Seattle City Council Committee on Land Use 22322 - Public Hearing

Great.

The February 23rd, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Here.

Council Member Nelson?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Three present.

Thank you.

As colleagues join the meeting, I will make an announcement.

We do have three items on the agenda today.

So Chair, Item B, Chair's report.

We have three items on the agenda today, a public hearing, briefing, and discussion on Council Bill 120266, which allows for transferable development rights and neighborhood commercial zones in First Hill.

We also have a briefing discussion and vote on Clerk File 314441, a contract rezone of 10735 Roosevelt Way Northeast, and a vote on Council Bill 120275, which implements the contract rezone in Clerk File 314441. Before we begin, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

I'll also take this moment in the chair's report, and we have Council Member Nelson with us now.

I wanted to take a moment during chair's report to talk about the tree ordinance and the fact that the SEPA decision for the tree ordinance was published last Thursday.

Councilmember Peterson and many others are very excited about this.

SDCI has been invited and I'm hoping that they will come to the next committee meeting to give us their quarterly tree report briefing for us to better understand from their perspective this package of bills.

For the viewing public, this package includes two director's rules and two ordinances.

One of the ordinances is the bill that Councilmember Peterson drafted that I gladly co-sponsored about registry, arborist registration.

And there is another ordinance that deals with more of the policy by USHEP.

So we're grateful to have these four limbs of policy to be able to pass through as they go through the policy process, whether there's SEPA appeals or not, we'll take these bills up as quickly as possible.

And so at the next committee, we have invited an SDCI, hopefully be joining us and that the committee following that we will take up and pass if we achieve a vote of the affirmative to pass the registration bill and then to be able to send that directly to full council.

And so for the viewing public, we're very excited, even though I'm maybe not screaming, we are very excited to have these policies before us and to be able to take meaningful action on them.

With that, We will move into public comment, item C on the agenda.

There should not be anyone signed up for public comment today as agenda item one has its own public hearing and agenda items two and three are quasi-judicial.

And I am not seeing that anyone is signed up for public comment.

So seeing as we have no speaker signed up, nor remotely present, the public comment period is now closed.

We will move on to the next agenda item.

Amelia, if I did that wrong, please let me know.

We'll move to item D, items of business.

Item one is Council Bill 120266, our first agenda item, which expands the transferable development rights program in First Hill.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

And Item 1 comes from Bill 120266, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for transfer of development potential or transfer of development rights in the NC3200 and NC3P200 zones.

Thank you.

We are joined for this briefing by Jim Holtz of OPCD and Lish Whitson of our Council Central staff.

Will you both introduce yourselves and kick us off?

Lish Whitson, Council Central staff.

And Jim Holmes, Office of Planning and Community Development.

Take it away.

I don't know, Jim, you want to lead the, or Liz, do you have a brief, or do you want to just let Jim go?

Let's just let Jim go.

It's pretty simple legislation, and his presentation should cover it.

All right, great.

So this is the First Hill Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.

And what this ordinance would do is provide for transfer of development rights or development potential within the NC3200 or the NC3P200 zones.

Both of these zones are exclusively located in the First Hill, Capitol Hill Urban Center.

There is one designated landmark in this area, the Sorrento Hotel, and there are a couple other potential landmarks.

This ordinance would allow buildings to reach a height of 350 feet through the use of this incentive.

Height limits for adjacent land in other zones is 400 feet and 200 feet.

excuse me, this incentive is currently available downtown in Uptown, South Lake Union, the University District and high-rise zones.

So real briefly, not to your presentation, I just wanted the viewing public to know Councilmember Morales has joined us.

So we are now joined by Councilmember, Vice Chair Morales, Councilmember Mosqueda, Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember Nielsen and myself.

Hope I didn't miss anyone.

Take it away, Jim.

Okay, so as you see on this map, the goldenrod color is the area that would be allowed to transfer development rights for landmark preservation.

The brown area is the high-rise zone, which allows building heights up to 440 feet.

The blue areas are major institution overlay zones.

Um, the one that's most relevant to this is the Swedish Medical Center.

First of all, M.

I. O. And that uses the N.

C.

3 200 zone is an underlying zone, but restricts heights and select parcels.

Um, and landmark TDR is currently permitted, I guess, in the bounds on which I just said.

So just Sorry to interrupt.

I realized that as we prepped this briefing, I was remiss that some of the colleagues on this committee were not on the committee last year when we did TDR, and so maybe just can you give us just a 30 second overview on transferable development rights?

Or maybe you were just about to get there, right?

So what this bill would do is for a landmark structure.

If there was unused development potential for commercial floor area or commercial unused residential for transfer of development rights, they could transfer the undeveloped floor area that they can't develop by preserving the landmark to another site above the, which would allow that other site to develop projects above the existing height limit of 200 feet.

They would purchase those development rights from the landmark, and then the landmark would record a covenant running with the deed and an agreement with the Department of Neighborhoods for ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of the landmark.

Excellent.

So in short, we transfer the ability to build those floors that can't be built, and those dollars help support and preserve the landmark.

Is that correct?

Correct.

All right, so this bill relies on the existing provisions in our incentive zoning chapter 2358A.

It establishes procedures to transfer landmark TDR.

It requires that there be a base height and a maximum height to establish how much floor area a receiving site, the site purchasing the development rights, can transfer from the landmark or the sending site.

It establishes the procedures to calculate the amount of floor area that can be transferred from the landmark site.

And it requires the landmark structures on sending lots be rehabilitated and maintained as required by an agreement approved by the Director of Neighborhoods.

So in this case, it establishes in these zones a base height of 200 feet, that's existing height limit.

establishes the base FAR, but they're currently allowed, is the current maximum FAR, which is 8.25 for commercial structures and up to 12 for residential structures.

It limits the total amount of floor area that can be transferred to 110,000 square feet.

And it says the maximum height the receiving site may achieve through this method at 350 feet.

And it limits these transfers to sending and receiving sites on the same lot, or same block, excuse me.

Yeah, say that one that part one more time, because I think that that's a really important feature of this one.

Yeah, so for in the case of the Sorrento Hotel, they would be able to send transfer development floor area to an adjacent site on the same block in the same zone.

And that's the geographic limits of how transfers can occur.

And when we were talking about this before committee, you had mentioned that there's a couple other buildings that are so there is a landmark that has been our potential landmark that's been surveyed.

It's in the reason I brought up the Mio, the Swedish first till Mio.

That is a potential landmark.

It's currently limited by the MIO to a height of 70 feet.

It could rely on these provisions, but to make practical use, it would probably require an amendment to the master plan for the MIO.

And then First Presbyterian further down Madison at the freeway has not been surveyed, but it has been suggested it may also be eligible for landmark status.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I want to open it up for questions from you.

I might have a few questions don't cover mine.

I've got Councilmember Peterson and then Lish, do you have anything to add?

No, I think the Councilmember questions will.

Great.

Councilmember Peterson, take a look.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

The question I have is how, if you, I don't think you answered this already, but how were the mapped areas determined?

Right.

We just relied on the zone.

So the chapter of the code, the incentive zoning chapter, establishes the procedures, but then requires that the ability to use those procedures be called out in the zone.

So that is what this does.

So this is the NC3200 zone.

And so that's why it's limited to this zone.

Can you flip back to slide three?

I think that'll help.

Yeah, sure.

So the golden rod color, that's the NC3200, NC3P200 zone.

So that's the area, and the Sorrento Hotel is interested in using this.

Where that hotel is located is right there.

You can currently do this, transfer development rights, within the high-rise zone, which is the brown area, and that's provided for in that chapter of the code.

extends it to the NC3 zone, NC3 200 zone.

OK.

And other landmark pending?

Is there another landmark pending besides Sorrento?

Not at this point, no.

OK.

Thank you.

I see Lish with his hand up.

And there are some that are being surveyed, though, for landmark.

Just to provide a little bit more context on the NC 3 200 zone.

This is the only zone.

This is the only area in the city where this zone is mapped.

So this is the densest neighborhood commercial zone in the city.

And it's only found on in this section of First Hill along Madison Street.

All right.

Colleagues, Council Member Murphy, Vice Chair Morales, please take it away.

Thank you.

So I'm playing a little bit of catch up here, but I am curious about why the transfer would only be allowed on the same block rather than somewhere throughout the area that's zoned, that has similar zoning.

Yeah, it wasn't.

It was an attempt to define the area tightly.

Um, uh, in other areas, it is more broadly throughout the zone.

Um, we were trying to target specifically where the development rights would land.

And if I'm understanding the intent here, or presumably the intent would be for rights for both the hotel itself and the parking garage.

to be transferred to some buyer.

No, the rights would be transferred to the parking garage, which would be redeveloped from the hotel from the hotel.

Okay, that part somehow escaped me.

Thank you.

Sure.

And that maybe a little bit added clarification that is for that one instance.

If these other landmarks that are under survey become landmarks, there may There are other options to do this as well.

This bill is not for the Sorrento Hotel solely.

This is for this entire zone, because there are a number of different parcels that could fit this definition.

Good question, Council Vice Chair.

Council Member Nelson, I see you're on video.

Any questions?

You're good to go.

I guess for Jim and Lish, Do we have community groups currently expressing concern or opposition to these changes?

During the SEPA period, we did receive a letter from Historic Seattle that while they are generally supportive of the approach and extending it to the zone, they had concerns that redevelopment on that particular block could encourage redevelopment of one of these two apartment buildings adjacent to it in the brown.

Um, which are also identified in a historic resources surveys as potential landmarks.

And then we received a letter yesterday from historic Seattle because both council members received it to, uh, Washington Historic Society supporting this amendment.

And just adding clarification to the record, the Brown area in Brown already has a TPR program.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

to historic buildings like this one?

No, it's a landmark TDR program.

It's a landmark TDR as well.

Great.

Helpful.

And can you share, do you know why the initial TDR program was excluded in this neighborhood commercial zone?

Yeah, I don't have an answer for that.

I know we've been implementing it as we've gone through.

We had a Southlake Union that was later added to the U District and Uptown.

It's as we've gone through neighborhoods, we've added it.

But its usage has been very limited in the neighborhood commercial zones.

So in neighborhood commercial zones, we only have it in the university district.

OK.

So we're doing a public hearing.

Colleagues, we're doing a public hearing today.

And then this bill will be back before us at our next committee meeting.

Does anyone have any further questions right now?

Or shall we move into public hearing?

Seeing no questions, we'll move into public hearing.

Before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to operate this new system in real time.

and navigate through the inevitable growing pains.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process and adding features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

I'll moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time and in the order in which they register on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak and would like to you can sign up before the end of the public hearing by going to the council's website Seattle.gov forward slash council.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone, and an automatic prompt if you've been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment must relate to Council Bill 120266. If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda or in this public hearing, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up the public comment.

Speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time, provided the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following the meeting, please do so via the Seattle channel or the listing options listed on the agenda.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120266 is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first and only speaker on the list today is Jessica Closson.

Jessica, welcome.

Please take it away at your convenience.

Great.

I believe I'm unmuted.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Great to hear you today.

Great to be with you.

This is Jessica Closson.

We'll call her Hilary.

We represent the owners of the Sorrento.

I want to thank council members for their consideration of this important bill.

And I've emailed all of you right now, 10 minutes ago, three comment letters that we think are really important for you to read if you can before your consideration in a couple of weeks on the vote on this bill.

The first is from the First Hill Improvement Association, supportive of this bill.

The second is from Virginia Mason, a nearby neighbor on First Hill, also supportive of this bill.

And the third, already mentioned, is from the Washington Trust, the Washington Historic Trust from Chris Moore, very supportive of this bill that really allows for the Sorrento to realize the benefits of historic preservation by selling its TDR one day.

We appreciate working with Jim Holmes on this and his, I think, limited and controlled approach where the additional density could be transferred to just on the block.

So, you know, we kind of know where it would go for this and for some future landmarks also in the NC3 zone, we would know where the density would go for that if they chose to create TDR and sell them off one day.

So again, we really appreciate working with staff on this and we appreciate your support of historic preservation on First Hill in this very odd, limited 10C3-200 zone.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica.

Eric or Ian, can you confirm there are no further public registrants remotely present for this public hearing?

We confirm there is no more commenters for the public commenting the hearing.

Thank you.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120266 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comments today.

Colleagues, again, as I said, this legislation will be back before the Winnipese Committee on a March 9th meeting for a vote, and then we'll send it to the whole Council.

For colleagues, if you have questions or amendments that you'd like to bring, please do loop my office in as soon as possible.

And it'll be back for our next committee.

Item two, clerk file 314441. Our next item is clerk file 31441, contract rezone at Northgate.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Item two, clerk file 314441, application of Wallace Properties Park at Northgate LLC for a contract rezone of a site located at 10735 Roosevelt Way Northeast from low-rise three with an M, mandatory housing affordability suffix, to mid-rise with an M1.

Thank you.

We are joined again by Mr. Ketel Freeman of Council Central staff.

Can you refresh us on the details of this rezone and any new information?

I know that there were outstanding items for the parties to complete before final passage.

So any updates and a brief refresher?

Sure.

Yeah.

And those, those items are about 95% there.

Um, uh, I'll just, um, orient you to the materials that you have for clerks file 3, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1, the new materials, um, as you recommended, uh, council member, um, Strauss talk a little bit about the background and then, uh, walk through a couple of decision documents here.

And we're probably going to need to read council 1, 2, 0, 2, 7, 5 into the record here in a little bit as well.

So on February 9th, the committee was briefed and had an initial discussion on an application by Wells Properties for a contract rezone of two adjacent, but not abutting sites that are about five acres in size at the Eastern edge at the Northgate Urban Center.

The rezone is supposed to be from LR3M to mid-rise with an M1 mandatory housing affordability suffix.

With respect to materials, maybe I'll just share my screen here briefly so that you all can, Navigate through what is on the agenda.

This is the memo dated February 22nd, yesterday.

There are a couple of attachments to the memo and I'll just scroll through and show where they are and just got sort of the status of one of them.

Attachments include a findings conclusion and decision document, which I'll get to here in a minute, describe what it does.

The findings conclusion and decision document would grant the rezone application with conditions that are in the document itself.

And that would be the decision, potentially, by the full council based on the recommendation of committee.

And there is also another iteration of the environmentally critical areas covenant.

We've talked about this at the previous meeting.

The hearing examiner recommends, as does STCI, that the environmentally critical areas covenant be recorded prior to full council action.

So this is the latest iteration of that.

It uses the STCI template, but has been massaged for this particular purpose to require that, to restrict activity in the covenant area, but also allow for, there's a word I'm looking here, it's escaping me, restoration, allow for restoration in that.

covenant area with future development.

This has what you would expect to see in an ECA covenant, which is a legal description of the covenant area, as well as the surveyed site plan showing the covenant area, which is the southeast corner of the site.

I'll stop sharing here and ask Christopher any questions about the materials and then I'll move on to of refreshing your memory about the recent application itself.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any, I see Vice Chair Morales.

Vice Chair Morales, please take it away.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Thank you.

So I have a question and maybe This is semantic, but in the memo, it indicates that the North and South site shall designate at least 20% for MFTE.

But then I'm reading on the third page of the attachment, The North and South, that is really hard to say.

North and South sites shall comply with MFTE and shall have the goal of providing at least 20%, which to me feels a little bit different than saying it shall provide 20%.

Yes.

Thank you.

That is a great question.

And So a challenge here is that the applicant has not applied for a mass use permit for development on either of these sites.

So as you'll recall, the applicant is proposing to redevelop the sites in essentially three phases.

And we don't know what the law will be at the time the applicant applies for those development permits.

The MFTE program is a term limited program.

It has to be renewed periodically by the council.

Our current iteration of the MFTE program will expire on December 31st, 2023. So if they do not make an application before December 31st, 2023, we don't know what the law is going to be.

So instead, we've modified this condition to reflect the fact that, you know, They have to comply with MFTE, whatever MFTE looks like at the time, but also to maintain the applicant's stated intent of providing at least 20% of all residential units on site, meeting the affordability requirements of that program.

So that's how we're able to address sort of the fact that we don't know what the law will be in the future when they do apply.

We can't allow them to lock in, lock themselves into some provisions of a current MIT program when they don't actually have a developed proposal.

So this is the proposed solution to that.

Let me just point the language.

Let me share my screen here again.

So we're all looking at the language that Council Member Morales flagged here.

So this is the findings, conclusion, and decision document.

It has this revised language shown in strikethrough.

Condition number three, is everybody seeing that?

Yeah.

OK.

Yeah.

So MFTE expires.

Maybe it'll be 12 years.

Maybe it'll be different.

Maybe the percentage will be different.

Whatever it looks like after 2023, is what this would need to comply with, depending on what's proposed.

That's correct.

And they could, you know, they said they could apply sooner for a development permit for one of the phases, and in which case they may lock into the current program, but not knowing when they will apply, this is the language to address that.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Peters, take it away, unless you're...

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Ketel, following up on this line of questioning about affordable housing, SDCI's memo attached to the hearing examiner's ruling indicates that there are 148 housing units currently that are below market.

Yeah, about 70% to 90% of AMI.

Correct.

OK.

But we're saying here that they'll have a goal of providing at least 20% of housing units that meet affordability requirements in MFTE.

And what would the 20% be?

Isn't that only 100 units?

Now, so again, we don't know exactly what future development proposals may look like, but we do know what the sort of the general thinking is.

And a lot of this I think is, I think this is from exhibit 10, which is the applicants, our rezone analysis.

So we know that future development is likely going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of about a thousand units.

And that's what they are imagining will happen over the course of many years of redeveloping the sites.

So there are a couple of affordability components here.

One is compliance with the performance requirements of MHA.

So assuming that it's about 1000 units under an M1 requirement for this particular part of town, the applicant would be required to provide about 9% of units by meeting.

So that's the 100. That's about that's close.

That's close to 90 years.

And then the remainder of the affordable units would come from MFTE.

And so that's another 200 potentially, depending on what the program requirements are at the time the applications are made.

And the MHA requirement would be what, 60% AMI?

Yeah, that would be 60% AMI.

And then MFT, of course, it's different AMI based on the unit sizes and such.

But the naturally occurring affordable housing, like you said, is 70% to 90% AMI.

And MHA would be 60% plus the MFT units, which would be a range of, I can't remember what it is, 70% to 90% AMI for MFT.

And lower.

It depends on the unit sizes.

and number of bedrooms.

OK, I'm just trying to figure out what the trade-off is for low-income housing.

And I appreciate the level of detail in this analysis so we can see that it could be equivalent or better, potentially, than what it is today.

Yeah, I mean, it all depends on how many units are ultimately developed.

But at least according to the applicant's current plans, somewhat over 1,000.

I think 1,100 is what's in the record as sort of indicating what their intent is for redevelopment in the future.

If that holds, then there would be more affordable units on site in the future than there currently are.

Thank you.

I love those fine points, Ketel.

No problem.

Let me just maybe for the interest in the interest of kind of refreshing your memory and those folks who may be following along out in the public.

I'll just remind folks a little bit about the application and sort of show you all a map of where it is.

But again, it's proposed rezoned.

There's two sites in the North Gate Urban Center and North and South sites.

The proposal is to rezone the sites from LR3M to MRM1.

The combined site area is about five acres.

The application, again, does not include a mass use premise for development.

Those will come in the future.

STCI issued a SEPA threshold determination and rezone recommendation to conditionally approve the application back in September.

There was a SEPA appeal of the threshold determination, and that was dismissed hearing examiners in October.

The hearing examiner held a public hearing as with every contract rezone.

The council has delegated authority to the hearing examiner to hold hearings on contract rezones, and that was held on October 7th.

And the hearing examiner recommended conditional approval of the application on December 3rd.

There are a couple of maps just to orient you to where the sites are and sort of what the ECA conditions are, environmentally critical area conditions are near the sites.

The sites are located at the eastern edge of Northgate Urban Center.

They're within the urban center.

And the sites are located pretty close to the Thornton Creek Riparian Corridor, which also includes some city-owned properties.

Those are the properties here in green, including the Beaver Pond Natural Area of Thornton Creek.

A couple of views of the sites.

This is the north side.

This is the south side.

That's just separated by an access driveway servicing property.

It's kind of not sandwiched between with.

that is proximate to the sites.

Again, future development may include three phases and up to 1,100 or more units on the sites.

The hearing examiner did have some conditions.

Those conditions include submitting a signed and recorded ECA covenants prior to full council action, as well as prior to issuance of master use permits for future development of the site, Submission of a restoration plan for the environmentally critical area for the covenant area encumbered by the ECA.

Compliance with performance under the MHAR program.

participation in the MFTE program on both the north and the south sites, and also an east-west pedestrian corridor for the north site.

The north side is the larger of the two sites.

Future development would include an east-west pedestrian corridor between 8th Avenue Northeast and Roosevelt Way Northeast.

And finally, the hearing examiner and FTCI recommend at the hearing examiner, this is a condition that was wordsmithed at the hearing examiner to address some concerns raised by near neighbors.

Future development of the north side should include a study looking at vehicular access with preferred access from Roosevelt Way Northeast.

So those are the conditions and sort of the procedural posture of the committee.

Maybe we'll turn now to decision documents unless you all have any questions about about the proposal in this location.

I did have just one additional question.

You had the slide up about the environmentally critical areas protections.

Do we have that protection agreement?

We do, yeah.

Let me show you that.

We do have it.

It's not recorded yet, but as I mentioned, we're about 95% of the way there.

Here is the...

That's your email, by the way.

Oh, you guys don't want to see that.

Hold on.

Stop sharing that.

Here we go.

Let's see.

So here is the ECA covenant.

This is different from the draft version that you looked at on February 9th.

This uses the city's template.

As I mentioned, this is about 95% of the way there.

I'll just need to dot a few I's and cross a few T's and confirm that SDCI thinks this is ready to go, but this was developed in conjunction with SDCI and the applicant.

This would limit future development activity in the Covenant area, so there couldn't be any development in the Covenant area.

But it allows for restoration activity in the Covenant area consistent with the hearing examiner's recommendation.

Just a visual of what that Covenant area is.

Southeast corner of the South Side.

And so this has not been signed or it has not been recorded?

It has not been recorded or signed, but the applicant anticipates being able to do that before Tuesday.

Okay, so just for the record, if this is not signed and recorded before Tuesday, this bill will not be at full council.

That was more clarification for all my colleagues and anyone watching for you, Keil.

And that's a good segue to some of the other decision documents here.

Also, there's a attachment to the ordinance.

I'll touch on the ordinance here in a second.

Do a property use and development agreement.

This property use and development agreement also will need to be not recorded, but executed by the applicant prior to full council action.

And so that's a good transition to decision documents There are two.

There is the findings, conclusion, and decision.

And as I mentioned, the findings, conclusion, and decision adopts the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions, makes an additional finding related to the submittal of the recommended ACA covenant.

And it amends the condition related to future participation in the MFTE program for the reasons that we discussed based on Council Member Morales' question.

And it adopts the remaining prior to master use permit issuance conditions recommended by the hearing examiner.

So this would be the decision by the full council if recommended by the committee.

So I don't know if you all want to act on the clerk file now, or should I describe the rezone bill just in the interest of of completeness.

Let's move on the clerk file and then let's move to the council bill.

Colleagues, do you have any other questions on the clerk file at this time?

I'm seeing none.

So I will move to recommend granting the rezone contained in clerk file 314441. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to grant the rezone contained in clerk file 314441. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Councilmember Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strass?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion on Clerk File 314441 carries.

And as I stated a moment ago, I expect this clerk file to be back before the full council for final approval on Tuesday, March 1st.

pending the signing and recording of the Environmentally Critical Area Protection Agreement.

That mouthful, Mr. Ahn, can you please read the abbreviated title of our final item, Council Bill 120275 to the record?

Also, agenda item three, Council Bill 120275, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Municipal Code to rezone two parcels located at 10735 Roosevelt Way Northeast from low-rise three with an M, mandatory housing affordability suffix, to mid-rise with an M1, mandatory housing affordability suffix.

Wonderful, thank you, Mr. Ahn.

Mr. Freeman, take it away right where we left off before the procedural announcements.

So Council Bill 120275 effectuates the recommendation by the committee.

So it does two things.

It amends the official land use map that's sometimes called the zoning map to rezone the sites from low-rise three with an M mandatory housing affordability suffix to mid-rise with an M1 mandatory housing affordability suffix.

And it also accepts an executed property use and development agreement.

And that property use and development agreement is recorded against the property.

And that actually happens after council action, the full council action.

And it contains these conditions that apply to future development of the site.

So it does two things, amends the official land use map and accepts an executed property use and development agreement.

So unless you all have any questions about Council Bill 120275, if you do, I'm happy to answer them.

I think I asked my questions in the clerk file.

Just checking with colleagues.

Did anyone else have additional questions?

Seeing none.

This is land use committee we've had yet.

Again, this will be back for us next week pending the signing and recording of the critical area protection agreement.

To finish this exercise in governing, we will need to vote this council bill out.

So I will move to recommend passage of council bill 120275. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120275. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Council Bill 120275 will be back before full council on Tuesday, March 1st for a final vote pending the Environmentally Critical Area Protection Agreement.

With that, moving to item E of the agenda, adjournment.

Colleagues, any items for the good of the order at this time?

Seeing none, this concludes the Wednesday, February 23rd, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

Our next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee is Wednesday, March 9th, starting at 2 p.m.

We look forward to hearing from SDCI about the Trade Protection Ordinances, Director's Rule, and Councilmember Peterson's bill that I got as co-sponsor.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Have a great day.