Land Use Committee Special Meeting 11/29/23

The final land use committee of the year will come to order.

It is December 8th, 2023, the special land use committee.

It's 2 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

Three present.

Thank you, and I know the other council members will be joining shortly.

We will announce them coming in when they do.

We have three items on today's agenda.

Council Bill 120674, briefing, discussion, public hearing, and possible vote on extending the term of master use permits to six years.

Council Bill 120675, briefing, discussion, public hearing, and possible vote on removing the maximum use of size for medical uses within the maritime manufacturing logistics zone and clerk file 314400, a briefing discussion and possible vote on a contract rezone at 1620 16th Avenue.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will open the hybrid public comment.

for today's meeting.

Because we have two public hearings today, public comment will only be on the contract rezone.

And so if you are here to speak about one of the other items, we will hold you until that time.

And just looking at the public comment sign up, it looks like everyone is here for, the public hearings.

So with that, seeing as we have no speakers remotely or physically present for public comment, we have no one in chambers, okay.

We will close this agenda item.

Yes.

Yes.

Just wanted to let you know I was here.

Sorry, I was on the phone.

Fantastic, welcome.

I am present.

How are you today?

Also present.

Thank you, Council.

Oh, fantastic.

I am not quite yet on my Zoom, so I can't see who's out there yet.

So thank you.

We have Vice Chair Morales and Council Member Mosqueda.

We have full participation today.

We will move on to the first agenda item.

The public hearing or public comment is now closed.

The first agenda item on the agenda.

Actually, I'm going to take a pause.

We've been doing thank yous at these last meetings.

Usually at the end, I'm going to just start at the beginning.

We have covered a lot of ground in the Land Use Committee over the last four years, and specifically this year.

Calling out a special thank you to the clerk, Naomi Lewis, for all of your hard work.

I want to thank Allie Panucci, Lish Whitson, Ketel Freeman, Yolanda Ho, and central staff for making this happen.

IT...

Seattle Channel and all of my colleagues on this committee, we have passed the strongest protections in the city's history for trees.

We passed the strongest protections for maritime and industrial lands, as well as added flexibility for office and housing in industrial buffer zones.

We've accomplished a lot.

Some said that we couldn't do it, and we couldn't have done it without all of central staff.

Naomi is a clerk.

and everyone who's helped along the way.

So thank you.

The first item on the agenda is a briefing discussion and public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 120674, which will extend the expiration for certain master use permits from three to six years.

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

And Gordon, if you'd like to join us, you're more than welcome to.

Item 1, Council Bill 120674, Master Use Permit Expiration Extension for Briefing, Discussion, Public Hearing, and Possible Vote.

Thank you.

We're joined by Gordon Clowers from the Department of Construction Inspections and Ketel Freeman from Council Central Staff for this discussion.

We were briefed at the Special Land Use Committee on November 29, 2023, and we are here again to...

have a brief presentation and take questions.

I have two amendments, one which was posted to the agenda and one which was not.

The amendment posted to the agenda would allow for, it would start the clock six months earlier than March 1st, so September 1st, 2019. And then the second amendment would just be a clarifying for if someone has applied and received an extension to their MUP under the, from three years to then a total of five that they would be automatically granted the six total years.

And so with that, I'm gonna take the public hearing first.

I don't think we're gonna play the video today.

Everyone I see signed up is a regular attendee of the Land Use Committee.

And I think everyone knows, be kind, speak to the agenda item.

And so with that, We will open the public hearing on Council Bill 120674. With that, we have one person in chambers and seven, actually six online.

We will do two minutes per speaker.

And Lily Howard, Hayward, excuse me, please, welcome.

Thank you very much.

Is this on?

Okay.

Good afternoon, Land Use Committee members.

On behalf of the 2,400 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, I ask that you please support the extension of master use permits.

As we all know, the COVID-19 pandemic imposed unprecedented challenges on all members of the Seattle business community, but developers were among those hit particularly hard.

They have weathered high inflation, interest rates, and variable demand.

Extending these permits is one way we can support market rate developers, meet the demands of current and future growth, and maintain steady revenue for the city.

Without this extension, a significant number of permits are at risk of expiration.

This would not only impede new construction projects but also result in a loss of potential revenue, hinder progress on housing goals, and delay our city's recovery.

I urge you to consider the broader impact of supporting this legislation.

Your affirmative vote will spur economic development and play a crucial role in economic recovery.

I encourage you to vote in favor of the master use permit extension and continue supporting the sustainable development of our community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Lily.

And we will now move on to remote.

Up first, we have Natalie Quick, followed by Paul Mohan, Colleen McClure, Jesse Simpson, John Schwartz, and JP Emery.

Natalie, welcome.

And press start.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Take it away at your convenience.

Great.

Wonderful.

Good afternoon, council members.

Happy Friday.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today.

My name is Natalie Quick, and I'm commenting on behalf of NAOP, our state's commercial real estate association.

This legislation is part of the mayor's downtown activation plan in response to COVID and the current economic climate.

Currently, a project's master use permit, or MOP, is good for three years.

This legislation would extend existing MOPs for another three years, for a total of six years, allowing additional time for new market rate and low-income housing, small business, retail, and commercial projects, time, to continue weathering the challenging economic and frozen real estate markets.

The idea behind this legislation is to keep projects that might otherwise expire in the next few years on life support long enough to let market conditions improve.

There's about 207 projects right now that are in the lurch according to SDCI.

It would not waive MHA payments.

It would hopefully give these projects time to secure investments and funding, ultimately pay MHA with their building permit once they can secure that financing, and proceed.

If these projects expire, the time and cost barriers to Muppet's re-entitlement will represent the major delays to future MHA payments.

This legislation, we hope, is a partial cure.

Central staff raised some questions about what this would do to MHA purchasing power since it would potentially delay those payments.

Staff estimates it could result in a loss between $3 to $5 million in payments due to loss of inflation updates on fees.

Right now, these projects do not pencil and will not proceed to building permit.

So if a fix is not in place, all expiring projects will likely be lost along with all MHA payments.

With this legislation, hopefully, a large subset of those 207 projects I mentioned will ultimately proceed, pay their MHA projects

You had a couple seconds left if you wanted to say anything.

Thanks.

I was on my last sentence.

Those projects will proceed and pay their payments, MHA payments at the time of permit.

So thank you and please vote to move this legislation forward.

Thank you very much.

Up next, we have Paul Mahoon followed by Colleen and then Jesse.

Paul, welcome.

I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

Paul, I see you here.

Star six to unmute.

There you are.

Welcome.

Thank you, council members.

Apologies.

I had some button trouble there.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity also to address you on this bill.

My name is Paul Moen.

I'm with Seattle Downtown Hotel and Residences.

We own property in Belltown that we've spent many years permitting.

It consists of a 54-story mixed-use project with a 257-room hotel, 233 residential units, as well as a significant amount of ground-level retail space.

We're very excited about the project, which we think will enhance the Fifth Avenue streetscape and support the downtown Seattle recovery.

This project will also contribute over $6 million in MHA fees and have a very beneficial effect on the city's transportation network as I'm sure the committee members can appreciate that downtown residents are far less likely than those living in single-family home neighborhoods or suburban neighborhoods to travel by car, and that's particularly true with this project, which is a short block away from the West Lake Link light rail station, the monorail terminus, and many other public transit points.

So we're now through the permitting process, but given the market and financial conditions, As I know the Council appreciates it's extremely challenging right now to finance construction of projects like this in this climate.

This bill, which is based on the City's past extensions to MUPS, granted in connection with the Great Recession, would provide additional time for projects like ours to hopefully secure financing and proceed forward.

This bill will support more housing and construction in the City and a more vibrant downtown.

The alternative is that the arm up and those others who are similarly situated would expire and we would need to restart the permitting process, which would further delay construction and MHA payments for years, if not longer.

We appreciate the mayor's support and ask that the committee adopt the bill with Councilmember Strauss's amendment.

Thank you.

Up next is Colleen McClure, followed by Jesse Simpson and then John Schwartz, last JP Emery.

Colleen, I see you're already off mute.

A true professional here.

Take it away at your convenience.

I got it.

Yes.

Thank you, Council, and happy holidays.

I'm here to speak for the public today about Bill 120674, and we oppose the bill the way it is right now and ask that City Council amend it to still retain that three-year check-in point.

The reasons are that the legislation does not address the impacts of lengthening the terms of the MUPS, which would not be required to meet the city's land use code in three years.

This particular council, for example, as you noted, has legislated many changes in the last six years in land use codes to protect the city from impacts of climate change.

For example, higher efficiency requirements, natural gas hookups, tree protection, lot coverages.

et cetera, have substantially changed.

In six years, it's too long to allow a permit to potentially be out for outdated plans that don't comply with the city's future land use plans and goals.

The change in this particular legislation really grants special favors and incentives not to comply with this well-conceived city regulations that benefit the public in the future.

The new legislation is already encouraging some developer speculation, hoping to grandfather in their projects, resulting in prolonged vacant properties that are detrimental to the public In Northeast Seattle, grocery stores are vanishing.

The Wedgwood QFC was a huge loss to the community in 2021, promised to build apartments and retain a store, but now there's a for sale sign on the property.

There's a large safe way up the five corners at Northeast 45th, also approved for a MUP.

It's now covered with graffiti and is occupied with unauthorized users with no timeline to do anything with the building, allowing MUP projects to take six years without checking in with SDCI.

is not for the public's benefit, but instead it creates these empty storefronts with visual blight throughout the city.

We ask that you amend the bill to retain that three-year check-in point, and it's just fine to extend it for another three years if it meets the city's regulations and the owner's feasibility.

Thanks so much, and thanks for all your work this year.

Thanks, Colleen, and Happy New Year.

Up next is Jesse Simpson, followed by John Schwartz and JP Emery as our last speaker.

Jesse, welcome.

I see you are also already off mute.

Take it away.

Hey, good afternoon, council members.

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

Here today to speak in support of Council Bill 120674, extending the master use permit or MUPS by another three years.

We know that the economic conditions since the COVID-19 pandemic first started a broad development across Seattle to Stansell.

And there's approximately 200 projects that this legislation could help.

The development financing market is suspended and banks aren't lending.

These projects aren't moving forward right now, which means that even though they've committed funding, they've vested to mandatory housing affordability payments, They have not actually paid that funding in for affordable housing as that happens with the building permit.

So with all of this financing investment drying up, these projects face the expiration of their existing master use permit.

Installed projects, they represent thousands of potential future homes, millions of dollars of affordable housing through the mandatory housing affordability programs.

Extending them up to this legislation aims to keep projects alive during these difficult times so it can bring new homes and affordable housing funding online, hopefully at a future point in time where the development markets are working better.

Understand that there's been some attention paid to the calculated $3 to $5 million reduction in potential MHA fees.

I think this is kind of a theoretical calculation there against what it would LOOK LIKE IF EVERY ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS WERE TO HAVE AN EXPIRED MUP AND THEN ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE WORK OF REAPPLYING FOR A PERMIT OFF OF THE INFLATED MHA VESTING PAYMENTS.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT'S VERY THEORETICAL AND VIEW THIS LEGISLATION AS THE BEST WAY TO GET THEM.

THANK YOU, JESSE.

UP NEXT IS JOHN SCHWARTZ FOLLOWED BY JP EMERY.

JOHN, I SEE YOU'RE HERE.

STAR 6 TO UNMUTE.

I see you're off mute.

Take it away John.

Good afternoon.

Thanks council members for allowing us to speak to this.

I'm John Schwartz.

I've been involved in probably a dozen high rise towers built in downtown Seattle and several other large projects in the Puget Sound region mostly in Seattle though.

I really wanted to emphasize that keeping these projects that are either have issued MUFs or MUFs about to be issued is Super critical to both preserve MHA funding that would derive from those projects.

The other major thing we're seeing in the industry right now is just a real lack of liquidity on both the investment side and the lending side.

Oftentimes, the institutional investors that are going to invest in these large projects need to have entitlements in place and secured.

before they are allowed within their investment rules to invest in these projects.

So that's one of the key issues of keeping these MUFs alive is that it broadens the investors that can participate in these.

As previously mentioned, the lending situation is pretty locked up right now.

Hopefully that's going to start to ease here as we get into 2024. I think the other thing that hasn't really been mentioned is how many jobs get tied to the actual construction of these projects.

That's a huge piece of our local economy that we'd like to see continue.

And as I previously mentioned, continuing the MHA payments into those funds or construction of those is important.

So I would urge everyone to vote in favor of this, including Council Member Strauss' amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Our final speaker for this public hearing is JP Emery.

JP, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Great.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Hi, my name is JP Emery.

I'm an architect and principal with Inquil-Moison Architects, as well as a former design representative on the Downtown Design Review Board.

I'm speaking in favor of the proposal to extend MUP expirations.

We have experienced significant reductions in interest in entitling and building new housing in Seattle due to escalating construction costs and high interest rates.

Over time, we expect these market conditions to improve and for construction to proceed on projects which are already entitled.

This proposal allows landowners and developers to reduce their risk, pursue new entitlements, that are now in kind of uncertain conditions but may be viable in a couple of years and retain their existing investment entitlements that they've already put in until conditions improve and they're able to finance and build new market rate and affordable housing projects.

The net benefit to the public here is more needed housing within the city of Seattle provided sooner and more MHA payments as well as performance option affordable housing within the city of Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, JP.

That was our last speaker physically and remotely present for the public hearing on Council Bill 120674. The public hearing on Council Bill 120674 is now closed.

I'd like to briefly turn it over to Gordon Clowers and Ketel Freeman of Council, Gordon Clowers of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection and Ketel Freeman of Council Central Staff for a brief presentation.

Ketel, are you going first or is Gordon?

Let's see.

Probably Gordon, I imagine, if you want to refresh the presentation that was given last week.

I can maybe turn it over to him, and then we can talk about the two proposed amendments.

Fantastic.

Yeah, and do we have the presentation from?

Well, we do, but I think I'll just try to give the verbal summary real quick.

If we could pull up, I believe it's slide six.

Okay.

Clerk is on top of it.

This one.

It was slide six.

There we are.

Gordon, take it away.

All right.

Well, we'll do a refresher on the difference between the existing practice and proposed practice.

And it has been alluded to already.

But the current...

code process for permits and permit renewal is that after a master use permit is issued by our department, there's a three-year period in which it is valid with no change.

And then by approaching the end of that third year, an applicant has to apply for an extension.

and there is a review at that time and any code changes that have happened in that three-year period that could have a bearing on the conditions of approval for the project have to be looked at and presumably added as conditions of approval.

And then that permit is good for another two years.

And while an applicant could apply for a building permit at any time really in the process, they need to have a complete building permit application in by that end of the fifth year.

Once they do have that complete building permit application in, then their life of their building permit and the project is as long as it takes to proceed through the building permit process and then make regular progress on developing the project.

And there can be circumstances where, you know, a period valid for a building permit is extended.

beyond two years after the building permit is issued.

So that once you have your master use permit and get into the building permit review realm, your project depends on the building permit.

And I'd just like to confirm that one person commenting today did note that there could be a difference between the codes that are applicable when the master use permit was originally approved versus at a three-year period.

So, the proposal is to just have the master use permit lifespan run for six years and have the codes at the time of the master use permit approval apply for that entire six-year period.

Thank you, and when you referenced you must have your building permit application or issued within the life of the MUP.

A complete building permit application.

Okay.

Yes.

And so that gives, ensures that the building reviewers have enough, the full application for that to proceed in their review and decide and then presumably in many cases approve that permit for development.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Mr. Freeman, anything that you'd like to add here?

Um, no, I think Gordon summarized the proposal.

Well, sort of the trade off is many of the public testifiers, um, brought to light is one between kind of economic development and, um, the council's ability to impose future regulations and also the purchasing power of revenue that comes from mitigation programs like M.

H. A.

Thank you.

And one thing that I know in our economic down, the building downturn that we're experiencing right now, as well as the desire to revitalize downtown, having different codes change, whether it's the energy code or the or anything really it can really change the viability of a project because at the beginning of the MUP process is when builders are putting together their package and so when we're looking at this bill what it does is on using this slide it's very simple we're trying to simplify this process and create consistency and stability for building projects downtown right now.

And the first amendment that I've got, I'm just going to briefly describe while I'm using this slide and then we'll jump into it.

The first amendment that I have would simply allow the start date to be September 1st of 2019 rather than March 1st of 2020. And this is because we know that the projects that were put in place, well, number one, this bill is helping to keep projects that were to be built during the pandemic alive.

And we know that these packages that were put together in September of 2019 could not foresee the economic downturn that occurred in March of 2020. When I was running for election the first time in September of 2019, I sure did not see a pandemic coming in March of 2020 myself.

And so providing that consistency.

The second amendment that I have today, as you see at the end of the third year on this slide, is when projects can apply for an extension.

And so the projects that have applied for an extension, if we did not pass the Second Amendment, they would only have a lifespan of five years.

And by simply allowing an automatic extension for that sixth year, we create consistency throughout the program.

So I just wanted to use this slide because I think it's so helpful.

And I'm now gonna move into some procedural elements and then Mr. Freeman will jump into the amendments.

Because we had the public hearing on the same day as we hope to vote on this bill, we do need to suspend the rules.

And so I'm gonna do that first, which is if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on council bill 120674 on the same day as the public hearing.

Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended.

And so I'm going to move Council Bill 120674. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to vote on Council Bill 120674. With that, I am going to turn it back over to Ketel Freeman regarding Amendment 1. And then after Ketel goes, I'll move the amendment.

I'll share my screen here.

OK.

So you should see Amendment Number 1 here, sponsored by Councilmember Strauss.

If you could zoom in just a little bit, that would be great.

Yeah.

So here's the amendment, of course, and then the amendment language.

Very simple, just changing the start date.

So the amendment would increase the window of time during which mass use permits that have been approved for issuance would automatically receive an extended six year life.

So instead of the start date proposed by the mayor, which is March 1st, 2020, the start date would be September 1st, 2019. So approximately six months earlier.

Wonderful.

The amendment has been discussed and presented.

It's quite straightforward, so I don't have any additional comments.

Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments or concerns on this amendment?

Seeing none at this time, we'll take this to a vote.

So I would like to move Amendment 1 as presented on the agenda to Council Bill 120674. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1 to Council Bill 120674. Just double-checking.

Any final questions?

Seeing none, Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

Amendment one to council bill 120674 passes.

And we'll move on to amendment number two.

Mr. Freeman, if you'd like to brief this amendment and then I will move it.

So this is the second amendment authored by Council Member Strauss and this would amend the bill to provide sort of two tracks for master use permit extension.

First would be the one proposed by the mayor.

So a map that is approved for issuance and between September 1st and December 31st, September 1st, 2019 and December 31st, 2026 would automatically have a six year life.

for those mass use permits that had have received an extension by the date the bill becomes effective that extension would last for one additional year thank you mr freeman very straightforward i don't have any additional questions comments or concerns but i'll check in with the

with my colleagues.

Colleagues, do you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this amendment?

Seeing none, I would like to move Amendment 2 to Council Bill 120674. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 2 to Council Bill 120674. Any final questions?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The Amendment 2 to Council Bill 120674 passes.

And that is the end of our presentation.

We are now on the underlying bill as amended.

Colleagues, do you have any questions, comments on the underlying bill?

I'll just say this is the third piece of the downtown activation plan from the mayor.

It's the fourth piece.

If you consider the SEPA changes that I made ahead of the official unveiling of the downtown activation plan, which was also done in concert, we just couldn't wait.

So we got going a little early and so this is now the fourth piece of legislation regarding the downtown activation plan.

Councilmember Peterson, I did see you had a hand for a second and then it, yeah, take it away, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I want to thank you for providing the committee with sufficient time for us to review and consider this legislation, including the summary and fiscal note and the central staff memo.

And so I do support making sure that the full City Council can vote on this in a timely manner on December 12, which is our last meeting of the year.

The summary and fiscal note from the executive that accompanies this legislation states that due to some of the projects have invested prior to the mandatory housing affordability program, quote, it could result in lost MHA revenue estimated at 3 million to 5.5 million.

And that same summary and fiscal note continues to state that quote, other eligible projects that benefit from the legislation would be subject to MHA.

However, the MHA fees would not be adjusted for inflation, end quote.

So that would potentially result in additional loss of revenue for low-income housing.

The memo from our city council, central staff echoes this and states that quote, extending the lives of.

Subject to will further erode the purchasing power.

Of MHA payments by allowing older projects to maintain a vested right to payment amounts that have not been adjusted for inflation.

So, in addition to the.

likely loss of revenue for low-income housing projects through the MHA program.

And the benefits of this legislation are not clear to me for my constituents.

I'll be voting no on the final legislation.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

And I would also convey that if these projects die on the vine, We will receive no MHA payments for any of the projects.

And when we look at $3.5 to $5.5 million, when I look at the eight-story tower, family affordable tower in Ballard that we helped fund at $9.5 million, there were 88 units of two and three bedroom units.

With that in play that three and a half to five and a half million dollars we're looking at about a half of a building that in the other hand if we don't have if these projects die on the vine we will lose much more funding for affordable housing because none of the projects will will pay into any of the mha so i hear your concerns councilmember peterson absolutely understand and I know that you're gonna be voting no on the bill today, and then we can discuss offline if we can still bring it to council next week.

Colleagues, any other questions?

With that, seeing as no final comments, we've got a lot more work to do to get downtown Lively and exciting where we've come a long way in these last nine months in the last year We've come quite a long way.

So still always more work to do and I'm excited that this legislation will help that work Seeing as we have no final comments Clerk will you please call the roll on the on council bill one two zero six seven four as amended councilmember Mosqueda aye councilmember Nelson aye

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

And I see Council Member Nelson's off mute.

Council Member Nelson?

Three in favor, one against, and one abstention.

It's not an abstention, but yes.

Three in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120674 as amended passes.

If there is no objection, the Council rules will be suspended to send the Council Bill 120674 to the December 12th, 2023 City Council for final action.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

I'm sorry, but my Zoom went out right before the vote.

So could you please add my name to the I column?

Yeah, let's just call the vote again.

I'm sure Amelia will tell me later that this is a strange way of doing business.

But clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120674 as amended.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Council Bill 120674 is amended.

It passes out of committee.

If there's no objection, Council rules will be suspended to send Council Bill 120674 to the December 12, 2023 City Council meeting for final action.

HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE COUNCIL RULE IS SUSPENDED.

THE LEGISLATION WILL BE SENT TO THE DECEMBER 12, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A FINAL VOTE.

THANK YOU, GORDON, FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.

THANK YOU, KEATLE, FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.

When I was giving my thank yous earlier today, I would be here for two days if I thanked every single person in SDCI and every single person in OPCD for all of your work this year to really get a lot of legislation passed.

So please send along my gratitude to the department, Gordon.

I will, thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we have some of our favorites from OPCD.

Jim Holmes is back with us, who was center with the maritime and industrial lands changes.

So let's get this next item on the agenda, which is on the agenda for briefing discussion, public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 120675, which will remove size of use limits for medical uses in the maritime manufacturing and logistics zone.

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

Item two, Council Bill 120675, Industrial and Maritime Medical Uses Amendment for briefing, discussion, public hearing, and possible vote.

Thank you.

We don't have anyone remotely or physically present for the public hearing.

So at this time, will staff please confirm that there's not a member of the public remote or in person for this public hearing before closing the public hearing?

Confirmed.

Thank you.

Clerk, can you also confirm?

Confirmed.

Thank you.

Seeing as there's not a member of the public remotely or physically present, the public hearing for Council Bill 120675 is now closed.

I'm going to turn it over to Lish and Jim.

I will just briefly state before your presentation, we were able to pass the strongest land use protections for maritime and industrial lands this year.

We also allowed for additional office space, additional housing in the buffer zones.

One of the issues here are medical uses.

We don't want medical uses to be sucking up industrial maritime zoning areas in the MML zone.

And at the same time for existing medical uses, there needs to be a little bit of flexibility in certain places.

And so that's what this bill here is about.

With that, I see Jim is off mute, so I think he's going first, and then Lish will turn it over to you.

Welcome, Jim.

Good afternoon.

Yeah, I have a one-slide presentation.

It is a fairly straightforward legislation.

It would exempt medical services from the maximum size of use limits in the maritime manufacturing and logistics zone.

We've included some criteria to limit application of this amendment to only medical service uses that existed as of July 2023, which is when Council approved industrial maritime legislation, and on land that is east of airport way south in the Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center.

We know there's at least one medical service provider there.

There may be others, but it is a fairly limited application of the exemption.

Thank you, Jim.

Lish, anything to add?

No, happy to answer questions, but this is fairly straightforward.

Very straightforward.

Who knew industrial maritime zoning could be very straightforward?

That's a bad joke.

I'm sorry.

It is Friday afternoon.

Council colleagues, are there any questions regarding this simple change?

I'm seeing none.

I think this is a small and prudent change to make.

And so with that, I will need to...

If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on council bill 120675 on the same day as a public hearing.

Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended.

And clerk, I got going so quickly.

Have we moved and seconded this bill?

I don't believe we have.

No, we have not.

So with that, I move council bill 120675. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it has been moved and seconded to move Council Bill 120675. Any final comments?

Seeing none, Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Council Member Nelson has left the meeting and is excused.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Council Bill 120675 passes.

And if there's no objection, the Council rules will be suspended to send Council Bill 120675 to the December 12th, 2023 City Council meeting for final action.

Hearing no objection, the Council rule is suspended.

This legislation will be sent to the December 12th, 2023 full City Council meeting for a vote.

Our final item on the agenda today is a briefing discussion and possible vote on clerk file 314400, which is a contract rezone at 1620 16th Avenue.

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

Item three, clerk file 314400, contract rezone at 1620 16th Avenue for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

We're joined by Lish Whitson from Council Central staff for the presentation.

Lish, please take it away.

Thank you.

I'll jump right in.

All right.

So this is a quasi-judicial reason subject to the appearance of fair misdoctrine.

And your decision should be made on the record established by the hearing examiner.

Excerpts from the record are included with the clerk file attached to this item.

The hearing examiner and both recommend approval of this contract rezone.

The proposal would rezone one parcel located on 16th Avenue between East Madison Street and East Olive Street in the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Council District 3 from low-rise 3M to neighborhood commercial 365M1.

The parcel is approximately 7,200 square feet.

The rezone would allow for the development of an 88-unit residential development with restaurant space on the ground floor and parking for residents and visitors to the Jewish Family Service facility across 16th Avenue.

Jewish Family Service is the current owner of the property and is seeking this rezone.

Development would occur on the subject parcel and the parcel to the south, which is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial 375 with an M designation.

uh this map shows the site um the area with the crosshatch just the parcel that's being rezoned and the bright red triangle is the adjacent parcel where development would also occur as you can see it's basically where pine street dead ends into 16th avenue and close to the intersection of pine 16th and madison street Here is a couple of pictures of existing conditions.

The site to be rezoned includes a five-unit apartment building that is currently vacant and a surface parking lot.

used by Jewish Family Service, which is on the left on the bottom picture.

It's located across the street from the ReZone site.

On the corner is the Madison Market Co-op building, which is a neighborhood landmark that you may know.

Here is a rendering of the proposed development that would be facilitated by the ReZone, six stories, ground floor.

Um, access to parking off of 16th Avenue.

Here's the street level plan on the left.

The yellow orangey section of the site is where the restaurant would be located.

On the right, you can see a general organization of the residential floors with the number of studios and 1 bedroom apartments.

As I mentioned, SDCI and the hearing examiner recommend approval given when the hearing examiner filed their recommendations with the Council.

The Council should act by February 15th.

Hearing examiner recommended one condition, that development of the rezoned property be in substantial conformance with approved plans for the associated master use permit.

If the committee votes to recommend approval, there are three actions that I'd recommend taking today.

The first is to update the title of the clerk file to include the applicant of record, Daniel Goddard of Weinstein A plus U, to update the existing zoning.

The application was first filed prior to the adoption of the mandatory housing affordability program.

And so the title of the clerk file includes outdated zoning that reflected the pre-MHA zoning.

This amendment would update the zoning categories to the current zoning.

After amending the title, I recommend adding findings, conclusions, and decisions to the clerk file.

Those are attached to my memo.

For this one, they basically just accept the findings and conclusion of the hearing examiner and state the council's intent to approve the rezone.

And after that, vote to recommend approval of the clerk file.

If you choose not to approve the rezone, all you have to do is vote no on the clerk file.

If the committee votes to recommend approval, I will make sure the council bill was introduced in early 2024. And it will include the property assigned copy of the property use and development agreement that is attached to my memo.

And that includes the conditions that the hearing examiner recommended.

Um, and the city council would vote a subsequent meeting, preferably before February 15th.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Lish seems very straightforward to me.

If you could slide back to slide nine.

Here we are.

So colleagues, we're going to take three votes.

after I take any additional questions.

We're first going to amend the title, and then we will vote to add the finance conclusions and decisions, and then we will vote to recommend the approval.

So before we get into the three-step voting process, I do want to check to see if there's any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this clerk filing contract reason.

Seeing none, I'm going to move us through this.

First, I am going to move Clerk File 314400. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to pass Clerk File 314400. Next, I move to amend the title to reflect the current zoning and applicant of record.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the title to reflect the current zoning and applicant of record.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor?

Thank you.

The motion passes.

The title has been amended to reflect the current zoning and applicant of record.

Moving on to adding findings, conclusions, and decision.

I move to add the findings, conclusions, and decision to clerk file 314400. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to add the findings, conclusions, and decision to clerk file 314400. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you, the motion passes.

The findings, conclusions and decision has been added to clerk file 314400. Up next is the final vote and so I want to take a moment to check to see if there are any questions, comments or concerns on the underlying clerk file.

Seeing none, I move to recommend the amended rezone application in clerk file, or the rezone application in the amended clerk file 314400 to be granted.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to grant the rezone in the application in the amended clerk file 314400. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

The clerk file, the amended clerk file 314400 passes and this clerk file and its companion council bill will be sent to a city council meeting in January or February before the deadline for final adoption.

Thank you so much Lish, thank you colleagues.

With that, we have six minutes to spare before we're at a 60 minute mark for our final land use committee.

I will say it has been an immense pleasure to be a land use committee chair for four years.

This is our final land use committee and I now see this is where in the script we have all the thank yous.

I did put them at the beginning.

off the cuff and so they do come from the heart.

And colleagues, I wanna thank you for all of your hard work this year.

It has been amazing working with you.

Council Member Peterson, I see you there.

Council Member Mosqueda, I saw you just come off.

So with that, thank you for allowing me to be your Land Use Committee Chair for the past four years.

I'm proud of the work we've accomplished and I'm looking forward to continuing my work on land use with future colleagues.

With that, Happy New Year.

I hope a happy Hanukkah and I hope you have a great holiday season.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes the Friday, December 8th, 2023 Special Land Use Committee meeting.

We are adjourned.

you