Seattle.

And I'll add Tacoma to what he said.

Our gateway supports thousands of family wage jobs and are indeed worthy of envy.

Yet our ports are more than just local assets.

Our port system is a fundamental foundation of the economy for which our entire state.

40% of Washington jobs depend on trade, much of which moves through our seaports.

The Alliance is one of the top container trade gateways, and we are the primary container port for the Pacific Northwest.

There really isn't an alternative for Northwest shippers to move their products and containers.

I want to share with you a few stats.

The Alliance handled $14 billion in exports in 2022. We're the largest port in the country in terms of agricultural trade tonnage.

We are the second-ranked port in the country when it comes to refrigerated exports, and we're the number one gateway for apple and port exports.

Seventy-five percent of all frozen products are exported from the U.S. moved via Seaport Alliance.

The story these numbers tell is critical for Washington farmers and agricultural exporters.

When you think about it, it should not be surprising that some of the biggest supporters for strengthening protections for Seattle's industrial lands are in central and eastern Washington.

Seaports are critical.

to the success of Washington State business.

For ag shippers, efficient access to and from ports often makes a difference in whether their products are in competitive global markets.

Manufacturers need highly efficient ports for reliable supply chains and for getting their goods to market.

Strong ports provide critical advantages to exporters, including lower shipping costs more frequent calls by ocean carriers serving export markets, shorter time to market, and greater vessel capacity.

If we hope to U.S. exports and economic competitors more broadly, enhancing our port system is essential.

Even under status quo, Washington exporters have a tough time getting their products over the pass, now beginning our reconditioning.

Thank you so much.

We want to make improvements.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Lindsay.

On behalf of Commissioner Keller, again, we're going to do jazz hands today.

Thank you.

And I forgot to call up the three people in order.

So up next in Bob Gillespie, Ted Lehman, Mark Weed are next.

I see Allison Steichen has signed up under public comment, but I believe it is for industrial zoning as well as our benevolent leader of Green Lake.

Would you like for the public hearing as well, Steve?

Yep, great.

So we're going to get.

OK, so we're going to do Bob, Ted, Mark, and then we're going to do Steve and Allison.

Please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I appreciate a chance to speak on behalf and in support of the industrial and maritime strategy zoning.

I'm Bob Gillespie at Lander Street Partners.

In 1930, my grandparents built a 55,000 square foot building at the corner of 4th and Lander that housed the family business of shipping mining and lumber equipment and logging equipment worldwide.

Now, in the 1940s, that kind of evolved into chainsaw manufacturing, Titan chainsaws employing 215 people.

But the market changed, uses evolved, and that became the past.

And this is typical of the evolution, I think, of small partnerships like ours.

The tenants we have are not manufacturing tenants.

Those industries are moving elsewhere, and they are moving elsewhere at the rate of about 2 million square feet.

a year for the last decade.

Our 625 building in the corner of 6th and Lander is pretty typical of how we have to adapt, again as small owners, to the market.

We have retail sales, we have technology, wholesale products, consulting, storage, small construction, and office uses in that building.

And by the way, of the 30 or so employees that work there, 8 to 10 use the light rail transit on a daily basis to get around.

This complex will be 240 feet away from the expanded Soto light rail station and it should be within the boundary of the zone.

It's out by about 10 feet.

So we support the industrial and maritime strategy zoning.

We don't support adding so-called incentives like mandatory housing affordability that will impact negatively the ability to expand.

Council Member Herbold's amendment to expand the area around Soto is right on point, recognizes the need for change and the potential for growth in the area.

So again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

And I have one of our state.

Thank you, Bob.

Up next is Ted Lehman followed by Mark Weed, Steve Roobstel, and Lynn Allison Steichen.

Apologies if I got that wrong.

Ted, at your convenience.

Thank you.

Council members, thank you very much for your time.

I'm here to address all five proposals.

My name is Ted Lehman, and I represent my family's real estate holdings, specifically around the Lander Street Station.

Much like Bob Gillespie just testified, we have very similar tenants existing in our current space.

Our land's been ground zero for much of the debate around rezoning in the industrial lands, and I've spent the past four plus years working with other soda property owners to find a compromise with the port and maritime stakeholders.

I would like to thank the staff at OPCD, the mayor, and many of you on the council for your help in getting to the place we are here today.

The proposals in front of you, including the amendment from Council Member Herbald, we are strongly in support of.

It's a great first step in a long overdue process to revitalize our industrial building inventory and add true TOD development around our light rail stations.

This proposal is not trying to displace existing industrial tenants, but rather add modern, safe, and newer building stock to not only retain the companies we have left, but to also attract new ones that bring jobs, TOD, and increased tax revenue to the city of Seattle.

It also adds a vital funding mechanism to address the URM upgrades that many of our existing buildings need to keep workers and our citizens safe.

That being said, we are opposed to the MHA funding component in it.

If funds are being, being generated in the industrial lands.

That money should stay in the industrial lands to fix the existing inventory.

The roads need work.

Lots of infrastructure there needs work.

So that is one element that we are not in agreement of.

But in general, we are very excited that we've gotten someplace after many, many decades of stalemate.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ted.

Up next is Mark followed by Steve and then Allison.

Mark, welcome.

Am I on?

Yes, you are.

Good afternoon.

I'm Mark Weed and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today regarding the industrial and maritime zoning changes you are considering.

I support these changes and seek consideration of a request.

I've worked with and have represented a number of families who own properties around the Soto Light Rail station at 6th and Lander.

Today I speak for the souls family who own a property that is mid-block entrance to the new lander, a new Soto station, who seek a map change that would designate the family's properties more appropriately industrial and innovation zoning.

My comments also support the desire of all property owners identified in our request.

that I further understand Council Member Herbold is champion and being granted this change that would amend page 10 of the South Spokane Street Rezone Map to II for these properties.

This proposal has been submitted to the committee as requested by the chair and accepted for consideration.

These properties are approximate to the station and the plan density that it represents that would improve the station's success and further encourage investment.

The Soles property, as well as properties under consideration, are either adjacent to or a half mile walk zone to the aspiring TOD location and the light rail station.

As a side, we do not favor changes to the proposed zoning and which would be height or FAR that discourages investment.

In closing, I ask the council to adopt a modest expansion of the industrial and innovation zone with a half mile of the SOTO station.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mark.

Up next is Steve Robstello, our benevolent leader of Greenlake, followed by Allison Steichen.

Former leader of Greenlake.

Wow.

I'll give it to you.

I live in Fremont, so...

Benevolent leader of Fremont.

There's no occupation forces in Greenlake.

Okay.

That's your convenience, Steve.

Okay.

I've observed a long time land use, and industrial especially, some of it very close.

Industrial is a very special type of zoning.

In the canal area near Fremont, we have a lot of areas that were industrial.

They became joint use with office buildings.

Now they're all office buildings.

Industrial needs to be preserved.

Joint use with industrial generally means transition to some other use.

And that has been the history in Seattle, whether it's on the ship canal or somewhere else.

The other thing is the noise, smells, 24-hour activity that happens in an industrial area.

means that when you start adding housing and other things, it will eventually not be an industrial area because guess what?

The other uses will start complaining.

Now it may take a little while, but it will happen and you will see transition.

So when you take an industrial zone and you make it a joint use zone, you add other things you are actually talking about removing that in the long term from industrial use.

That's the history of Seattle and everywhere else that I have seen.

And if you start putting limitations on say, oh, we can do it with these limitations.

The history is also in the city of Seattle that those limitations start disappearing.

So it just takes a little longer for it to happen.

So if we want to maintain industrial, which I think is an economic plus in this city, by a long shot, uh, we should be doing things to preserve.

not to combine and to make sure that it has a healthy environment and it doesn't impose upon others by shoving people together.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

A little jazz hands, jazz hands.

Thank you.

You can all see why he is the benevolent leader of formerly Green Lake, now Fremont.

Allison, up next.

Hi, I'm Allison Steichen of ILWU Local 19. I'm in support of the industrial land zoning package without amendments to the Soto area.

The amendments would adversely impact Seattle's working waterfront and beyond.

The essential waterfront jobs it provides are permanent, and their reach is far, including our state's agricultural workers.

There simply are not amenities in place to support the housing plan, and it negatively impacts far more than any of its positive aspects.

Please pass the industrial zoning package without amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Allison.

Little jazz hands up.

We're gonna, and a fair reminder, please note which item you're speaking to, and I strongly suggest speaking to all five at the same time.

Next three speakers are Scott Senlis, I believe, Heather Kurtenbach, Monty Anderson, at your convenience.

Thank you, thank you, Council Member- Oh, sorry, Scott is next.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Go, Scott.

Hello, Council Member.

I'm Scott Soles, SOTO.

I just want to add that I went through this process a few years ago with the upzone around the University District light rail station.

It was a long process, but now the fruit of that is coming to bear, and I believe everybody in the University District is pretty happy that within a half a mile of the station, the upzone to 200 and 300 feet for different types of buildings, is in place, five or six have come online, 20 or more are in the pipeline.

So I was surprised when I saw the SOTO zoning on light rail station didn't have the better zoning, that more intense zoning within the half mile radius of the station, which seems like what the mandate called for.

So I encourage you to add the amendment that's been proposed to broaden that zoning because it will be better in the long run if that's done.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Scott.

Up next is Heather and then Monty.

And again, please note the item you're speaking to, I suggest all five.

Heather, welcome.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss and members of the committee.

I'm here to speak to all five issues.

My name is Heather Kirtenbach.

I'm the political director for Ironworkers Local 86 currently.

We are here asking for the amendment to support the development of a maker's district in the stadium area, which would include workforce housing.

The ironworkers believe we can maintain our traditional and very important industrial and maritime job base and also create a vibrant, light industrial makers district with a project labor agreement that creates economic opportunity for folks like myself who come to the trades from incarceration.

18 years ago, I have worked my way up and I'm now a labor leader within my local union, trying to provide opportunities for folks like myself.

So that's my job.

There are so many stories beyond my own, sorry, I'm nervous.

Lives have truly been transformed because of intentional programs and investment into people like myself, who at one point just needed a chance.

This maker's district proposal would help create hundreds of living wage jobs and apprenticeship opportunities in Seattle, which would mean economic opportunity for women, people of color, veterans, and those furthest from opportunity.

Makers District in the stadium area is a win-win in the community, in our opinion, workers and the region.

Your own city report made clear that this proposal would not adversely impact our industrial partners.

Please adopt the preferred alternative, keep the housing in the stadium area, and don't miss this chance to create economic opportunity for those who need it most.

Lastly, frankly, I'm disappointed that we're even having to be here today and not all in agreement to this wonderful opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Heather.

Thank you.

Up next is Monty, followed by Terry Mass, Billy Hetherington, and Doug Osterman.

Monty.

Yes, thank you very much.

My name is Monty Anderson.

I'm speaking on all five items.

I represent Seattle Construction Billing Trades, 15,000 hardworking men and women here.

I just want to be clear that the reason we're here is because we don't believe that this is just some either or choice.

We know that housing was in the original deal.

We know that the city's report said, and I quote, will not cause additional adverse aspects on nearby industrial activities.

That's a fact.

And the only reason it's not in there is because politically it got taken out.

So that's why we're here today to say, listen, we've got a good opportunity, we've got private investment.

We always talk about this stool we need.

We need the community, we need the workers, and we need private investment.

So all that comes together here, and what do we do?

We make a political deal to take it out, and then we're going to turn around and put the rest of the tax burden on everybody else in the city to build affordable housing.

That is a recipe for disaster.

And like I said, I get it.

We do a lot of political deals ourselves.

But this one here was done without taking in all the facts.

Having private investment for these maker zones is really important.

Having affordable housing for people is really important.

have an industrial zone is really important.

They're not all mutually exclusive.

And the fact that everybody's just here reading their pre-read stuff that they were told to read, I think shows you that everybody is stuck in their corners and not listening.

And that's why I liked it that we're here in front of the Seattle Council.

The Seattle Council here is pragmatic and understands that community is talking about this, not just big business, and we're going to make the right decisions based on the facts.

And I know that city councilor all has the same facts I have, that there's a report that says this does not affect the, excuse me, the trucks downtown.

So I'm hoping that we can all be pragmatic and do something for the community and the workers in this community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Monty.

Up next is Terri Mass, followed by Billy Hetherington and then Doug Osterman.

Terri, welcome.

Thank you.

Chairman Strauss, committee members, good afternoon, and thank you for allowing public comment today.

I'm Terri Mass, the National Secretary-Treasurer of the Inland Boatmen's Union, the Marine Division of the ILWU.

We represent over 2,000 mariners who work in the Puget Sound area.

We work on tugboats, ferries, and marine construction and related industry.

I served on the committee, on the working committee of the city's industrial land strategy process through the last three mayors.

I'm before you today to ask for your support of our final package.

All the stakeholders were involved in this process, and we worked hard over many years to put this together.

We identified our industrial areas, we prioritized our goals, we debated, we collaborated, and in the end, We came together with a consensus to present the package we did to you.

And we did consider housing and we mapped out areas where we thought housing was appropriate.

Seattle is a maritime city.

Seattle is a port city.

Maritime is essential to the economy and health of our city and state.

We are a trade dependent state.

Maritime is one of the top industry in our state, yet sometimes our members feel as if they're the invisible workers.

While working on the water or at the water's edge, many people don't realize or know what the work is that we do.

Our jobs entail moving cargo.

We recently, through the supply chain crisis, brought the attention to the public of what the work is that we do.

When people couldn't get what they needed at their grocery store, That was because of the supply chain.

We move goods and we want everyone to have what they need at the supermarket and everywhere else.

We understand that.

We are the essential workers working nonstop through the pandemic, risking our own health to provide transportation services and move goods.

Our industry is growing.

Thank you, Terry.

We're going to do these up next is Billy Hetherington followed by Doug Osterman and then Olga Sagan.

Billy.

Thank you, Jerry and members of the committee.

Good afternoon.

My name is Billy Heatherington.

I'm a proud 23 member, 23 year member of labor's local two 42. And I want to speak to all five items today.

Excuse me.

My voice is a little hoarse, but I'm here today to ask you to go back to the preferred alternative from the EIS for this industrial lands and maritime strategy to include the package of amendment and amendment to support the development of the maker's district in the state of Mary, which would include workforce housing.

We can work together to protect and maintain our regions, traditional and important industrial maritime, job based and also create a vibrant light industrial makers district in the stadium area that was built with a project labor agreement.

We have a huge opportunity to grow both construction jobs and long-term makers jobs in this new area near the stadium district, as well as create apprenticeship opportunities and opportunities for new people to enter the construction industry, veterans, women, minorities to enter the construction industry.

I hear from my membership every single day that we need more housing options to live and also work live near where they work.

So please go back to the preferred alternative from the EIS and put housing back into the mixed for the full version can be realized.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Billy.

Up next is Doug Osterman followed by Olga and then Midge McCauley.

Doug, welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Members, for this opportunity to comment.

I'm supporting what I understand is the preferred alternative in the environmental document that would allow a certain amount of limited housing in the stadium area south of T-Mobile Park.

I am a resident of Pioneer Square, but you'd never know it.

I'm actually at the very southern tip of Pioneer Square.

What I think myself and other residents in the condominium in which I live feel we live more in the stadium district if there was such a thing.

and the industrial district, our neighbors, our nearest neighbors are the stadiums and the Port of Seattle and all the activity that happens at Terminal 42. So I'm here to tell you through the lens of somebody who has lived there now for over seven years that I don't find that I'm incompatible at all with the industrial area of Seattle.

In fact, I think I'm an asset and my neighbors are assets to the industrial area to the south of us.

And I would welcome more neighbors to the south of us.

I think it would make a tremendously dynamic neighborhood for Seattle to have more neighbors to the south.

where I live.

Yesterday, I took a walk around Soto, south of the stadium, and ended up purchasing quite a lot of goods from stores, went into a couple of bars and restaurants, came home with a bag of bagels from Blazing Bagels.

It's a wonderful neighborhood, and it would benefit greatly from more people living there.

So I encourage you to really look hard at adding residential to this area.

And it's not really the what, it's how you do it.

I think it can be a really dynamic place if the right plan, the right provisions are provided.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doug.

Up next, Olga, may I be the first to welcome you to the Seattle City Council?

Following Olga is Midge and then Matt Ventoza.

Well, at your convenience, Olga.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for welcoming me.

Good to see you.

My name is Olga Sagan.

I'm the owner of Piroshki Piroshki Bakery.

I'm a resident of downtown Seattle and I'm a candidate for city council.

Generally, I love mayor's proposal.

I do have some issues with council proposal 120582. because we really need to be slow changing things in the city.

We currently have 33,000 empty apartments in Seattle.

We have 37 empty apartments in the pipeline in Seattle.

When the permitting process as a business owner is incredibly hard right now.

For me to get a permit to open anything, it will be six months to a year.

So there is no, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel with permitting processes right now in the city.

Our school enrollment is down 7%, which means if we put more schools in, how are we gonna deal with that?

Is enrollment down 7%?

So I feel like we need to slow down, and before we change everything, we really need to consider everything and balance things, because it's hard to get things back, and we do need industrial areas in our Seattle, because as a business owner, I am near that area with my commissary kitchen, and I could not afford to be anywhere else, but I still wanted my taxes to stay in the city.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Up next is Midge McCauley, followed by Matt Ventosa, and then Dan McKisson.

And you can turn my mic down, but just make sure you have your mic close to your face and speak to all five items.

Hi, I'm Midge McCauley, and I'm here with two hats on.

I am a consultant in the real estate industry and specializing in retail.

And I also am a resident of Pioneer Square and overlook Pier 46, which has gone through a variety of changes since I've lived here.

I have my practice is national and I visit and I work in many cities across this country.

And many of them are older cities that have active ports.

and also have had inactive uses around these ports and a lot of them have done, you know, mixed-use projects with residential, with the office, with light industrial uses and they're all compatible and have been very successful renovations to these areas.

As the times change, you know, the uses change and I think we need to have the flexibility to be able to add residential where it makes sense, especially in the stadium district as it's adjacent to a neighborhood, our neighborhood of Pioneer Square, which is underserved when it comes to residential population.

So I would ask that you seriously consider the alternative proposal for having a variety of uses and still continue the port and have it be successful for the many workers that work there now and could work there in the future.

I think it's all compatible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Midge.

Up next is Matt Ventoza followed by Dan McKissin and then Lisa Howard.

Well, thank you, Chair Strauss and council members.

My name is Matt Ventoza.

I'm the vice president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 19 in Seattle.

I've been working as a longshoreman for 45 years, and I've seen this waterfront change drastically over those four decades, some for the good, some for worse, but I'm not here to give you my history.

I'm here to share with you how important a viable working waterfront is to our communities.

Working waterfront creates living wage jobs that last a lifetime.

not a flash in the pan.

These jobs support families just like yours and allow us to enjoy the benefits of spending time with our families.

These jobs support not only the local agricultural community, but the local businesses that both import and export goods that reach the globe.

Industrial lands have been the staple of the Seattle waterfront long before any of us were ever born.

We only need to look at the history of Seattle's waterfront to prove that.

In closing, I ask you to unanimously vote the mayor's industrial land zoning package without amendments to the Soto area that would adversely affect and impact Seattle's working waterfront.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

We'll do up next is Dan McKisson followed by Lisa Howard and then Wendy pop key.

Welcome, Dan.

Thank you chair Strauss and council members.

I'm Dan McKisson, I'm with the International Longshore Warehouse Union local 19 and president of the Washington Area District Council.

I have a high school education, I owe everything that I have right now to my job at the port, and the union that supports me.

As President of the Washington Area District Council, I represent 11 other ports in the state members that work there.

And this is not a new issue.

Every port's dealing with this issue of industrial lands and, you know, people trying to take those industrial lands for other uses.

Unfortunately, we keep coming back to this in this area.

Let's talk about this corridor that we're trying to preserve for industrial uses.

SR 519 is known Atlantic Avenue, or better known as Edgar Martinez Way.

That's 50% of the project that was originally planned, which was thwarted by a hotel being built on Royal Braum.

You're supposed to have three, several lanes to I-90, I-5 one way, several the other way.

So it's 50% of the project that was originally done.

First Avenue South, that is a, heavy haul corridor at th you're looking at putting a lot of people down ther trucks that are trying to back and forth to get the ports.

And you're gonna corridor that's gonna com south and make a left on recipe for disaster.

But We had an incident in front of our hall last week.

Truck hit a bicyclist.

No one wants to see that.

There's no dedicated bicycle lanes down there.

This area needs improvements right as it is before you even consider housing.

We're not really for hotels, but this is a concession.

We'll work with dealing with hotels and possibly mitigating those issues.

So please don't,

Thank you.

Up next, we're gonna...

Thank you, friends.

We're gonna pretend we're in the jazz hall, jazz hands.

Up next is Lisa Howard followed by Wendy Popke and then Robbie Robinson.

Lisa, great to see you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Lisa Howard, I'm going to be speaking on all five items today.

I'm here on behalf of the Alliance for Pioneer Square, a nonprofit organization working for the betterment of the historic district to express my strong support for the inclusion of housing in the stadium area as well as an allowed land use in keeping with the preferred alternative of the environmental documents.

Pioneer Square is directly to the north of the proposed change and will be directly impacted by the future of this area.

As our city continues to grow and evolve, it is crucial that we take a comprehensive approach to our land use policies that address the needs of all members of our community, including those that are struggling to find housing.

We know there are concerns about the potential impact of housing within the stadium area.

Many of the fears that we have heard today have happened decades ago.

We know that you're going to be taking up a topic that's very controversial, and a lot of people have a lot of interest in what happens here, and we thank you for your work within this.

But given the changes that have happened over the last couple of decades in the current reality of the stadium area, We urge you to, again, consider a proposal for an addition of the housing in the area with the environmental documents guiding.

And we are committed to working together to create a more equitable and sustainable future for our city.

Please adopt a proposed amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

Up next is Wendy Popkey, followed by Robbie Robinson, and then Joe Wall.

Welcome, Wendy.

Hi, my name's Wendy Nelson-Popke, and I'm here on behalf of our family-owned Nelson Motors property.

We, along with our neighbors, are located in the triangular block north of Leary Way between 17th Avenue Northwest and Northwest Dock Place.

We're just down the street from the old Ballard Food Bank.

My grandfather started Nelson Motors in 1922, and this property was the original site of Nelson Chevrolet.

The Nelsons have a long history in Ballard with three generations born and raised here.

In fact, this year we received from the state of Washington, the designation of a century corporation, meaning that Nelson Motors has been incorporated for 100 years.

And all of that time we have had a business, owned real estate and paid taxes in Ballard.

Our block is not within the BIMNIC.

However, it is located in the Ballard Hub urban village and is within a 15 minute walk of the future Ballard light rail.

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

As Ballard continues to grow, the neighborhood housing should be focused in the hub urban village.

Given that our block is located inside the hub urban village, and we are separated from the traditional maritime and industrial areas to the south below Leary Way, we are respectfully requesting the council rezone our block to neighborhood commercial three with a 75 foot height limit.

Under the new NC3 zoning, a mixed use project could potentially provide up to 225 new apartments and over 3.5 million in MHA fees to support affordable housing in Ballard.

While we do not have any development plans, we think the zoning better positions the block for the city's long-term goals.

We ask that the council adopt our amendment to rezone the block to NC3 with 75 foot height limit.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for your commitment to Ballard.

Up next is Robbie Robinson, followed by Joe Wall, and then Alex Zimmerman.

Welcome, Robbie.

Thank you, Chairman Strauss.

I'm here to speak on all five proposals.

My name is Robbie Robinson.

I'm the business agent for the Inland Boatmen's Union, Puget Sound Region, Freight, Towing, and Environmental.

I'm here to speak out for the preservation of industrial lands.

One in four jobs in Washington are related to maritime industries.

There are thousands of workers in Washington State whose jobs depend on industrial land to maintain their livelihood.

We need to protect and preserve industrial lands to keep Seattle as a major international port.

Once we lose industrial land, it is gone forever.

Losing industrial land means losing easy access to our port.

Access between the freeways and the port is difficult now.

Losing industrial lands will only make it worse.

I ask that you keep industrial land zoned industrial, preserve our strong ties with international trade.

Let's keep industrial lands industrial and keep Seattle as a major international seaport.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robbie.

Up next is Joe Wall followed by Alexis Zimmerman, if Alex is still in the building.

Steve, you've already spoken.

And then, so we're gonna go with Dan Fiorito after that.

Joe, welcome.

Good to see you.

Thank you, Dan.

Thank you, council members for being here and being the in-person presence.

I appreciate that.

I am in total agreement with the position of my ILWU brothers and sisters who are concerned about all five proposals and with the preservation of industrial land.

Somebody said invest in land, they're not making any more of it.

Well, that's certainly true for industrial land because it's constantly under pressure to shrink because particularly with marine, it's got a water view.

So In my prior career in ship repair, you see the constant pressure on small scale suppliers and shops that do the work we need to keep ships afloat.

And Seattle has been, the industrial area has been pushed to the edge.

I feel for landowners in the city that have had a hard time with respect to residential development that's been a large focus of the city for many years.

And I understand the mayor and the council is interested in converting some of the excess high-rise space to residential.

And we are also faced with the state's decision to upzone all of our neighborhoods.

And I think that provides quite a robust platform to expand housing in the city without encroaching on the industrial lands.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joe.

Up next is Alex Zimmerman.

Alex Zimmerman.

Alex Zimmerman.

Thank you, Alex.

Up next is Dan Fiorito, followed by Gabriel Paul, Kathleen Johnson, Ryan Luby, and then Clerk, if you could bring up the updated list.

If you want to speak and have not signed up, please come up and sign up now.

Welcome, Dan.

Good to see you.

Good afternoon, council members.

Thanks for allowing us to speak today.

My name is Dan Fiorito, and I'm here to speak on all five items.

I'm here on behalf of my family, who owns two acres on the absolute northeast edge of the Bid Mic near the Leary Triangle in Ballard.

We've owned the property for nearly 100 years.

For the first half century, it served as the headquarters for Inferior Company, which was a heavy paving contracting company, which built many parts of I-5 throughout the state of Washington.

For the last 40 years, the property served primarily as a mini storage and housing some small commercial tenants.

I'm here today to ask the council to consider a proposal I've submitted for review to rezone the two acre site to NC 355. What the council needs to understand about this particular area of Ballard is that if you walk out the north door of our property, you walk into a residential neighborhood.

You walk into breweries.

If you walk to the east across 8th Avenue, you walk into single family housing.

We are right dead smack in the middle of a housing situation.

Now I know the proposal calls for workforce housing, and I think that's spectacular, and we totally support that.

The issue is at 50 units per acre, there will be no housing development.

That is insufficient to build, that's insufficient to gain capital, and for landowners like us that need that support, we won't have any relief until that's reconsidered.

Now, this particular area is supported by Fremont Dock Company, who has industrial holdings to the south, increasing their height limits so they could do not residential, but more industrial land as part of my proposal.

More industrial development for them, some housing in an area that makes total sense, so that we can have workforce housing in an area where industrial workers actually work.

So in support of this proposal I'd ask that they consider NC3 and the alternative increase the density limits allowed under the current legislation so that we can

Thank you, Dan, and thank you for your commitment to Ballard.

Gabe, let me turn this down.

It seems like this mic might be having problems, so just make sure you're speaking close to it.

Gabriel, welcome, followed by Kathleen, and then Ryan.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, committee members.

My name is Gabriel Pearl.

I'm vice president of ILW Local 52, and I'm here to speak in favor of industrial land without the amendment.

You know, when I drove down here, I saw all the poverty, all the homelessness, and that kind of hit me, because it reminded me that I came from poverty.

And when I came and I worked on this waterfront, I was able to work and get my family out of poverty.

I got to send my kids to college.

They got degrees.

And it shows that it don't only impact me, but it impact everyone that comes behind me.

It is important that we preserve that type of industry so we can have workers that have a long-term job.

And that's what the Waterfront provides for people like me and my brothers and sisters here in the room, that we have a long-term job that's gonna last a long time, it's gonna be better for the economy, and it's gonna solve some of the poverty that we experience and we're living through the day and night every day.

So I want to urge that This council supports the importance of what industrial land means to workers, and not temporary workers, but long-term workers, jobs that you can retire.

I've been working for 29 years, same place.

Same place, this is the type of job that this provide.

So I'm not gonna take up all the space today, but I wanna say that I'm proud to be who I am, and I'm proud of the job that I do, and I wanna do everything to preserve that industry because it does take people out of poverty for good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll give you that one.

Up next is Kathleen Johnson followed by Ryan Luby and then John Chaney.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, members of the committee.

I'm Kathleen Barry Johnson, a resident of District 4 and executive director of Historic South Downtown, which is a state agency that exists to help elevate the concerns of Chinatown International District and Pioneer Square in connection with major publicly funded projects and land use decisions.

I'm here to address all five.

I'm here to express my strong support for the inclusion of housing in the stadium area as an allowed land use which is reflected as the preferred alternative which as we know from Mayor Rora's recollection of his years of service has taken years to develop.

As our city continues to grow and evolve it's crucial we take a comprehensive approach to our land use policies that address the needs of all members of our community, including those who are struggling to find affordable housing.

By allowing for the construction of housing within the stadium area, we are supporting the foundation of building healthy communities.

We can help to create more opportunities for people to live near their places of work, reducing commute times, and improving overall quality of life.

This is particularly important for those who work in our city's thriving manufacturing and industrial sector, an area with limited housing options.

A mixed-use neighborhood is efficient and vibrant and contributes to the vital urban fabric.

We know there are concerns about the potential impact of housing on the industrial lands and agree that care must be taken in planning so that we can balance the needs of both housing and industry in these areas.

With care and consideration, we can create a win-win situation for everyone involved.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kathleen.

Up next is Ryan Luby followed by John Chaney and then Pedro Espinoza.

Thank you, council members.

I am Ryan Luby, Local 19. I'm in support of the mayor's proposition and on all five.

Mayor Jay Inslee.

signed in that one single-family home can now be six residents with two low-income housing.

To the south of Michigan Street Bridge are hundreds of single-family homes that need to be repaired and have schools, have stores, have a community already in place.

Up Dell Ridge has many single family homes that need to be repaired or torn down and put six residents with two low income housing.

We already have in place a plan to put residents near downtown Seattle.

Industrial districts are industrial districts for a reason.

25% of the capacity of our ports is today.

What happens when it's 75% capacity?

What happens when it's 120% capacity?

The more people you put in downtown Seattle and the surrounding communities adds to the consumption of all goods in Washington State.

Right now, we are getting most of our stuff in by train.

from the East Coast, you have to question why that is the case and why we are only at 25% capacity and know that we are strong and we will continue to be the Port of Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan.

Up next is John Chaney, followed by Pedro Espinoza, Sarah Scheer, Paul Pemberton, Waylon Roberts.

I see a number of people signed up online that I'm seeing you might, I see Vince, you're signed up online, but I'm just gonna call you up since you're here in person.

If there are others that have signed up online, just once we get to Vince, raise your hand.

Next is John.

Welcome.

My name is John Chaney.

I'm the vice president of the Lake Union Liveaboard Association, which covers housing all over Seattle.

It's kind of the problem that I see here.

I'm an invisible person.

I'm an invisible person to your policies related to housing in this city.

I am an invisible person when you talk about people like me who live on the water.

We don't live over it in apartments or condos.

We live on the water.

And the consideration for us as residents and stakeholders is very low.

You have a policy proposal in this which says no residential.

Well, what about us?

Just like industrial uses, my residence needs water.

So why not really include us?

We were not included in the outreach and discussion of this whole thing.

I don't see us included in the environmental impact statement.

I think this is a huge loss to the city.

I and my neighbors are thousands, thousands of residents in this city, which have no recognition of our residential stake in this city.

And I didn't particularly get much notice from my landlord, which is the Port of Seattle, if they're still here.

So we need to be seen.

We need to be heard.

We need to be considered.

And in this case, the policy proposals, the anti-residential policy proposals are detrimental to us as long-term historic residents on the water in the city of Seattle.

So I urge you, urge you to not adopt these policies until you have taken us into consideration.

We don't mind living with industrial uses.

We lived with them forever.

We're just fine.

So please see us.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Up next is Pedro Espinosa, followed by Sarah Shearer, then Paul Hemberton.

Pedro, good to see you.

Thank you, Chair and Councilmember.

Pedro Espinosa here with the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters.

I'm speaking on behalf to add the amendment of residential living in the industrial area.

As my counterpart over here, Monty, had alluded that there was a report that was proposed in there that says it doesn't impact and warning advisely impact the industrial partners.

And as I've been here listening to everybody here speaking about livable wages, union members, I'm all that in one, okay?

We're not here to say that we're taking away other people's livelihood.

What we're doing here is providing a livable space for more workers to live in the Seattle area.

I guarantee if you ask these folks here how long they drive to get to their jobs, it takes a long time.

But given the opportunity, if these residences are open for them to live nearby, their jobs, I'm pretty sure they'll be happy, just like some of our members would be.

We also have members that work in the port.

We have members that work everywhere.

We're not here to take away jobs.

What we're here is to provide an opportunity for people to live near the city.

And when it comes to people living in the city, we're not gonna stop people moving to Seattle.

It's a growing city.

It's becoming a very popular city.

So if we start surrounding the wagons around certain areas that we can't do this and we can't build that, I think we are pretty smart in here that we can all come to a consensus and not be arguing and fighting.

When it comes to worker housing, affordable housing, that's what we need.

We're not here to take away anybody's ability to live, but we're here to open more opportunities because then more people will be able to live near the city work in the city, make livable wages, and have an opportunity not to be traveling in a car because now we're facing with more traffic coming in if you're providing people that live outside of the city areas.

If you ask most of these folks here, they live farther than where they can they work at.

You want to talk about family time?

Bring it closer to them so they won't be out there driving and I propose that you put the amendment back in or not take it out and actually look at it and concise and come to

Thank you, Pedro.

Up next is Sarah Shearer followed by Paul Pemberton and then Waylon Robert.

Sarah, great to see you.

Good to see you.

My name is Sarah Shearer with the Transportation Institute, representing the U.S. flagged merchant shipping fleet.

I've been in the maritime industry for 30 plus years.

I was formerly the Maritime and Manufacturing Advocate for the City of Seattle's Office of Economic Development during the Durkin administration.

I worked with the team and helped with, from SDOT, DON, OPCD, to engage industrial businesses and the community for many months.

We came to a consensus.

We had very specific recommendations that everyone agreed to, including the developers.

My comments are in support of passing the industrial land zoning package with no amendments in the Soto area.

Seattle needs more middle class jobs that enable people to thrive without an advanced degree.

Societies with strong middle class experience, higher levels of social trust, but also better educational outcomes, lower crime incidents, better health outcomes, and higher life satisfaction.

With only 55% of the Seattle public school graduates earning a post-secondary credential within eight years of high school graduation, and persistent achievement gaps by race and ethnicity, Many of our young people are at risk of being left further behind.

This growing economic inequity is unacceptable condition at odds with our city's vision for inclusive economy.

You know just as well as I do that if we lose industrial lands, we will never get them back.

If you want to continue to slowly kill the middle class in Seattle, take away more industrial lands.

There are plenty of places that are already zoned residential.

We all agreed in the process, be smarter with the lands that we already have zoned that way.

Don't steal jobs away from the current dwindling middle-class and future careers with low barriers to entry.

The protection of the maritime and manufacturing industry centers are essential to our day-to-day livelihood of our city and are critical to living wage careers.

Adding housing beyond what was originally agreed will adversely impact Seattle's middle class, Seattle's working waterfront, and the manufacturing industrial areas.

Please unanimously pass the mayor's industrial lands zoning package to the full council without amendments to the Soto area.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And my apologies, we did not start the timer on time.

So I guess Mayor Royer got an exception and Sarah, as the former president or dean of the Seattle Maritime Academy and Ballard also got one, but so now we're kind of evened out there.

Apologies there.

We'll make sure that the timer is started on time next time.

Up next is Paul Pemberington followed by Waylon Robert and then Vince O'Halloran.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen and lawn chair workers.

And members of the council who happen to be available.

Uh, I want to assure you that I am soundly in Favor of progress in zoning.

We continue to change zoning We've changed zoning radically in this city through state initiatives to allow the um building of multiplexes in almost every neighborhood.

My neighborhood is one of them.

I live in central Seattle.

The change that I've witnessed in my neighborhood has been stupendous.

It's gentrification on steroids.

So we have the ability to provide for housing.

And for the next 20 years, if we use it expeditiously, we do not need to impact the Soto area and the industrial lands.

At this point, we've got a potential for having a great were use in the city and the industrial lands are the ones that support it and the most obvious way and we need to keep those industrial lands and allow that the people who live there aren't threatened by the cost that may be rise but additional.

residences in that area.

Also, industrial lands are designed to not be a pleasant place to live around.

So let us keep that partition the way it is in the city.

Let's keep going and the pattern that we've all agreed to over a period of 20 years, the period that pattern I've witnessed in my, basically, since 1978 on the waterfront and then Central Seattle.

Thank you, Paul.

Up next is Waylon Robert and then Vince O'Halloran.

And then if you signed up online and have come in person, just come on up after Vince.

Waylon, welcome.

Thank you so much, Paul.

Waylon Robert here, Sailors Union in the Pacific.

We've been around here since 1885. We represent many of the U.S. flag ships, including our military contract ships.

I had 10 shots in my arm last week to work on these.

These are the first line of defense for our nation's international security.

In this time of uncertain global security, it is critical that our freight corridors and maritime industrial lands stay how they are.

We represent nearly 30% of the city's tax base, which is critical for funding affordable housing development.

I've lived in Ballard my entire life and have seen many of my neighbors displaced by the rising costs.

We understand that we need to build more affordable housing.

And many of our neighbors, like I saw Joe over there, he lives a couple blocks from me, We understand that we need to build more affordable housing, but we cannot risk our very jobs that allow us to pay our property taxes, which we are getting squeezed on every year.

So please keep the mayor's proposal how it is, and we at the Sailors Union of the Pacific are opposed to this housing amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Waylon.

Up next is Vince O'Halloran.

And then again, if you are in person, but signed up online and do you like to come up, just come up to the mic after Vince.

Welcome Vince.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss, fellow council members.

My name is Vince O'Halloran.

I'm currently vice president of the Puget Sound Ports Council, Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO.

We fully support the mayor's Maritime and Industrial Lands package.

We are not in support of the amendments.

We are adamantly opposed to housing in the industrial area.

In 1969, I sailed into the Puget Sound and talked here on on the SS Mariposa Massen ship.

On my way here today, there's the Massen ship Montelani docked right down there at terminal 46. That has always provided great jobs for our members and people of Seattle.

You've heard most all of the good arguments for and against.

I would just like to say in the, you know, it was just 10 to 14 months ago where we had no room at all up and down the coast for containers.

There was just none.

And that's been alleviated a little, but there's still a tremendous amount of need for industrial lands.

and Seattle is a great place for them.

In the words of Mark Twain, the rumors of the port of Seattle's demise are greatly exaggerated and that's testified by all of us here today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vince.

We are now going to move over to the hybrid public comment.

If you are in person and would like to speak, you have the opportunity to sign up until we are complete.

Mr. G, I'm gonna walk through who has already spoken, who's on the online comment.

So Pedro Espinosa has spoken.

Waylon Robert has spoken.

Sarah Shearer has spoken.

Vince O'Halloran has spoken.

And I'm now going to call the folks who are not present online so that you have time to call in.

Although Andrea, is that, is Andrea in the room?

Not seeing Andrea, so Andrea Porter, you are not present.

Josh Friedman, you are not present.

Patience Malaba, you are not present.

Jill Ng, you are not present.

And Mark Simpson, please call in to the phone number provided in the RSVP.

Not the public listen line.

Once you RSVP'd or once you've registered for this public comment, you will receive an email.

Please check your spam folders.

It is different than the public listen line.

With that, we have about 25 speakers, so this will take about another hour, if everyone uses their two minutes, just warning you there.

We are gonna hear from Stefan Moritz, Peter Schrappen, Peter Nitze, Aditi Master, Yumiko Demisic, and Andrea Sato first.

With no further ado, Stefan, I see that you are off mute.

Please take it away at your convenience.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss, members of the committee.

I'm Stefan Moritz with Unite Your Local Aid, the Hospitality Workers Union in Seattle.

Unite Your Local Aid is pleased to announce that we have entered into a partnership with the Soto Arena Investment Group regarding the development of new hotels in the Stadium Overlay District.

We also have a formal agreement with the Seattle Mariners on that issue.

The reason that those agreements are so highly significant is because the proposal you're considering today also vastly expands the use of hotels in the stadium district with absolutely no provisions for accountability on those projects, labor issues, labor standards, and so forth.

So that is an important point, I think, for you to consider.

We believe that these partnerships will create a path to living wage jobs that will lift hospitality workers out of poverty through good paying jobs and strong workplace protection.

We strongly support the redevelopment of the area immediately south of T-Mobile Park into a stadium maker's district that includes an appropriate level of housing, included much needed workforce housing.

We intend to continue building support for this approach and are open to discuss this with you further, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Stephan.

Up next is Peter Schrappen, followed by Peter Nitze and Aditi Master.

Welcome, Peter.

Committee Chair Strauss and Council Members, my name is Peter Schrappen, Vice President for the Pacific Region of the American Waterways Operators, which is the U.S. flag tugboat, towboat, and barge industries trade association.

I live in Wallingford and my comments are in support of passing the industrial land zoning package with no amendments in the Soto area.

I'm speaking to all five.

Just as you've heard from Dan, Sarah, Vince, Terry, and the majority of others today, we urge you to adopt the package without amendments.

Seattle's maritime industry is the linchpin of the Emerald City.

As we like to say, behind every vessel is a working waterfront that keeps them afloat.

The protection of the historic manufacturing and industrial centers are essential to the day-to-day livability of our city and are critical to living wage careers.

The important part to note is that once industrial lands are rezone they're gone forever.

In our case that it's close to home because my members rely on the maritime ecosystem that exist to put bread on their tables.

I'm pleased to report this package includes a compromise the addition of the allowance for lodging and diversified commercial activity in the area that will help address concerns a lack of activation and public safety.

However we cannot support residential housing significantly impact our ability to business and a pair critical freight routes that serve the entire region.

Please consider housing densification in the urban villages that are primed for growth with amenities like schools and grocery stores.

And don't further deteriorate Seattle's living wage job base here.

Please unanimously pass the Mayor's Industrial Land Zoning Package to the full council without amendments to the Soto area that will adversely impact the Seattle working waterfront.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Peter.

Up next is Peter Nitze, followed by Aditi Master and then Yumiko Domicic.

Peter, welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you Chairman Strauss and the other members of the committee.

I'm Peter Nitze.

I'm a principal at Nitze Stagen & Company.

We are among the owners of the Starbucks Center, Home Depot, Momentum Climbing and other properties in the SOTO area.

I'd also like to extend my thanks to the members of OPCD with whom we've been working and other council members, particularly Council Member Herbold.

Together with a number of the other SOTO stakeholders you've heard from today, I support the three proposed new zoning concepts that were submitted by the mayor.

And that includes the MML zoning for the protection of sustainable, excuse me, sustainable manufacturing and maritime businesses in the areas in where they thrive.

Folks have talked about the fear of losing any industrial land, but frankly, those lands have already been lost to the digital industry already.

And unfortunately, they sit there languishing and underused.

In particular, I would applaud OPCD and the mayor for introducing the new industry and innovation zone.

By updating and broadening the definition of what constitutes industrial to capture how industrial that concept has evolved, both in manufacturing technology, research and development, prototyping, and other ways, and by providing for more balanced mix of uses and the opportunity to create greater employment density, I believe the new zoning will attract greater investment in areas that have languished, as I mentioned, suffering from continuing environmental hazards, decaying infrastructure, and declining employment.

The new II zoning industry and innovation is specifically designed to promote economic activity around new light rail stations and along major commercial quarters.

And the proposed application of that zone in Soto around the new station is a very important first step in that direction.

But I believe there's an opportunity to have an even greater impact by expanding the new zone.

Frankly, at present is very limited, even within the half mile radius around the the area, as proposed in Councilmember Herbold's amendment.

So, I strongly support that amendment, expanding I.I.

as far as it can, and promoting the...

Thank you, Peter.

At this time, Aditi Master and Yumiko Domasek are not present.

Andrea Porter is not present.

Josh Friedman, Elizabeth Lopez, Patience Malava, and Joel Ng are not present.

Please call in now.

Up next is Andrea Sato, followed by Jordan Royer and Nicole Grant.

Andrea, welcome.

Thank you chair Strauss good afternoon committee members, my name is Andrea Sato I'm a member of the board of directors of the baseball stadium public facilities district or pfd.

The pfd his mission is to maintain and enhance our iconic baseball park, including an economically successful safe desirable innovative and walkable stadium neighborhood.

In service of this mission, the PFD believes in the importance of vital, active, and dynamic areas surrounding T-Mobile Park.

I'm addressing item one.

The PFD supports the maritime and industrial land zoning package.

At the same time, we believe that the package would be improved with the addition of housing as an allowable use in the stadium district as originally included in the EIS.

The areas surrounding the stadiums are underutilized and suffering from deteriorating conditions, There's an opportunity to enhance these areas into a vibrant community that provides a transition between the industrial zones and the neighborhoods of Pioneer Square and the CID without negatively impacting the important work of our maritime and industrial lands.

We see the opportunity to enhance the stadium district with mixed income housing, especially affordable workforce housing, lodging, and arts and makers district.

A maker's district, however, requires housing to make these maker spaces economically viable from a development cost perspective.

Mixed-use housing developments, especially affordable housing mixed-use developments, demonstrate how housing makes other community-based developments possible.

Adding housing in the stadium district is an important step in realizing a more dynamic and active stadium district.

Housing is what makes innovative ground floor maker spaces possible.

We understand that care and consideration must be taken to implement housing in the stadium district in a manner that does not harm our industrial and maritime businesses and support thoughtful implementation.

Thank you, Andrea.

Up next is Jordan Royer followed by Nicole Grant and then Chad C. Good afternoon, Jordan.

Star six at your convenience.

There you are.

Hi, this is Jordan Royer with the Pacific Bridge and Shipping Association, also with the Washington Maritime Federation.

I've been participating on this.

This is my third go-around on these processes around our industrial lands.

I'd just like to thank the mayor, his staff, also city council, council member Strauss.

Thank you for all of your efforts on this.

I'd just like to say I think this is a very good package and I hope it gets passed.

It's been a long time coming, and I think it's important to protect our industrial lands for all the reasons that people have given.

It's basically the basis of what formed Seattle in the first place, and I think we're on track to do that.

There's a lot of other things we need to do to make our port more competitive, and the container shipping lines that I represent and the marine terminal operators along the West Coast, we're all trying to do the same thing.

The entire West Coast ports are losing market share.

And so we're all trying to figure out how best we can both protect industrial lands and grow those jobs.

One of the things, and we deal with this up and down the coast, the Oakland A's tried to put a stadium on one of our terminals in Oakland.

That failed.

And so it's very important that we continue to operate these terminals and that we have the space to do so.

So I appreciate all the work that's been done on this and thank you very much.

Thank you, Jordan.

Always great to hear your voice.

Up next is Nicole Grant, then Chad See and Dennis Sills.

Nicole, welcome.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, council members.

This is Nicole Grant with IBEW 46, the electrician's union.

And I'm asking all council members and the mayor's office to support my union in our effort to build a creative modern maker's district with workforce housing.

We all know our city needs housing and we need to protect our artists and makers.

But did you know that IBEW 46 electricians need jobs today?

Right now 600 of our members are out of work and creative projects like a maker's district with real workplace standards can help.

I do not see real workplace workers' rights standards in the compromise package.

I don't see project labor agreement.

I don't see labor harmony agreement, not for construction, not for hotel.

I will say that I am proud to be part of a coalition that includes low-income housing developers, our social housing movement, and the communities that surround SOTA.

I co-chair the Industrial Lands Advisory Committee, and that's a committee that's been discussing the possibility of a maker's district for years.

And like other people have said, the city's study shows that it is feasible, if done correctly, to do it and protect industrial land.

It needs to be put back into the package.

So please make a new amendment to do so.

Thank you, Nicole.

Up next is Chad C., followed by Dennis Sills, Harold Hilseth.

David Pierre-Louis, Kirk Robbins, and Mark Simpson.

If you did not hear your name, you are not present.

I'm now, Chad, before I turn it over to you, I'm gonna call the names who are not present.

Those who are not present are Aditi Master, Yumiko Damasek, Josh Friedman, Elizabeth Lopez, Patience Malaba, and Joel Ng.

If you heard your name and are not present, or if your friend is not present, Can you call him?

Chad C. Thank you.

My name is Chad C. I am testifying as co-president of the Washington Maritime Federation and as executive director of the Friesland Online Coalition.

I also served on the Industrial Maritime Strategy Advisory Council as a representative of the commercial fishing industry in our city.

I regret I could not comment in person today, but I'm calling in from Fisherman's Terminal.

I wanted to express my strong support for Mayor Harrell's industrial land zoning package and ask that it be passed as presented to the committee.

This industrial land package presented by the mayor as the product of many years of hard conversations between industry stakeholders to ensure the protection and vibrancy of maritime industrial lands in our city is carefully considered to accommodate the diverse needs of our city while ensuring that we preserve our working waterfront and industrial land.

These are essential to the success of our city and the thousands of jobs and businesses they support.

Speaking to the fishing industry, Seattle is home to the North Pacific commercial fishing fleet and one of the highest concentrations of seafood operations in the US.

We are a dynamic industry made up of predominantly small businesses that has supported our city's maritime industrial ecosystem for over 100 years.

The maritime and industrial lands are essential to our work.

We should not erode the function of these lands and the ability of our commercial fishermen and other maritime businesses to do their work with the introduction of incompatible residential housing on our maritime industrial land.

To ensure a thriving maritime and industrial workforce in our city, the work to ensure a thriving maritime industrial workforce in our city is not done.

More work needs to be addressed to ensure free mobility to our maritime industrial land.

We must continue to balance the impact of growth, including housing, abutting our industrial properties on our maritime industrial businesses.

But passing this industrial lands package is essential to moving ahead.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Chad and personal point of personal privilege the last two colors and myself are all Whitman wildcats, let's go wildcats.

I want to note that there are people are having trouble calling in.

Mr. G, if you could just keep aware, folks are having trouble calling in.

If you are a caller, you will have received an RSVP with the phone number to call into.

Please check your spam folders.

And if you need to call my office, there are six people who are not present.

You can call my office.

Anthony will be ready to assist you.

That phone number is 206-684-8806, 684-8806, or you can check it out on the website.

With no further ado, I see Dennis Sills is ready to go, who will be followed by Harald, and then David, Kirk, Mark, and then Andrea.

Welcome, David.

Dennis, welcome, Dennis.

Thank you Chairman Strass and committee members for the opportunity to provide comment today.

I will speak to all five issues.

My name is Dennis Sills and I work at Plymouth Housing.

We provide permanent support housing to more than 1,200 chronically homeless adults in our city.

We are part of a spectrum of housing providers in our city and we recognize that increasing affordable housing stock reduces the likelihood of individuals entering homelessness.

Plymouth is a member of the Housing Development Consortium and we have been working with the city to enhance affordable housing opportunities through comprehensive planning updates.

We believe a compromise can be reached where housing opportunities can be developed and the working waterfront can continue to grow to meet our region's needs.

We are asking council members to restore housing in the stadium area in this agreement.

Housing is key to creating a healthy community by transforming the area into a true neighborhood with a 24 seven presence that effectively boost public safety.

Affordable housing is an important step forward to prevent homelessness and improve safety in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dennis.

Up next is Harald Hilseth, followed by David Perry-Lewis.

Harald, welcome.

I see you there.

Hi, folks, and good afternoon, Council.

My name is Farah Kilseth, and I'm the Policy and Advocacy Manager for Chief Seattle Club.

We are a social services and housing organization that serves our predominantly unhoused and chronically homeless urban Native members throughout the city.

I am here today on behalf of the club to speak in support of restoring housing in the stadium area in accordance with the city's preferred alternative in the SEIS, addressing all five proposal items The area adjacent to our public stadium facilities is currently zoned for commercial use, but do not allow for residential housing to be built.

We are in the midst of a regional housing crisis that greatly and disproportionately impacts our Alaska Native and American Indian community, and we are in dire need for any and all expanded development of affordable housing in Seattle.

Mixed-use development in the area, primarily south of T-Mobile Park, will not only allow the city to create a vibrant arts and makers district, but additionally offer the opportunity to build affordable and workforce housing for lower end AMI individuals, many of whom are members and staff of the Chief Seattle Club that reside in the county and city of Seattle.

We implore you to support building housing in the adjacent areas around our stadiums to help heal our unhoused Alaska Native and American Indian relatives.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Harold.

Up next is David, followed by Joel Ng, and then Kirk Robbins, Mark Simpson, Andrea Porter.

Welcome, David.

Star six at your convenience, David.

We can hear you.

Hi, my name is.

Oh, thank you.

Good afternoon.

Hi, my name is David Pierre-Louis.

I own Haiti Coffee Co.

Today I'm speaking on the ordinance relating to land use and zoning, updating industrial zones to implement the industrial and maritime strategy.

Haiti Coffee Co. has been in operation since 2015. We provide freshly roasted single source blended beans and cold brew coffee.

We source our quality coffee directly from Haitian farmers.

We roast and brew small batches locally in Seattle, Washington.

Our company creates jobs and opportunities that directly impact the city of Seattle.

Finding affordable space to locate our small maker business is critically important, and without it, we'll have to leave Seattle, and we are considering it.

The stadium district was our home for over five years before the pandemic forced us to make changes to the way we do business.

The stadium continues to be an area of interest as the city of Seattle is starting to pivot towards a healthy economic runway.

Our company believes it is an ideal location to create a community of maker businesses.

It's located next to Light Rail, Pioneer Square, Chinatown, and the stadiums that bring tens of thousands of people to the area.

Housing is necessary to create affordable maker space around the stadium, so we urgently support and we urge your support in this initiative.

We support housing around the stadiums next to South Downtown to create a stadium maker district.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, David.

Up next is Joel Ng followed by Kirk Robbins, Mark Simpson, then we're going to go to the top and work our way down again.

Andrea Porter, Josh Friedman.

Up next is Joel Ng, and I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Joel Ng.

I'm a board member of the Public Stadium District, which oversees the operations of the Women's Field Stadium.

I'm also principal at Edge Developers, a local affordable market rate housing and community developer here in Seattle.

I strongly urge you to support the inclusion of housing in the proposed stadium district.

This is a rare opportunity to address our affordable market rate housing crisis by expanding a maker's district in an area of our city that is perfectly suited to serve as a transitional zone between the Pioneer Square and the Chinatown International District to the north and east and the fully industrial areas to the south.

Additionally, a significant number of those owning and operating small businesses in Makers District will be BIPOC and BIPOC female.

Other benefits include increased foot traffic, opening up new businesses, improved street frontage, increased property values, and reduced crime.

The Pioneer Square and Chinatown International District strongly support the inclusion of housing in the stadium district, and their opinion should greatly matter as they have committed businesses and homes to their respective neighborhoods.

This is the same opportunity within the stadium district.

The time is now.

A SEPA process has just been completed and it's been concluded that there will not be any additional adverse impacts if housing is allowed in the stadium area.

None of the options being discussed regarding Terminal 46 are incompatible with our proposed, with a proposed maker's district south of the ballpark.

The Coast Guard welcomes housing in the vicinity.

Cruise ship passengers need a safe neighborhood to be in before boarding or after disembarking their boat.

Freight mobility will not be impeded for container cargo operations.

We should not let this opportunity be deferred any longer.

It's already been kept on hold for well over a decade.

We urge you to support our amendment to the mayor's proposal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Joel.

Up next is Kirk Robbins.

followed by Mark Simpson, Andrea Porter, Josh Friedman, Aditi, the following people are still not present, Aditi Master, Yumiko Damasek, Elizabeth Lopez.

Welcome, Kirk.

Kirk from Ballard.

Take it away.

Yes.

Hi, I'm Kirk from Ballard, specifically east of the proposed industrial innovation area.

We were never consulted about that.

We were rather surprised to find out about it just from watching a meeting of this committee.

We're particularly concerned because it's supposed to be justifiable based on a sound transit station on Ballard Avenue and Market Street.

The current locations were presented in opposition or as opposed by just about everybody in Ballard as you know, Mr. Chair.

It probably won't be built.

If it is built, it won't be for another 20 years.

Sound transit delays are becoming worse and they are cascading as they do their projects on the east side and then the south end and then Everett.

The delays are happening.

This particular station is not going to benefit the district that is supposed to happen here.

Apparently, nobody from this area or any of the residents around these industrial buffer areas has been consulted.

There's no rush about that one.

If that area is being the area that is like a block from me, is being rezoned simply as a bargaining chip for some negotiations that were held over seven years, was it, or four years, or 18 months, depending on who we were listening to.

There's clearly no rush about this.

It ought to be considered on its merit, and it ought to be timed to be concurrent with the infrastructure as the state law requires, and the infrastructure is like rail station, that's probably going to be built after we're dead.

So please reconsider that particular area north of Leary and east of 15th and just take it out of this consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kirk.

And Kirk, please do feel free to sign up for the office hours with me since you are a D6 resident.

Up next is Mark Simpson, followed by Andrea Porter and Josh Friedman.

Mark, welcome.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Oh, great.

Okay, I'm Mark Simpson with Bumgarner Architects.

And our firm has designed industrial uses and housing uses.

For example, we designed the facility for the Seidel family out on Harbor Island for Seattle Iron and Metals.

We also designed Fisherman's Terminal here in Ballard.

And in terms of housing, a project that we designed that is both housing and has commercial uses is the The QFC on 24th, there's about seven floors of housing over a 20-foot concrete podium that could have housed anything, any industrial use, it happens to be a QFC.

And while I'm here as a, also, I've lived in Ballard since 1975, and I'm here to really support what's being done to preserve our maritime waterways as industrial uses.

That's very important.

Equally as important is that we are gonna get light rail here.

And it's going to go in probably someplace around the Safeway up on Market and 24th.

And we're working with another third generation Ballard family, the Dimitri family that produced Dimitri sweaters until all those jobs left here.

And they've kept those buildings all this time.

And now they're parking lots largely and underutilized.

And we have an opportunity right now.

And I'm going to keep this short because I've also submitted a letter that talks better than I do.

about this but the point has been made by others very well in here that we need jobs and we need housing next to jobs that's affordable for those users.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Can you believe my neighbors were bag boys at the QFC before it was redeveloped?

Andrea Porter is up next, and Josh Friedman, final speakers who still are not present, welcome to submit written comment.

Aditi Master, Yumiko Domasek, Elizabeth Lopez.

Up next, Andrea Porter.

Take it away.

Hello, my name is Andrea Porter.

I'm here to speak on all five items.

I'm the program manager of Seattle Made, and I'm here to advocate for including a maker's district and affordable housing.

Seattle Made is a program of the nonprofit Seattle Good Business Network.

Seattle Made is a collaboration of over 750 urban manufacturer businesses, makers of everything from candles to chai, bicycles to beer and jewelry jam, all coming together to make it in Seattle.

The mission of Seattle Made is to grow and support a diverse ecosystem of urban manufacturers and producers that expand opportunities for local ownership and meaningful employment.

build our region's long-term resiliency, and celebrate Seattle's unique cultural identity.

Finding affordable space to live and work is critical to the fabric of our cities and these businesses.

We hear on a weekly basis of businesses leaving or considering leaving the city to locate their manufacturing businesses elsewhere.

Additionally, finding affordable housing is critical to ensuring these small business owners and their staff can live in the city.

With every business that moves out of Seattle, we lose some of our cultural identity and a piece of what makes Seattle so special.

Seattle's small scale urban manufacturers and producers not only embody our city's innovation and spirit, but also provide meaningful and living wage jobs to our residents.

The stadium area is an ideal location to create a community of maker businesses.

Housing is necessary to create affordable maker space around the stadiums, so we urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrea.

Up next, last speaker, Josh Friedman.

Welcome, Josh.

Hello, can you?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Wonderful.

Thanks.

My name is Josh Friedman, born, raised and currently residing in what's now known as the City Council Sixth District.

I'm here today representing the owners of property located at 2636 Northwest Market Street in Ballard and commenting today in strong support of the city's proposed rezone of the two blocks that are on the north side of Market Street between 30th and 26th Avenue Northwest from industrial buffer to neighborhood commercial.

This rezone includes the subject property that I'm here representing today.

We applaud the city for its years-long effort to take a thoughtful look at industrial zoning standards to make sure they reflect the city's needs and the needs of industrial uses for the coming decades.

This analysis carefully considered whether there are existing industrial properties like this one that are better suited for other uses.

We strongly support and agree the city's conclusion that these blocks should be zoned neighborhood commercial.

Not only are they located outside of the Ballard, Inner Bay Manufacturing and Industrial Center, but they're also directly adjacent to residential uses on three sides, including townhomes and apartments that already make industrial use impracticable.

The fourth side along Northwest Market Street provides an effective buffer from industrial uses and zoning across the street into the south.

We've long considered this site for potential redevelopment, but have been restricted by the current industrial zoning that does not reflect the surrounding context.

With new zoning, we're excited to take a fresh look at the site for a housing project that the city badly needs.

I encourage you to adopt the proposed zoning maps with this rezone as soon as possible, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Josh.

I'm going to do last call.

Mr. G, have you been able to connect with the DD Master Yumiko Domasek Elizabeth Lopez?

Patience Moava has let me know they are unable to stay with us.

We have no more information other than what you see on the screen.

Okay.

Anyone in the audience who has not spoken that wants to speak or anyone who has friends that are online that have not called in.

With that, I'm going to close this public hearing.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely or physically present, we will close the public hearing on council bills 120-567-568-569-570-571.

Thank you for attending this public hearing.

I will say after seven years of work of parties that typically have very oppositional stances We have been able to find compromise and agreement on almost everything.

I hear that there's one left remaining.

I know we'll work through it.

And I wanna thank everyone for, this is the largest group we've had in person since the pandemic started.

I just wanna thank everyone for showing up, being respectful, being civil.

And for everyone who showed up that does hard work for our city, making sure we have the strongest port in the nation, thank you.

Up next, we have Office of Planning and Community Development.

Council Member Nelson was previously excused at 4 p.m.

It is now 3.59.

We are at the end of our two-hour tour.

That said, Gilligan has gotten us lost again.

And we're gonna turn it over to Office of Planning and Community Development for equitable development zoning briefing.

We have had this program briefed before.

We will have you back, Nick and Katie.

I know that we have just over 15 slides, but let's just do a, let's breeze through the background, focus on these six changes.

You can stay pretty high level.

If we can get it done in 15 minutes, I will be forever grateful.

With that, I have to read your item into the record.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Our final item of the agenda today is a briefing discussion on Council Bill 120582, which will amend land use code to support equitable development initiative projects.

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

Item six, Council Bill 120582, equitable development zoning for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

Today, as I just mentioned, we have Nick Welch, Katie Hyma of the Office of Planning and Community Development on these land use code changes.

Nick, Katie, we've worked on several different issues together.

It's great to see you in person.

And take it away.

All right, thank you very much.

So we'll go through some background here of what we're trying to achieve with this EDZ effort, equitable development zoning.

We'll talk through the code changes in the proposed legislation and share some of what we've heard from stakeholders that has informed that.

So EDZ, excuse me, Equitable Development Initiative, or EDI, began several years ago with the main goal of addressing the financial barriers facing BIPOC-led anti-displacement projects.

And since then, more than 40 projects have been awarded funding for capacity building, site acquisition, and capital funding to bring their projects to fruition.

What we've seen is that these projects still run into many different regulatory and permitting barriers, even after the city funds them.

And so EDZ is intended to address those barriers and prioritize community development projects in how we choose to regulate land use and development.

Specifically, the issue that a lot of these projects face is that the city's land use code makes it hard for them to succeed in different ways.

One is that zoning itself limits the types of uses and the amount of development that are allowed, and that can mean that a site that a community organization has acquired just may not accommodate the vision that they have and the uses and activities that they want to provide.

EDI projects may also need a certain type of review or permit approval, like a conditional use or even a contract rezone, and those add costs.

They can delay the project.

They can introduce uncertainty about whether that project is actually viable at all.

And then navigating all of these challenges generally requires specialized expertise that small organizations may not have or may not be able to afford.

to hire professionals to provide.

So given all of that and the competitiveness of our real estate market, this means overall this system favors larger, more experienced developers and is harder for smaller BIPOC-led community organizations, many of whom are undertaking development for the first time.

So EDZ is trying to align our land use policy more closely with our equitable development goals, trying to remove barriers to EDI projects, so they can be more successful, increase resources and access for those organizations to be part of the development process, and over time shift our development policies to help those projects be more successful.

So we'll share just an overview of what we've worked on for the last couple years.

Working with several EDI stakeholders, we've identified some shorter term and longer term strategies The first one is really ongoing, and that's that the Department of Construction and Inspections, SDCI, currently has a permit advisor position that is helping EDI applicants navigate the permitting process.

We see an opportunity to grow that type of position to help more projects, to give them more support in the future.

As a near term action we have the proposed legislation that the Council is currently considering to remove barriers that edi projects are currently facing today and we'll walk through those changes in more detail.

And then longer term, we also see a need to provide greater flexibility in our zoning for equitable development projects.

And to do that we're exploring how we might define equitable development as a use in the land use code, and then establish alternative standards that would create more flexibility and more opportunities for those projects will be excited to continue working with the Council on that in the future.

So for now we'll turn to the legislation councils considering here.

Equitable development projects that there's a, the main problem statement here is that they often include uses that are permitted as institutions.

These can include things like community centers.

libraries, arts and cultural spaces, and other civic or community-oriented activities.

And in many zones, especially residential zones, institution uses are not allowed by right, or they have to go through a longer and more subjective permit review process.

And there are also limits on where those uses can be located that can make it harder for community organizations to find a suitable site and develop a feasible design.

The other challenge is that these projects often include or want to include community oriented uses that are just limited or prohibited outright in certain zones like small commercial spaces that could help those organizations be viable and meet their communities needs.

So our proposal here is to remove several regulatory barriers that EDI stakeholders have identified.

There are six main changes that are listed here.

We have one slide for each that will describe them.

But in summary, essentially the proposal would allow community centers and libraries outright in our neighborhood residential zones.

It would modify the amount of parking that we require for those uses.

It would define and provide standards for community farms as a new type of institution.

We would modify the definition of community club or center to better reflect what EDI projects are proposing these days.

We would allow community centers to have accessory commercial uses and for institutions in our low rise zones, we would apply setbacks that are more consistent with how we regulate other uses that are allowed outright, namely housing.

So we'll walk through each one.

The first here, allowing community centers and libraries outright in neighborhood residential zones.

These again are institution uses that are allowed currently only as conditional uses and so they have to get additional review, they have to be dispersed, or a certain distance from other institutions, and that can limit where sites with the sites that are viable.

And all of that adds time and cost and uncertainty for applicants, and so the proposal would allow community centers if they don't include shelters and libraries as uses that are permitted without a conditional use review any community center that does include a shelter would continue to be a conditional use.

This is helpful because it makes for a simpler and shorter and more predictable permitting process when an EDI project has activities that include this type of use and creates more sites where they would be allowed.

Other community centers that are not funded by EDI would also be able to take advantage of this.

Relatively few of those are actually permitted and they're all operated by nonprofits that generally support community needs.

Second is modifying the amount of parking that we require for these uses.

Our work with stakeholders suggests that in general, the requirements are excessive.

They go beyond what the actual need is for the activities that they have.

And as a result, they have to devote a lot of site area to parking.

And so that can preclude space that they would otherwise use for other community needs.

It can also prevent them from having outdoor activity spaces and increase impervious surfaces.

So the proposal would be to amend the parking standards as written here for community clubs and community centers.

We would require one space for every 80 square feet of floor area for auditoriums and public assembly rooms.

And we would no longer require additional parking for spaces that have fixed seats in the auditorium or assembly room.

And then we would require one space for every 350 square feet of other indoor areas.

So it's a little bit wonky, but it makes a slightly more right size requirement.

Similarly for libraries, one space for each 80 square feet of floor area for auditoriums and public meeting rooms that have fixed seats, and then one space for every 500 square feet of other floor area.

So with lower requirements, more of the finite site area that these organizations have at their disposal would be able to go towards community serving activities rather than parking.

Third, we would modify the definition of community club or Center, so this is a definition in the code for a type of institution use.

Again, many EDI funded projects get permitted with this type of use, because it is a broad flexible definition that works well, but it doesn't fully reflect the range of activities that EDI projects often include, so the definition would be amended to read.

that a community club or center means an institution used for athletic, social, civic, cultural, artistic, or recreational purposes, operated by a nonprofit organization, and open to the general public on an equal basis.

Activities in a community club or center may include, but are not limited to, classes and events sponsored by nonprofit organizations, community programs for the elderly, social gatherings, educational programming, gardens, and art exhibits.

So it broadens the language a little bit.

It makes it a little clearer and more predictable that EDI activities would fit under this definition.

Fourth is providing a new definition of community farm, a new type of institution.

The issue here that this addresses is that our codes currently have a few different definitions and terms related to farming and agriculture, urban agriculture, but none of them fully aligns with the types of community oriented urban agriculture projects that several EDI stakeholders are currently proposing.

So the definition would be for a term called community farm that would be allowed outright in neighborhood residential zones.

It's a little long, but I'll read it here for the Council.

A community farm means an institution operated by a nonprofit organization in which land and related structures are primarily used to grow or harvest plants for food, educational, cultural, or ecological restoration purposes.

or to keep animals in accordance with Section 2342052. Additional activities may include, but are not limited to, indoor and outdoor classes and events, food processing and preparation, community programs and gatherings, and the sale of plants, harvested or prepared food, ornamental crops, and animal products such as eggs or honey, but not including the slaughtering of animals or birds for meat.

So it's a lot, but it aligns with several current EDI projects that are trying to improve health and food access outcomes, but in many cases are struggling to find a site where they can make that work.

Fifth, we would allow community centers to include certain accessory commercial uses.

So several community organizations that we've heard from that are operating a community center as part of their project are not allowed to include commercial activity as part of their programming in mixed use zones of the city that type of use is allowed outright.

But in residential zones, the sites may be more affordable and attainable for these organizations and the zoning doesn't accommodate this type of commercial use.

So the proposal is to amend the definition of community center to include a sentence that would say community centers may include accessory commercial uses, including but not limited to commercial kitchens and food processing, craft work and maker spaces, cafes, galleries, co-working spaces, health clinics, office spaces, and retail sales of food and goods.

This is helpful because the flexibility to include these uses can help community organizations generate revenue that sustains their operation.

They may be able to meet community needs that benefit from this type of use.

But a key component here is the fact that these would be accessory commercial uses.

So first, community centers have to be run by nonprofits.

That already narrows how this would work.

And any accessory commercial use must be related to the principal use, which is the community center.

It has to be incidental to that main use, which is a term in the code that means it generally can't be the predominant or primary use.

It has to be probably smaller in terms of footprint.

Can't take up kind of a majority of the floor area.

So this would be a smaller thing that they could incorporate, but still a meaningful way for them to generate additional revenue.

They may want to have a small kitchen where they can sell food.

They may have a small retail frontage.

or a clinic that gives flu shots, other ways to meet community needs, all of which would still have to meet licensing and health code requirements that would apply to any commercial space.

The sixth and final one is shifting a little bit to our low-rise multifamily zones.

There are, in general, fewer limits on institutions in that zone, but one of them is that the setback requirements are more rigorous.

They're bigger.

They have to set back further from property lines.

And so community centers, libraries, and other institutions are harder to fit, especially into smaller sites.

Again, sometimes those are the sites that community organizations are able to acquire.

And so there's more complexity there and the site design can be limiting.

So the proposal is to amend the section of the multifamily code that establishes setbacks to provide the same setbacks for institutions that we require for the uses permitted outright, which generally means for housing.

In other words, what this means is we're not allowing more bigger buildings or more footprint than we would otherwise allow for housing, just applying consistent setbacks for institutions Again, since the sites in these zones can sometimes be more affordable for these organizations, they'll have more ability to design a project that works, slightly increases the physical feasibility of institutions in low rise zones.

I just wanna conclude here and then we welcome questions and discussion with some examples of specific projects that could benefit or that illustrate how projects could benefit from these changes.

The first year on the left is one aware this is a black cultural space project in the central area that several years ago had to go through a pretty burdensome process of obtaining a conditional use permit and a change of use permit.

The project itself is repurposing a detached single family home to create black cultural space and art space, but they needed a special permit to do so.

required a lot of discretionary review, and I think something like an $11,000 permit fee.

So by allowing arts and cultural spaces and other community centers outright, there will be a more straightforward process for those projects to come to fruition in residential areas.

The second is a community agriculture project called Nurturing Roots.

It's a nonprofit.

It currently has a space that was permitted as an accessory use to the church that it is adjacent to.

Right now, its lease was not renewed, and so the organization is actually currently trying to find a new site, and they're very limited because they currently need to be accessory to some other use, given what the type of programming that they have.

So by defining community farm and allowing that outright with fewer restrictions, it would open up a lot more sites throughout the city where they could hope to find a new home.

The third on the right is the CHAM Community Center.

It can see the plan view of their community gathering space and worship space facility.

And as you can see, most of the site is devoted to surface parking.

And that's the result of the relatively high parking requirement for community center space.

And so by having the more modest parking requirements that we described, they in theory would be able to devote more of their site area to community gathering space.

And they actually do intend to explore revising their proposal if this moves forward so that they can expand the footprint of their community space rather than surface parking.

I think we're, we sort of flew through it.

Welcome questions, but you've had a long meeting here today.

Impressive.

In 16 minutes, even breaking my 15 slide rule, my friend, you've done it.

Thank you.

I see Council Member Peterson has questions and also we will do a deeper, and Council Member Morales has questions.

Colleagues, we will have this back before committee as well as we can have, you know, you can have a separate briefing.

So just want to make sure We respect everyone's time since we're already nearly 20 minutes over committee.

Council Member Peterson and Vice Chair Morales.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you for this presentation.

I'm wondering if, I know central staff wrote a memo on this, but they're not here today.

So I'll just see if the department can answer this question.

In terms of the ownership of the land and ownership of the building, if these sound like really good accommodations to make to get some public benefit while the nonprofit is operating in those buildings or owning the property, but will there be a regulatory agreement recorded on title running with the land, so that if let's say somebody were to make these, a nonprofit were to make all these improvements, but then it were sold to a for-profit owner operator, and then it would be changing the use.

Are we giving away something and not recording, not making sure it stays in the public benefit realm?

Thanks, Council Member, that's a great question.

And Nick, if you're not the right person to answer it, we'll have central staff follow up, but take away if you are.

Yeah, we're happy to offer at least a brief answer to that.

It's a good question, something we've thought about a lot in terms of how these proposed changes could play out over time and could work in different ways, including in the scenario you're describing where the property could sell to some other or be used in some other way.

in general, if a change of use occurred and if a property were sold from a non-profit to a for-profit entity, basically by definition, a community center would no longer be a viable use because it has to be operated by a non-profit organization.

So presumably there'd be some change of use that needs to happen.

We can think more and maybe come back with detail about the exact mechanics of what's required through the change of use process.

We'll talk with SDCI about that, but it would generally require being you know, more in compliance, at least with the standards for whatever the new proposed use might be.

And so if that meant a different level of parking, then that might be required.

There's really not much else, like the setback requirement, for example, is coming in line with the requirement for other uses that are permitted outright.

So there would probably not be a new requirement there.

We can think more about that and give a more detailed answer, but in general, you know, they would have to make a change of use application and then come in line with the standards for a new proposed use.

Chair, if I may follow up?

Yeah, happy to.

I guess what I've seen commonly with low-income housing projects, for example, is if we grant public subsidy and other benefits and then the project's built, there's something recorded with the property so that future owners would continue that public benefit.

And so if we were to grant this now and somebody were to then if we were to grant this now and then somebody were to sell it and then resell it on the private for-profit market, we couldn't then capture back the requirements that we gave away because now the building's built.

So that's my concern is maybe using a regulatory agreement model just so that we preserve those public benefits that we're offering in exchange for these accommodations.

I think maybe offer another way to think about this.

Most of the change here is a revision to the permit and review requirements that these projects go through.

So a community center today that's proposed by an EDI organization has to go through a conditional use process.

Most of the time, and we've looked into all of the community center and institution permits issued since 2012, of which there are relatively few for community centers, And most of the time, there's no sort of significant public benefit that's required as a condition of the permit.

There may be small changes added, but it's a little different than when we have, for example, an investment in affordable housing and a regulatory agreement that goes along with that.

In this case, the outcome might not be that different, but the process for an organization to get there would be faster and maybe lower cost and more predictable through the permitting process.

So maybe I'll jump in here and I'll direct this question back to central staff as well, but I think it's in the same line as what Councilmember Peterson's asking.

When I see the buildings that were built before 1980 when we had really restrictive regulations on the land code.

And what I'm talking about are some of these small shops that are scattered throughout what are now single-family neighborhoods, where we used to have small shops allowed, and today we don't.

I see them now being used as homes.

I am wondering if a building changes hands and it's not under this equitable development, zoning and change.

The building's already built, but the use changes if it changes hands.

Do I have this right?

Or I'll be following up with central staff, but this is just kind of how I'm thinking about it.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

The uses can change over time.

Certainly that's an example of commercial spaces from previous eras that get reused as housing or vice versa.

I mean, Wanawari, that example on the last slide was a house that has now been repurposed into a cultural space.

So that can happen.

I think if anything, this provides more flexibility for that to work when it's a nonprofit organization proposing a community center, having fewer restrictions around where those could be located and what level of review is required through the permitting process for them to move forward.

Great, thank you.

Council Member Peterson, any other questions?

No, I'll follow up with central staff.

I don't, I don't feel like my question was answered, but that's okay.

Um, I'll, I'll follow up later.

Thank you.

Yeah.

As always, I suggest and request council members have briefings on the material off the record so that you can dive deeper than the amount of time that is allowed in committee vice chair Morales.

Thank you.

Um, Thank you for presenting this.

I appreciate the reminder for folks that the whole point of equitable development and now this zoning is to stop displacement.

This is a strategy to make sure that communities of color.

have access to capital access to resources so that they can stay in community.

And so, you know, the question of what happens if they sell is sort of, not to say that that's not possible but the whole point of supporting these organizations is so that they don't sell that they can stay rooted in community.

I want to say thank you.

I'm very interested in this legislation.

Chair, I would like to request to co-sponsor this as we're moving forward with the legislation.

I think it's going to be an important part, particularly for folks in the South End who actually advocated and helped create this division.

Maybe I should stop there and see if my request is granted.

I don't know if that's an official thing I need to do.

It is sure.

Thank you.

So, so I just I have a quick question because, you know, I think this is all really important to support the goal that we've all been talking about around creating sort of 15 minute cities, you know I talked about having a Seattle within reach, where our essential goods and services are all.

within easy access to where people live without having to get in their car so I think this supports that allowing commercial uses and neighborhoods is certainly part of that goal.

And so I'm glad to see that I am concerned about the fact that.

Projects that have been submitted are encountering these barriers.

So I'm glad to see that we're doing what we can to address that.

I'm also curious, and you may not be the right folks to follow up with here, but I am interested to know, we had, I think it was $9 million left for the next round of project proposals.

And just wondering, If you know where we are in that process and how we can make sure that the rest of those funds are going out to community as you said, projects are lining up so want to make sure that we get that money out it expeditiously.

There's a little house in ground.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Councilmember yeah we.

We understand from our colleagues who work on the EDI team that the expectation is there would be another funding round, another RFP for funding later this year.

Okay, we'll follow up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

And one of the reasons that we are having this briefing today is because we have a lot of bills in mid-June.

This bill will be back before us in late June.

So Council Member Peterson, you have about a month to have your questions asked and answered by central staff.

And if you'd like to be briefed by OPCD on the side, I know that they are always standing ready.

I think that's you saying great.

I'll take it as great.

Yeah, we just got the memo 24 hours ago.

So I didn't have the opportunity to get a briefing in advance of today's meeting, but I'll certainly set one up.

Wonderful.

Yeah, you have about a month before we take this up again.

So with that, are there any other questions from my colleagues?

Seeing none, Steve Rubstello, our benevolent leader, formerly of Green Lake, now of Fremont.

You are the only person that has signed up for public comment.

I'm wondering if you'd be so gracious as to let us not do public comment today.

Or do you need to do public comment?

Okay.

With that, we're gonna close this last item.

We are going to open public comment briefly.

I'm not gonna play the video.

I am going to tell you to please be nice as always.

And we will now open the public comment for items on today's agenda.

Well, relevant to our briefing here, I've been through change of uses and they can get messy.

Matter of fact, when I was the dictator of Green Lake referred to, we had a church that wanted to be taken over by a theater and the neighborhood had to hire a lawyer.

I think we were part of making policy.

So I think before you finish this policy, before you put it in, you, you must look at the exit strategy because when you have a, an established building that can be used for far more than what it was built for, there will be people who will be looking to take full advantage and not have to get all the change of use permits that everybody else has to get.

and want to economically, uh, change use.

And if it's appropriate, fine.

But if it isn't, uh, uh, you mistakenly said our zoning used to be more restrictive.

Actually our zoning pre 1980 allowed far more things, but the public was involved.

If you wanted to put a rendering house in a neighborhood, uh, neighborhood would rise and that would not happen.

If you wanted to put a shoe repair shop in a neighborhood, then you most likely were going to be going ahead.

Your council chamber would not be loaded with people saying, I don't want a rendering plant beside my house.

So while it was structurally more tight, more was allowed through different mechanisms.

And I'll give up the last few seconds because I really don't need them.

Thank you.

The benevolent leader of formerly Green Lake, now Fremont.

With that, Nick, Katie, no further comments.

Looking good.

We'll have you back before committee late in June.

Colleagues, no further questions.

Seeing none, This concludes the Wednesday, May 24th Land Use Committee.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is a special meeting on June 8th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

We will be taking up the amendments for the Industrial Maritime Committee.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

That was a nice little house and crown.

Recording stopped.