Seattle City Council Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 1/24/2025

Good morning, everyone.

It is Friday, January 24th, 9.30, and this is the special meeting of the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee.

We will now come to order.

The precise time is 9.33.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Present.

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Council Member Saka?

Here.

Chair Nelson.

Present.

Five in favor.

Five present.

We're all here, and the reason why more than half of the committee is joining remotely is because we had to have a meeting with full counsel yesterday to interview our candidates for the vacancy.

So that is why we moved this to today, and that is why some people aren't able to be here in person.

All right, this morning we'll be having our first briefing and discussion of Council Bill 120933, which would allow for housing in the stadium district.

And we'll start with a presentation that I put together to to basically explain and establish the why behind this legislation.

And then following that, we'll hear from panelists.

And then we'll have a presentation from our central staff and then one from Rico Kirindongo, who is the director of the Office of Planning and Community Development to explain a little bit about the underlying legislation.

All right, so hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Council President.

Go ahead, please.

Yes, I obviously approved the agenda.

I just did want to, just for the record purposes, I just wanted to state my objection of this bill being heard in this committee as opposed to the Land Use Committee as I view it as a Land Use Committee action.

or the select committee on the comprehensive plan.

So I just wanted to state that for the record.

I also wanted to pass that I did check in with legal regarding, since this is land use and land use has a lot of issues.

And then of course we have the voter approved transportation levy with its freight program, which is very interesting.

And I've learned now that I'm no longer a rookie council member, there's a difference between being parliamentary okay and legal okay.

She hasn't gotten back to me yet.

I suspect it will be okay, but I thought it was appropriate to ask.

And it reminds me of the idea that, you know, because we can do it doesn't mean we should.

And I hope this process that we're about to undertake helps us answer whether we should move forward with this.

So thank you.

I just wanted to say that just for the record purposes.

I appreciate that.

And we always need to hear from community and really have a robust discussion of important legislation.

And council member Saka has joined us in person.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

All right.

Hearing some objections, but not to the actual proceedings of today's meeting, the agenda is adopted.

All right, with that, we'll now move into public comment on that agenda item.

Clerk, how many people have signed up to speak?

Chair, we have 38 in-person public commenters and 12 virtual.

Okay.

We'll give folks one minute to speak.

Please proceed with the instructions.

Of course, I'll call on speakers in the order they signed up to speak, starting with in-person commenters, speakers will have one minute.

When you hear the chime, you'll have 10 seconds left.

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

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

And for in-person commenters, we will start with Seattle Port Commissioner, Fred Fellerman.

And let's do, Tim, instead of all the in-person, let's do 10 and then move to some remote.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Thank you very much.

I prepared a two-minute speech, but you want me to cut this in half?

Well, I'll talk quickly.

Councilmember, President Nelson, pardon my cold, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to the land use amendment that would reopen the maritime and industrial lands policy that was passed in 2023. I'm Port of Seattle Commissioner Fred Felleman, and I've served in this capacity since 2016. I'm also a Ballard resident, where we have worked very hard to make sure that we can have compatibility with our industrial lands and our community.

The port strongly opposes this amendment, and we urge you to oppose it as well.

I want to be clear, the port is a champion and supporter of addressing housing in Seattle.

I testified on the missing middle bill in Olympia, and we'll be happy to support you all as we embark upon the comprehensive plan to build density in our city.

But one thing is clear.

But this is clear to me is that this proposal is a spot rezone to benefit one wealthy out-of-state developer.

The industrial lands package that was transmitted by Mayor Harrell in 2023 was a culmination of over a decade of work with many stakeholders.

Nobody got exactly what we wanted, but we got an agreement.

As a compromise, the port agreed to hotels in the stadium district.

We understand that activation and fan experience is key for visitors.

It wasn't popular with everyone.

But long-term housing in an industrial zone without basic amenities is unacceptable and compromises our ability to attract new tenants.

Please don't put housing in conflict with job growth.

Instead, focus on the comprehensive plan and count on the Port of Seattle as a key partner in support of the city's prosperity.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next in-person public commenter will be Lisa Howard, followed by Amy W. I apologize if I mispronounce your last name.

Following that will be Peter Hart.

So Lisa, Amy, and Peter, you're up next.

And before you begin, we have tried to establish a tradition of jazz hands or other ways of showing support so that we can get through people a little bit quicker, but I appreciate your you being here and your engagement.

Go ahead, please.

All right.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Lisa Howard, and I'm the executive director of the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

I'm here today to support our strong support for Council Bill 120933 for residential uses in the stadium transition overlay area.

The thoughtful proposal south of T-Mobile is both well-vetted and thoughtful, taking in the various needs of the stakeholders into consideration in both size and scope of the legislation.

I encourage you to listen to the panel today and really ask those questions.

It truly is right-sized for what we need right now as a city.

Thank you for the thoughtful consideration and steadfast leadership.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Amy.

Following Amy, we have Peter Hart.

Following Peter, we have Lars Turner.

Amy?

And sorry for my poor handwriting.

That's Andy Watula.

I'm the chief operating officer at Hudson Pacific Properties.

We own five office properties in Piner Square.

I'm a big believer in Seattle, and I'm a big believer in Piner Square.

We're in strong support of this amendment.

I think it will add to the recovery and vibrancy of this great neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My apologies, Andy.

Following that, we got Peter, and then Lars, and then Lindsey.

Morning, Madam Chair and the members of the committee.

My name's Peter Hart.

I'm currently the Secretary-Treasurer of the Inland Boatman's Union.

I've worked on Seattle's waterfront as a merchant mariner, as a labor representative for over 25 years.

along with our maritime employers.

Our work provides lots of taxes for our community from these professional maritime careers.

Because of this, I speak strongly against Council Bill 129-33 because of the dire consequences to our local economy and to our community sustaining jobs.

There was a compromise already negotiated on mixed use development in the city that identified parts of Georgetown as acceptable spaces to experiment with this sort of makers district workforce housing concept.

The city should concentrate its efforts on already agreed to sub areas for this sort of work.

We are pro affordable housing just in places with compatible land uses and where it wouldn't cause harm to our residents.

Ultimately, the proposal would benefit One already very wealthy landowner, Chris Hansen, at the expense of workers on the waterfront, economic productivity across Washington state.

We shouldn't bend the entire government over to help.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Lars following Lars.

Please, please know that you can please send in the rest of your comments or just send it all to us and it'll go into the record in completion.

Thank you.

Thank you, council president.

Lars, go ahead.

Chairperson Nelson, committee members, thank you.

My name is Lars Turner.

I'm the International Secretary Treasurer for the Masters Mates and Pilots Union.

I live in Seattle's 6th District.

My comments are in opposition to the Council Bill 120933. It's important that we have a strong working industrial center in our city.

These are good jobs, family wage jobs, 58,000 Washington jobs associated with this industrial land, 7,000 in Seattle itself.

These are long-term employment, generational economic benefits versus a short-term limited job opportunity.

Once we lose high-quality, long-term jobs, we'll lose them forever.

Industrial lands are no place for housing.

We need affordable housing, but not in this proposed area.

No one should have to live in or adjacent to industrial lands, corridors.

These areas have high pollution, high noise, high freight traffic, high pedestrian safety issues.

There's lower bike safety issues.

Thank you, Lars.

Thank you.

Next, we have Lindsey.

Following Lindsey, we have Rich, Austin, and then Robert.

So we got Lindsey, Rich, and then Robert up next.

Good morning.

I am Lindsay Wolpa here on behalf of the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the joint venture between the ports of Seattle and Tacoma responsible for operating cargo terminals in both harbors.

I'm also a proud resident of District 1. The Northwest Seaport Alliance urges you to oppose this proposed code amendment.

You've heard those in favor of this legislation pointing to the city's 2022 final EIS as a key reason as to why this amendment should move forward.

We reject this perspective as widely acknowledged at the time the strategy was adopted that transportation was not adequately addressed.

To a directly quote from the city's EIS, this programmatic EIS addresses area-wide land use zoning changes rather than project-specific proposal.

Because the specific locations and sizes are unknown at this time, it is not possible to know how freight will be impacted.

This is further strengthened in recognizing the December 2023 unanimous adoption of Resolution 32097. We welcome the opportunity to work with the city and others in carrying out the intent of the resolution to support a safer intent.

I had to cut this down.

I'll just go to the very end.

We want to acknowledge many partners here today and across the state standing with us in solidarity has been shared with this body many times.

Thank you, Lindsay.

I'll send it in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

President.

I am sorry.

I should have put out a...

I should have reminded folks how long we have up to two minutes.

Anyway, go ahead.

Following Lindsey, we got Rich Austin Jr., Robert Rhodes, Elaine Smith, and then Ali Vekic.

My apologies.

Rich?

Following Rich, we got Robert Rhodes.

Elaine Smith, Ally V. Hello, I'm Robert Rotes.

Go ahead, Robert.

I'm against...

What is it called?

I don't even know the name of it, but I'm against it.

It's like, OK, I feel a little offended because they're coming after my jobs, my brother's, my sister's jobs, my kid's jobs.

This is generationally a thing that's going on and been going on.

I am for affordable housing, of course.

I grew up in affordable housing.

It just doesn't have to be here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert.

Following Robert, we got Elaine Smith and then Ali V. Good morning.

This is Alan Smith, Local 19. I've been a longshoreman on the waterfront going on almost 20 years now.

I know the neighborhood very well.

I am against this bill.

This is not a good spot to be living in.

There has been multiple pedestrian fatalities involving trucks in my time on the waterfront.

It's very dangerous.

They're heavy haul corridors.

Not to mention the fact that this will severely impact Pier 46, which is one of Washington's only natural deep water ports.

This can make impacts for things like natural disasters, military issues, all kinds of things.

It's the only terminal that does not need to be dredged.

Uh, it impacts everybody from the east side of the mountains all the way to the, to the salt water here.

So it's this and, uh, I hope you guys will consider those points.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, and to conclude this first round of in-person commenters, we have Ali V.

My name is Ali Vekic.

I'm proud to live and work in District 1, and I've worked on the waterfront for 22 years.

Future Soto residents would be exposed to the highest concentrations of air pollution in the city.

Exposure to air pollution is linked to a variety of significant health and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems.

non-fatal heart attacks and premature death.

People most at risk from pollution exposure include those with chronic heart and lung disease, children, and the elderly.

SOTO has a 24 hour day night average decibel rating that exceeds the Department of Housing and Urban Development standard for exterior noise levels for residential areas.

According to the National Institutes of Health, chronic environmental noise causes a wide variety of adverse health effects, including sleep disturbance, annoyance, noise induced hearing loss, cardiovascular disease, Anyway, I rise in strong opposition to this.

Please don't do this to our jobs.

Thank you.

Next, we'll do 10 virtual public commenters.

First, we'll have John Marcioni.

You have been unmuted.

Hey, John.

There we go.

Hello, I'm John Marchione, the Executive Director of the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, and we are the owners of Lumen Field in the heart of the stadium district.

The stadium authority is fully supportive of Council Bill 120-933.

Adopting allowances for housing and small businesses creates a new, fully formed community The new neighborhood will contain jobs, housing, transportation, and entertainment.

A full-time, active community provides safe spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy.

As proposed, this bill, the Stadium District provides a transition zone to industrial land and is complementary to its neighbors, the CID, Pioneer Square, and Soto communities.

The city's 2022 EIS documents that these land uses work in the stadium neighborhood.

Thank you and please pass the amendment onto the full council.

Thank you, John.

Next we have Kessa Sten.

You've been unmuted.

Kesa?

Can you hear us, Kesa?

Please feel free to press star six to unmute yourself.

One more time, star six.

All right, we'll come back to you, Kesa.

Next up, we have Chris Marr.

Chris, feel free to press star six to unmute yourself.

Yes.

Am I unmuted?

Yes.

Good morning.

We can hear you.

Hello.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, we can.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Chris Marr, chair of the baseball stadium public facilities district, which oversees public ownership of T-Mobile Park.

a half a billion dollar public asset.

T-Mobile Park consistently rates among the best in baseball and serves as a great community amenity.

It brings many benefits to Seattle, from Mariners games to concerts, school graduations, and many other events.

Last year, the PFD shared our disappointment that the maritime and industrial legislative package omitted a key part of stakeholder recommendations submitted to the mayor, namely the inclusion of a limited number of housing units.

The city's preferred alternative had included that housing, and the director's report transmitted to you, along with the legislation, clearly stated it would not negatively impact the role of the Port of Seattle and our industrial neighbors and the role they play in SOTO.

Today, I'd like to commend Council President Nelson for her leadership in correcting that omission and helping the broad coalition of stakeholders, including labor, small makers, businesses, affordable housing, and neighborhood leaders.

Help us realize our vision.

Next, we have Gabriel Grant.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Gabriel.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Go ahead.

Great.

Hi, Gabriel Grant.

I am a downtown resident and also a downtown business owner.

I support this council bill.

This measure would support the creation of a vibrant urban district with jobs, housing, and transit access in close proximity to a lot of amenities.

We need more housing in our urban areas, especially affordable housing, and I'm fully in support of this.

Finally, a lot of the opposition comments that I've heard about this are emphasizing how polluted and dangerous this area is.

Why in the world would we want to continue promoting dangerous and polluting activities in our downtown core when instead we could have affordable housing, close to transit access, and amenities next to our baseball and football stadiums?

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next we got Joshua Curtis.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Joshua Curtis.

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

I want to thank Council President Nelson for her leadership in bringing the legislation in front of you forward.

We've long advocated for the addition of housing to the city district.

As participants in the mayor's maritime and industrial lands advisory group, our makers district vision served as a model for the new urban industrial land use designation.

We were disappointed then when we became the only urban industrial zone neighborhood not allowed to build housing.

The legislation in front of you remedies this emission.

It will help to address the city's affordable housing shortage, create union jobs along the way, and build spaces for small makers' businesses to thrive.

Ultimately, it will create a neighborhood that will not only vitalize our area, but boost the economic vitality of Pioneer Square and the CID.

So I encourage you to trust the analysis conducted by OPCD last year and fulfill the promise of the recommendations that culminated from years of hard work.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next, we got Eric Fitch.

Thank you, Chair Nelson, members of the committee.

My name is Eric Fitch.

I'm the Executive Director at the Washington Public Ports Association, and I'm here in respectful opposition to Council Bill 1209 three, three around Washington state.

My member ports operate critical industrial facilities that provide good jobs in their communities and keep our state tied to global trade.

Those ports and their operations are constantly beset by the type of over gentrification and land use conversion pressures that you're considering today.

What you're considering today is the same thing.

The same group of Seattle's wealthiest real estate developers have been proposing every year for more than a decade.

And each time for a shiny new reason, Ten years ago, they told the city council that the stadium district should be rezoned to support development of a new basketball stadium and entertainment district.

There is no new basketball stadium there.

During the pandemic, that same advocates came to the Port of Seattle and asked that the stadium district be rezoned to create a makers district that they claimed could help fight global climate change.

Now they're telling you that these few blocks, preserved for industrial use for decades, will help you solve our city's affordable housing crisis.

This is not a housing crisis.

All right, we got Kesa.

Kesa.

I just wanna say one thing.

For additional people that are online to give remote public comment, star six is how you initiate your speaking, and then when you hear the chime, that means you've got 10 minutes, or 10 seconds remaining to speak.

Go ahead.

Kesa, I see that you're back on.

Please feel free to press star six.

go ahead all right we'll go to the next virtual commenter which will be herb crone herb please press star six to unmute yourself hello this is herb crown i'm a resident district six local chairperson

smart transportation division local 1348 railroad workers in the soto area these are industrial lands that cannot be replaced they provide middle wage jobs and uh the matter should have been settled with the 2023 uh ordinance uh the railroads and residential use and industrial and uses such as uh um Entertainment districts don't mix that isn't a lot that is the major rail corridor in these few blocks with the northwest for the western part of Washington and It creates a huge hazard if we allow people And build more residential units in the middle of a railroad district.

I urge you to oppose it.

Thank you Thank you

next virtual commenter is chad c go ahead chad please press start six thanks for my strong opposition to the amendment chad to council votes one two zero nine three three I served on our city's city's stakeholder team on building of our industrial lands.

I am proud of the work of that committee to reach a hard-fought, compromised solution that bounds stakeholder interests, including of the maritime industry and of developers.

We should not be revisiting this deal disapproved by the city last year to address a single stakeholder interest.

Changes in industrial land use in the city and district impacts the movement of goods across our state, including our billion-dollar commercial fishing industry and our $46 billion maritime industry.

We rely on the efficient access of goods to and from the court.

I urge you not to move this action forward.

Thanks.

Thank you, Chad.

Is that 10?

And then the last virtual public commenter, Kessa, let's try again.

Please feel free to press star six to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kisa Sten.

I am the president of ILWU Local 52. I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed amendment to rezone industrial lands, legislation that this council solidified less than two years ago.

The working waterfront freight corridors and industrial lands leading to and from the ports are critical components of the supply chain.

To allow housing to be built in the surrounding areas is counterintuitive to the purposes and mission of the ports.

and a working waterfront.

Where would these residents access grocery stores, schools, green space, transit, let alone access these things comfortably and safely?

Exhaust and industrial noise is not conducive to high quality of life.

Eventually, if housing is built in the area, it will lead to a slippery slope that erodes the effectiveness and ability of the port to operate.

There will be pressure to limit freight access and mobility, population congestion, leading to shipping delays in and out of the port area, and a desire to push out industry in favor of entertainment and housing All this will lead shippers and port customers to look elsewhere for service.

Leave the port and the surrounding industrial lands be.

Let the working waterfront be just that, a working waterfront.

Thank you.

Council President, we will resume with the in-person public commenters.

The first three on deck will be JJ Karch, Allison Steichen, and and I apologize in advance if I mispronounce your first or last name.

Thank you.

TJ Karch?

JJ Karch?

Thank you.

TJ Karch.

All right.

Thank you for having me.

I'd like to speak in strong opposition to what we have going on here.

Seattle wouldn't be the city it is without the strong logging and waterfront industry that it was in the 19th century.

If not for the waterfront, how else are you going to get all of your goods and services provided through this waterway?

Terminal 46, as Alan had mentioned, the naturally deep water berth that it is, is an important piece of our infrastructure that we need to maintain and continue to bring cargo through.

If you think about the cargo and the economic powerhouse that it is, the average price of cargo going through is $3,000 to $6,000.

On a given day, when we move 750 cans through just Terminal 46, we're moving $2.25 million cargo.

I think that that's the strongest thing that we could do for our city is continue that economic powerhouse that it is.

Thank you.

And just a reminder, if you hear the chime, you have 10 seconds left.

Thank you.

Hello, Alison Steichen, ILW Local 19. I am once again before you requesting that industrial lands stay industrial, per resolution 32097, which requires a study for non-industrial uses, a study which has not been done.

The inequity of this is appalling.

Just look at all the dock workers who had to take a day off work to stand up for our jobs and our industry, for all of you to renege on a deal to benefit one wealthy landowner.

and against the very namesake of the zoned area is quite frankly despicable.

I urge you to do the right thing and honor your prior commitments.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but I'm just gonna have to remind folks that to please follow the rules that I've asked to keep clapping to a minimum or just silent so that people can move through our speaking list faster.

Go ahead, please.

Good morning, Dejonalyn Fullow, IOW Local 19. I would just like to share these industrial lands provide opportunities that our blue-collar members thrive on.

Not only do these industrial lands provide a source of income to us, but to thousands of people throughout Washington State.

It is important that we remember the connection from a global standpoint to our beautiful port in Seattle.

These industrial lands should be protected from developers who want to add more housing.

Yes, our population is growing, but at what cost do we sacrifice the backbone of our economy to fill housing?

It won't just start or stop there.

With new housing, more traffic will occur and more buildings will need to be created to support the population coming in, such as grocery stores, gas stations, et cetera.

Let's keep in mind that this land is our future and the future of the next generation, our children.

I know many would agree that protecting this land will also secure our connection with the world through our port.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next three in-person commenters will be Charlie Bendock, Nick Sten, and then Brittany Wilson.

Charlie, Nick, and Brittany.

Good morning, my name is Charlie Bendock.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to us today.

We all appreciate that opportunity.

I'm a lifelong Seattle resident, almost 50 years now, and I've been working as a longshoreman coming up on almost 20 years.

My working brothers and sisters, union brothers and sisters, and our leadership, I'm sure, are talking about the financial impacts.

And we all know how important it is when you look at how hard it was to get supplies during the pandemic.

So this trade infrastructure is important.

It's bigger than just Seattle.

I have relatives east of the mountains.

Whenever there's trouble at the port getting agricultural exports out, they're talking to me.

What's the problem?

What's going on?

But the biggest thing I want to say is, yes, we need housing.

We want to keep our friends and the trades busy building housing for people.

But this is an inhospitable environment for residential living down here.

Seattle can do so much better.

It's a beautiful city.

I have friends from all over the world who love to come and visit, but this is not the place.

We have so many other beautiful neighborhoods.

We can develop housing to do what we need to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got Nick and then following Nick, Brittany.

Hey, council members.

Thanks for having me.

Nick Sten representing the ILWU, proud West Seattleite.

I'm not here just representing the ILWU.

I'm here representing potato and mushroom farmers on eastern Washington, potato farmers in Idaho, and steel makers in West Seattle.

I mean, this is a global economy that we're a part of.

This is what we're talking about.

We're talking about infringing on our place in the world economy.

And I urge you not to succumb to the whims of a billionaire who is just going to try and make a quick profit here.

This is about working wage jobs in Seattle.

We can afford houses in your districts.

That's where we live.

I plead the right thing here.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Brittany Wilson.

I am against this bill.

Like they said, it is for our working people.

I don't see how the benefit of putting affordable housing in this area with all the traffic that's already in downtown, that would just cause more frustration for the new residents anyway and the pollution and everything else.

So I just want to say that I'm against this bill and keep it how it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next three in-person commenters, we got Mark Elvison, Jordan Royer, and Gordon Baxter.

Mark, Jordan, and Gordon.

Hello, my name is Mark Elverson.

I'm the president of Local 19 Seattle.

I'm in opposition to this bill.

Seattle is the economic engine of the state of Washington.

The Port of Seattle just spent $500 billion to repair Pier 5 to make it a world-class pier.

We bring in the cargo for Chicago, Boise, Denver, Cleveland, all of America.

We bring it into eastern Washington.

This is a decision that will make the decision for us in the 25, 50, and 100 years.

What is the decision we are going to make for the port of Seattle?

You need to make the right decisions.

In 2023, you made the right decision.

Please stand with that deal that you made.

Thank you.

Next, we got Jordan, and then following Jordan Roy, we got Gordon Baxter.

Thank you.

Thank you for having me today.

My name is Jordan Royer, and I work for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, and we represent the marine terminal operators and the shipping lines that serve the West Coast of the United States.

Obviously, we operate here in the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma.

I was part of this whole stakeholder process, which was I've been working on this issue for a better part of a decade.

I thought we had it done.

I didn't expect to be here today, but here I am.

I am, unfortunately, in opposition to this.

I'm working on a similar process in Tacoma, the sub-area plan in the Tide Flats area.

And I have to say, the process in Tacoma, when there's a deal, it sticks, and you can count on it.

Our members, when we make big investments in infrastructure in a port, we look for cost, regulatory certainty, and reliability.

And unfortunately, Seattle is gaining a reputation of not being very reliable.

So I'd urge you to stick with the deal that we had, show that we are reliable, we are a good place to do business.

I live here, I'm from here, and I would like Seattle to have those kinds of investments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gordon.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

I'm Gordon Baxter.

I'm Secretary Treasurer of the Puget Town Maritime Trades Council, made up of 18 locals, all of the sailing units on the water, as well as the ILW Longshore Warehouse.

The shipyard unions, one of the big rail unions, the UTU, as well as the largest driver's local in the state Teamsters Local 174, which has over 7,000 members.

We have over 30,000 jobs locally dependent on trade.

40% of the jobs, they tell me, the state tells me, 40% of the jobs in this state are dependent on trade.

Our job is jobs, not low-wage and part-time service jobs.

We don't work three months a year or six months a year and then take unemployment or have to go to Arizona or South Dakota for work.

We stay here and spend our money here.

Let's not put our seniors' children disabled in an area which is a food desert, a school desert, and a service desert.

And I don't know about y'all, but I'm sick and tired of billionaires like Elon Musk pushing us around and telling us what to do.

and being land speculators at our expense.

Thank you, Gordon.

The next three in-person commenters are gonna be Carlin Smith, Ron Manuel, and Noah Baird.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Carlin Smith.

I was born and raised in this city, and thanks to my good union job, can still afford to live in this city.

Seattle does not just happen to have a deep water port.

Seattle is a city because of its deep water port.

Eroding access for heavy haul corridors and further congestion surrounding the port will weaken its ability to draw cargo and make our region's exports to the world market more expensive and less competitive.

More idling trucks trying to get in and out of the port area will worsen our air quality.

You can build housing and maker spaces anywhere.

You cannot move a deep water port.

Once you lose it, it will be gone forever.

These areas don't have neighborhood amenities.

They are food deserts, no community centers, no playgrounds.

This is not the place.

This is an industrial area.

We had a deal.

You spent longer negotiating than you have spent honoring it.

Don't be the Seattle council that is remembered for selling Seattle short for a hedge fund billion.

No, Ron.

So I'm Noah Baird, rank and file member of Local 19. You'll notice this room is full of people who are here working in Seattle.

The only people we've heard in favor of this bill are the lawyers of billionaires.

This council should not bend the knee to yet another billionaire attempting to make a quick buck and burning real jobs in the city for it.

You do have a deal in place.

You spent a long time as a council working on it.

You should not just ignore your own, sorry.

You've ignored your own committees to send this to yourself so that you can decide whether it's a good idea.

I'll thank you.

This is a terrible idea.

The next remaining in-person commenters, we got Joe Wall, Amadou Berry, Nicole Grant, Zack Snyder, and then Jesse Scott Candle.

Good morning.

My name is Ron Manuel.

I'm speaking against this action.

I've worked on the waterfront for over 37 years.

Local 19 has approximately 700 full-time workers, as well as another 1,000 part-time workers.

Along with those direct jobs on the waterfront, according to a Pacific Merchant Shipping Association study from October 2024, trade-related jobs count for one out of every eight jobs in the country.

Washington state is the most trade-dependent state in the nation.

According to 2019 study from Community Attributes, incorporated an organization based here in Seattle.

40% of Washington state jobs are direct related to port activity.

For over 110 years, these jobs have been year round, high paying family wage jobs that have supported families, contributed to the tax base of Washington state for over 110 years.

Why after previously reaching a deal on this area's land use just a year ago, would you now in a rush vote jeopardize the vitality of the industrial district and the jobs it provides for a flash in the pan construction jobs that'll be here and gone in a year or two and forever harm the ability to increase those port related jobs by pushing housing into incompatible areas.

Thank you, Ron.

All right, next we got Joe Wall, Amadou Berry, Nicole Grant, Zack Snyder, and then Jesse Scott Candle.

Thank you, council members.

Thank you for your willingness to staff these very challenging positions that you hold.

A few thoughts on the proposed changes.

I'd like you to be questioning of artful terminology, like I'm looking at one of these renderings that says it coins the term urban industrial zone.

I don't even know what that means.

It looks like what they really are trying to promote here is a residential industrial zone, like a restaurant that's a hospital or such things.

The baseball, the stadium district guys that allegedly represent us as a public district, I didn't hear any of them say we're gonna lower the price of a Mariners ticket or a Seahawk ticket if this goes through.

It's just, what are we getting out of it?

They're gonna get something, but they didn't really say what we're gonna get out of it.

Boy, that goes quick.

The statewide up zone must be considered that at the state level, we've up zoned every neighborhood in the state.

You don't need this on top of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Nicole Grant.

I'm a journey-level licensed electrician, and I represent 6,200 electricians like myself in IBEW Local 46. And we're here to speak in favor of this project.

We are a union that supports union-built affordable housing.

Now, whether that's social housing whether it's the housing that's proposed by through the bonding measure, or whether it's this project.

Union-built, affordable housing is a big deal for our members, and we can have it here.

I was the co-chair of the Industrial Lands Advisory Committee under Mayor Jenny Durkan, and I will tell you that this project was always on the table but it had to be studied first to make sure that it would not compromise the port of Seattle.

And it was studied and it does not compromise the port.

Thank you.

Next we have the remaining in-person commenters is Amadou Berry, Zack Snyder, Jesse Scott Kendall.

Okay.

Good morning, City Council.

My name is Amadou Berri.

I come from West Africa.

I live in the United States for 35 years.

And I moved Seattle from New York to here.

And I got an opportunity, privilege to take care of my family here in a beautiful city and for safety and good job.

And please, please, I beg you, don't approve for this project next to our union.

I'm from Local 19, all my family member here and the member.

See here, we come here today as a possible walk, but I take your day off for special for this day.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Please, I know I agree for this project.

Thank you so much.

Have a good.

Thank you.

And if you can please state your name before, that'd be great as well.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Zack Snyder, District 3 resident.

Just wanted to speak briefly on the makers aspect of this.

Living downtown, a lot of growing pains, a lot of changes.

Well, what's really important to me is a vibrant city that's really fun to hang out in.

Any opportunity for makers To have a place that's affordable, that serves as testing grounds for small business and creative arts is definitely something that I want to see Seattle have more of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then the last group of in-person public commenters, Council President, will be Aaron Hobbs, Shaylin Hobbs, Breeland Hobbs, and then following that will be Billy Hetherington.

Hello, my name is Jesse Scott Kendall.

I'm the representative for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters.

We have 15,000 members locally.

I'm also the financial secretary of Local 196. I am a West Seattle resident, District 1, a PCO for the 34th.

This is my district.

I'm here to speak in favor of the Stadium District Project.

Thousands of union jobs will be created out of this.

Thousands of homes will be created.

I don't know if you drive through the area, but there's a lot of homeless in that area.

You know, broken down cars, people camping out there.

It's in the wintertime.

It's raining.

It's cold.

They need a place to go.

You know, this is gonna have a community workforce agreement on it.

That means union jobs, people from our community, people from distressed zip codes, minorities, women, you know, this is a big deal for us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we got Erin Hobbs, Shaylin Hobbs, and then Brie Lynn Hobbs.

My name is Erin Hobbs.

I'm here with Local 19. I don't see how making a homeless shelter down in the area where there's homeless people right now is a healthy environment.

I think that's already been mentioned.

This is a place that's not safe or healthy.

I think that somehow there is a study done, but we haven't seen the results, or at least I haven't.

This is not a good idea.

The temporary jobs that it would create would devastate the jobs that we have.

They're generational.

Over 100 years, we have an industry down there.

It's an industrial district, not a residential district.

We had a deal that has been discussed the entire time.

We've been here for an hour.

And I don't see anything new coming from the opposing side that says that we should be doing this.

I think this is a crazy idea.

And I think it's pretty obvious.

I think it's quick money for certain people.

I don't get it.

I think that it's a bad idea.

Thank you.

Shea Hobbs, Local 19. I do not support this at all.

Even if I wasn't in the union here, I've been here my whole life.

And if you see that area, it is not safe.

It's going to risk the lives of the future residents living there.

So I don't support this.

And I'm just here to support my family over here.

So thank you.

Freeland Hobbs, Local 19. I also strongly disagree with this.

I think it's unsafe, and honestly, you could probably find somewhere else that's a lot more safe for the people that are going to be living there.

Thank you.

All right.

The last one, two, three.

Four commenters will be Billy Hetherington, Dan McKissin, Harold Uvas, thank you.

And then John Hitzfelder.

Good morning, council president and members of the committee.

My name's Billy Hetherington.

I'm here to speak in favor of council bill 120933. and also looking forward to the presentation that we're gonna have today.

I see that this passage of this council bill solves three things.

Housing that's needed in the city, having housing down there, half of which would be affordable workforce housing that would be affordable for 75 years is a huge win for the city of Seattle.

Public safety, driving down Occidental this morning, going through that area.

The landowners down there have put six mobile camera stations down there to cover almost every square inch of that area because they feel it's a public safety issue.

so having this passing this would solve a public safety issue in that area economic opportunity the stadium districts draw five million visitors every single year i cannot think of a better area to put hundreds of makers down there that have access to five million visitors to our state every single year and lastly the current zoning of heavy commercial office studies show creates more car trips per day it would create more car trips per day in that area than having housing thank you billy

Dan McKissom with the ILWU.

I speak in opposition to this amendment.

Look, here we are again.

Just eight years ago, we went through this, right?

At that time, we had five strong council members vote against the street vacation, and they got battered.

But they survived it and moved on.

Look, this is just a Chris Hansen, his billionaire buddies, trying to get...

more money out of his property.

This area has lots of freight from the east side that goes through there.

It supports the poor.

You know, you have a panel coming up.

I'm really disappointed that it's just one-sided.

We weren't asked to be presenters to talk about this issue.

And let's talk about the stadiums, right?

They were in favor of not having the arena last time.

Now they're not, because it's something else.

And look at the one stadium, the PSA.

It's two architects, a contractor.

I mean, it's all industrial people will benefit from this.

So I'm against it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have Harold.

And then following Harold, the last in-person commenter will be John Hitzfelder.

Harold?

Hello.

My name is Harold Euglis, past-present ILW Local 19. It's my 45th year on the waterfront.

And like my brother Dan McKissin just said, here we go again.

We had a deal.

Now throw some money at it, let's change the deal.

Way back in the 2000s, we had a deal.

We worked with the mayor's office, we worked with the Mariners to get SR519, the Royal Broham, we got money.

I got a picture of me over there at the stadiums with everybody all happy that we did it to make sure the freight corridor stays.

All due respect to our union brothers, temporary jobs with full time, year-round jobs their jobs can go other places i do not want to eliminate our jobs for our members out here when we stood against the basketball stadium in 46 those jobs for the baseball didn't go away you guys built teamer key arena excuse me climate pledge arena so stay away thank you honor your deal thank you

Go ahead.

All right.

My name is John Hitzfelder.

I live in District 7 since 2004, Mr. Kettle, and I've been working through Local 19 since 2011, and I'm opposed to this change in established land use pining.

We don't allow pedestrians on our port terminals, right?

And our yard equipment has greater visibility and lower speeds than what is out there on the roads in Soto, right?

Seattle has a commitment to reducing pedestrian deaths that is not compatible with placing industry and housing together.

We just had an example of what happens in that intersection with the death from a train in my District 7, just blocks from where I live.

We don't wanna encourage more of those intersections.

Those intersections between housing, pedestrians, and industry should be limited.

This is not an appropriate mix.

I'm in favor of affordable housing built by my brothers and sisters, just not in the wrong place.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Council President, that concludes both virtual and in-person public comment.

Thank you very much.

So here's the run of show.

As I said, I have a, well, first I wanna say that I hear the comments that are made, and I've always been a supporter of the port, its operations, et cetera.

And I'm going to put it on the table right now that this does pain me to go against an economic development organization, the port.

That is its mission as the chair of economic development.

That is why I wanted to present the why I'm doing this, these reasons, to try to explain why I'm taking this step that does bring up some cognitive dissonance for myself and why it's happening now.

So let's go ahead and proceed with the presentation.

Let's hold up here.

You have to say item of the agenda.

Oh yes, please read the item into the agenda.

Just jump into the gun here.

Agenda item number one, council bill 120933, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending sections 23.74.002 and 23.74.008 of the Seattle municipal code to allow residential uses in the stadium transit area overlay district for briefing and discussion.

Well, they're gathering the run of show will be I do I present some slides then money Anderson head of the building and construction trades Council will speak, as will Andrea Porter of the Seattle MAID Association, will speak about their roles in the beginning of this coalition.

Then our central staff analyst, Keel Freeman, will present actually what the legislation does.

And Rico Carindago is here as the director of the Office of Planning and Community Development to talk to the underlying legislation.

We've got kind of a full house here today.

So go ahead and please introduce yourselves.

My name is Ricky King Dongo.

I'm the director of the Office of Planning and Community Development.

Ketel Raymond, Council Central Staff.

Lisanne Lyons, consultant for the Public Facilities District, which is T-Mobile, and the Public Stadium Authority, which is Lumen Field.

Andrea Porter, Program Director at Seattle Good Business Network, representing Seattle Made members.

Monty Anderson with the Seattle Building Trades.

Okay, let's go ahead.

Council President, just to be clear, you're gonna be giving this brief

Yes, and this is, I threw together some slides because they do have images of the current neighborhood and then some of the renderings of what could be built there.

And then I will, and this was sent out this morning to council members and will be attached to the agenda.

after the meeting.

Can we ask questions at the end or you want them during the course of the briefing?

If you have questions, you're welcome to ask at the end.

That would be helpful.

It would be more helpful if you could ask them at the end of the presentation.

Okay, will do.

Okay.

All right, let's go to the, just to set the stage about where we're talking about putting some housing that is going to be affordable.

And we're talking about the stadium district, which is one of six downtown neighborhoods in Mayor Harrell's downtown activation plan.

And when the legislation in 2023 was approved, it was the zone that we're talking about is urban industrial.

Next slide.

Go ahead with the next slide, please.

Okay, got it.

So in 2023, as everybody in this room knows, the mayor put forward the industrial and maritime strategy and forwarded the accompanying legislation for council approval.

One of the sub areas zones within the industrial area was the urban industrial zone and 50% of the housing that is ever built is required to be affordable at 60 to 90% AMI.

And that I believe, but I can confirm that later on is the only zone in Seattle that has an actual prescription for the affordability levels that are associated with it.

The preferred alternative of the final environmental impact statement included up to 990 units of housing in the stadium district.

The OPCD director's report in pages 43 to 45 said, a district with a variety of small businesses and makers combined with businesses supporting events at the stadiums in entertainment venues would be supported by the UI zone.

And then another quote, some limited amount of housing would be compatible with the surrounding use pattern and would not cause additional adverse impacts on nearby industrial activities outside of the stadium district if carefully implemented.

And however, the accompanying legislation, Council Bill 120567, allowed housing in the UI zone everywhere except in the stadium district.

And so that's when I started to ask questions.

Why is housing not included?

That was part of my process.

I was on the land use committee, but this was in my first year, more or less of serving on council in 2023. Moving on here, just some images of the current zoning and the current state of that neighborhood and what it would look like if the legislation is adopted and construction is actually accomplished.

So this is First Avenue looking south.

Next slide, please.

Okay, and this is...

OK, got it.

I will have to make sure that, OK.

This is Occidental Avenue South looking south.

And the next slide.

And then this is Occidental South looking north.

And then finally, this is an overview of the stadium district area.

And so what you can see is that right now, one of the things that was motivating me is that right now, the conditions in that area are not living up to their potential as part of the two blocks that are just south of T-Mobile Park.

So go ahead please with the next slides.

So I have some slides that do address, and this is an ongoing conversation and there will be a public hearing where these issues can be dug into and presented more.

According to my reading and the reading of the coalition that brought this idea forward to me, it is contended that housing next to T-Mobile Park will not impede port operations.

And go ahead, next slide please.

The terminals for agricultural products and port routes used, Grain goes to Pier 86 Terminal, and then all other agricultural ships from three international terminals, T18, T30, and T5.

Estat's seaport highway connectors map directs trucks coming into Seattle on I-90 and headed to T18, T30, or T5 to use either Alaskan Way or Spokane Street to reach those terminals.

While Spokane Street is the most direct route to T18 and T5, sometimes during commute hours, trucks might choose to go down Atlantic instead and turn south on Alaskan Avenue.

But no Central Washington or Eastern Washington agricultural product would need to use First Avenue or Occidental, which is where the housing and the makers' businesses would be located.

Go on, please.

I heard concerns about public safety.

And from my perspective, stadiums draw five million visitors a year.

And the housing that will be built in this area is likely to be front facing onto Occidental, a narrow and frequently used street and lobbies and pedestrian areas will be facing that street and not First Avenue.

Mayor Harrell again, his preferred alternative in the EIS exempted the stadium district from the UI zone requirement that no housing be built within 200 feet of a major truck street, given the unique nature of the stadium district.

And there are 142 miles of major truck streets in Seattle that carry freight.

And a large number of those corridors have significant amounts of housing along or near them.

And this legislation, as Ketel will probably point out, gets to the exemption of housing near the 200 feet of major truck routes.

Go ahead, please.

This reiterates my point of the major truck streets, along which we do have a significant amount of housing.

Go ahead, please.

And here are a lot of examples of those truck routes that do have housing along them.

So my point is simply that I understand the topic, the concern about pedestrian safety and freight.

In fact, I earned a non-endorsement from the Cascade Bike Club for opposing bikes, for example, on shill shill, so I do understand that argument.

But the fact that there is Occidental right there that is, you know, two blocks north is pedestrianized makes me, is a mitigation for some of the pedestrian safety concerns.

Go on, please.

Finally, what has been noted by some commenters, which I'm sure will be spoken of much later is that a side benefit of this proposal is that it will improve public safety.

This is an area, This slide talks about recent very serious felonies in Soto, but if you're on this job, you hear a lot of complaints regularly from constituents that do talk about the deteriorating public safety in that area, and that is why adjacent neighborhoods of Pioneer Square and the Chinatown International District do strongly support this proposal to bring more activity and more residents for a 24-7 presence in the region.

All right, go ahead please, last slide.

And then finally, this concept was brought to me originally from a coalition that was a little bit smaller than all the logos on this page, but it was a strong coalition of labor, neighborhood, and other organizations that talked to me early on in the deliberation process in 2023, and that is why I came forward and I asked, why can't there be an amendment?

And what I was told is that this agreement had been years in the making and that the port would oppose the whole piece of legislation if housing was added.

And so at that point, I didn't want to ruin that stakeholder process at the last minute and blow the whole piece of legislation.

And so I did not carry forward an amendment at that point.

However, the underlying zoning does support housing and it is, as other folks here at the table will speak, it is two blocks south of T-Mobile and the housing that we're talking about will be 50% affordable at the workforce level, which we don't Our housing levy does support affordable housing, of course, but that goes primarily to zero to 30% and workforce housing is a missing, it's a missing component of the housing types that Seattle supports to the same level as other housing types.

And so go ahead and to the next slide, please.

That is the final slide.

Okay, that is the last one.

So my point is simply that, again, it does raise quite a bit of cognitive dissonance for me to be going against the maritime community and also the unit that is representing the workers themselves.

I decided to do so because here we are going to be updating our comprehensive plan.

and we're going to be facing a lot of opposition from people who firmly believe that housing does not belong in their neighborhoods as well.

To me, the stadium district feels more like downtown than the heavily industrial areas to the south and so that is why I'm giving this another go and providing the opportunity for some of the proponents to address council so that we can make a decision going forward.

So I just have one final thought.

I hear you about the impact on freight mobility in the area, but what struck me when I was looking at this and trying to figure out why did not the final legislation have what the final FEIS preferred alternative included, one thing that stood out is that part of the rezone of the industrial lands that happened in 2023 did create an industry and innovation zone where 160 foot towers are permitted.

And what was in my mind at that point was that will bring a lot of vehicles to the area as well.

And in addition, I understand also that it is a hard felt and enduring philosophy of Longshore and the port.

to oppose any net loss of industrial lands, and I understand that and I hear that, but there was an amendment to this legislation, Amendment 12, which removed a whole block from BINMIC to the north in Ballard area, and so that made me really feel as though that there was, that that no net loss of industrial land was being applied inconsistently, and so that led me to also the desire to put forward an amendment which I then took away because I didn't want to ruin the whole completion of the legislation.

What I am doing right now is trying to explain my thinking.

It might not go over very well, but I'm just trying to let you know that I did look at these issues and these are some of the questions that came to mind back then when we had the opportunity to include this in the industrial lands legislation.

All right, moving on to somebody else to talk.

Council President.

Go ahead, please.

My questions.

Go ahead.

First, thank you for the briefing.

First thing I want to say, and I'll have a series of questions for the briefing.

First thing, though, I want to say is that When it's been come here today.

If I said before, I do support labor.

I support labor and its ability to come together to have a seat at the table and to have your voice heard and to negotiate to the best of your abilities.

And that is for whether it's on this side or on this side of the chamber and this side and this side geography, too.

And I think that's very important.

At the end of the day, I think that point is key.

And I would also add, as a comprehensive plan, all plan five guy, my position on that, compared to what it could be, will turn into jobs that will dwarf projects that will dwarf what we're talking about here.

So we also should keep the big picture in a sense that my position on this is pretty clear.

the union reps here on my left, you know, I do support what you're doing, but you have to remember the unique circumstances here.

And also please remember that, like with the comprehensive plan, the amount of building, the amount of work is going to dwarf the topic that we're talking today, as somebody called the spot rezone.

I just wanted to say that up front because I know, I recognize it's a challenging, challenging piece.

And council president, if you go to work, Tim, if you go to District two, just as a quick note, because we were at an event together last night, I think our city needs to have updated maps because we now have a downtown community council.

So maybe we can work with Director Corundongo too and others to get downtown represented as an area here, capital D downtown, as opposed to the commercial core because, and I'll pass you one of these, downtown community council.

Related to page three, first is I think there's a lot of attention on the final environmental impact statement.

But in a lot of ways, it's the F really should stand for flawed.

environmental impact statement.

Because of the restrictions, it didn't really, you know, address some of the unique circumstances.

So that's point one on this slide.

And yes, regarding the bullet three, that, you know, housing would be available with the prohibitions in place, the 200 feet prohibition, which is important as we know for the operations of the port, but also for practical things like our continued goal to reach our business zero goals.

It says, bullet four, anywhere except in the stadium district.

Well, that's because of the unique factors here.

As noted on slide five, yes, spot rezone.

And I appreciate the pictures, particularly First Avenue South, that's problematic in the sense of the conflict that's gonna create related to the heavy haul network and the major truck routes.

I just wanted to move to the, to numbers 9 and 10. One of the things here, I find it interesting for these slides, basically 8, 9, and 10 basically, because as someone who has served on the Queen Anne Community Council, you know, we've gotten a little bit of a reprieve because of the pandemic, but trust me, like Pier 86, the grain terminals, you know, Expedia, all the traffic issues that we've been dealing with, you know, and that impacts the operations.

And then there's also encourages the pushback and then puts under risk, you know, those areas like Pier 86, Pier 91. And, you know, we get these pieces, trust me, as someone who served on the Queen Anne Community Council, we heard it often.

in terms of that.

So those examples in a lot of ways show what could happen in the future regarding right here in front of us.

And that is a major concern.

Of the 11 locations on slide 14, five of them are within District 7. And yes, increased housing, but increased traffic, and that increased traffic impacts our ability to, not just for the ports, but for the freight.

The idea, as we went through the Seattle Transportation Plan, the Seattle Transportation Levy, the idea of the freight program, the idea of having a 15-minute walkable city, it relies on the freight program.

And the freight program is impacted by all these.

I would take away Westlake, but Aurora is being impacted.

Dexter, Denny Way, like I said, getting to the water, Expedia.

Again, it's not just the port, but Expedia and other locations.

and 15th Avenue West.

The congestion is impacting the business.

It's impacting the freight program.

It's impacting the port.

So in ways, these are examples of, you know, it's like Christmas past, Christmas future.

You know, what's happening here is basically portending what's going to happen again just across from us.

I guess there's not a lot of questions here.

I just want to make a few statements.

And so I'll just end here on public safety.

As chair of public safety, it's interesting because, as noted in our event last night with the Downtown Community Council, there's 10,000 residents in downtown.

I don't know the number of residents in the CID, the number of residents in the Pioneer Square.

If residents was the determining factor of public safety, those should be the three safest places in the city.

But they're not.

They're not.

You know what makes them safe?

our strategic framework plan, our downtown activation plan that we've done with the mayor.

That's what creates a safe city.

Boating people in Soto, it doesn't create a safe city.

Now, what I will say is, once we do the efforts, like what we're doing now with the downtown activation plan and our efforts on the committee, public safety committee, and all those 11 major bills that we passed, that creates the conditions so then residents can activate But that's part two of a two-step process, and part one is what creates public safety.

The housing itself will not create public safety.

Housing will assist in maintaining the gains that we do from our efforts to create public safety and to improve the public safety posture.

So I want to push back on that, and I don't think it's an argument for this.

Otherwise, like I said, the CID, Pioneer Square, Downtown, Belltown would all be very safe right now.

So thank you.

Council President, Council Member Strauss has joined the committee.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Strauss has joined the committee in person.

Okay, go ahead.

Council President.

Yes.

Council President, just noting that you exceeded the 10 minutes allotted to Council Members to speak on an item, so I'm just asking for permission that if any of us go over those 10 minutes, we are allowed to have that privilege as well.

I was not timing Council Member Kettle, were you?

I was referring to your statements earlier.

Well, this is...

Sir, sir, this is not the time.

I will maintain my privilege as chair to go through and present why I am doing this and we can go forward.

If you want that rule applied, then Going forward, that's going to be a little bit...

I would hate to have to always be taking out our clocks to time each other.

I'm sure that that would just be a little bit unseemly, but I understand.

If that's the way you want to go, go ahead.

Councilmember, I am...

Do you have a point to make about...

I do.

Okay, go ahead.

I do.

So I'll just break my comments into a number of different sections.

I'm excited to hear the presentation today.

Very clearly, I support union built affordable housing.

This project and the zoning concepts, they have some merit.

And this is why they were included in the facilitated stakeholder work group that lasted five to six years, depending on how you count our work during the pandemic.

That's why it was included in the EIS.

And ultimately, it was clear that we had a deal for changing industrial zones across the city, including more housing in our industrial zones across the city, and that housing in the stadium district was a poison pill.

The chair said themselves, well, I'll take another step back.

If there was an agreement on housing in the stadium area, it would have been included in the mayor's proposal that came to us two years ago.

or it would have been introduced during the council process.

And I heard the sponsor state during this meeting their acknowledgement that if they had run this bill or this amendment during that process, it would have blown up the whole deal for across the entire city.

So why are we here again less than two years later?

without a stakeholder process.

I'm looking forward to hearing the presentation today, and I also wonder why it is not a balanced committee table with all sides represented.

I'll close for this moment and then I'll come back to some things in just a moment.

But I also heard the sponsors speak about 142 miles of freight routes through our city that are near housing.

And none of them are the direct connection between the port and I-90 and I-5.

I've also heard statements today that this proposal would not impact the port.

I can tell you that today there are impacts on the port without this proposal, and those have to be mitigated.

That's why Council Member Saka included so much money for freight delivery in the transportation levy.

That's why I thank you for taking my amendment to specifically address connecting the port to I-90 and I-5, and that language was included in the levy and has not been implemented yet.

Sponsor mentioned Burke-Gilman Trail and not wanting to put it on social, yet voting against the proposal to put it on market in Leary.

I'll end these comments right now in just saying that the facilitated stakeholder work group started before I was elected.

It was at that time Council President Bruce Harrell that was in office.

Council President or now Mayor Bruce Harrell has been in office longer than I have.

And other than that, I am the longest consecutive serving elected in the city of Seattle.

And this process has taken longer than I've been elected.

And so, again, I'll go back.

The conversation has merit.

There are things that need to be addressed before we can take it up.

And that's addressing the Coast Guard situation at the port, that's ensuring that we know how T46 is gonna be used, is understanding what's gonna happen to the Waska site, and most importantly, ensuring that cargo can move from the port of Seattle onto I-90 and I-5 without being delayed.

There are other ports to the north and south that could just as easily take this traffic.

And it would be a shame if they start taking our cargo because I-90 that connects Seattle to the heartland of America and to Boston can't get through that last half mile to the end to meet the port.

I will wrap up right now.

I'm still under 10 minutes.

10 minutes are actually designed for when there is an actual motion on the table.

I have not moved this legislation, so go ahead.

It's been read into the record.

I'm pretty concerned here.

I understand.

And I'm concerned about the process.

When the introduction referral calendar was sent to council, it was sent at the end of the council briefs.

Comment was limited during that council briefing.

And Chair, when I was speaking on this topic during the comprehensive plan conversation, it was attempted to limit my speech.

And so I have great concerns about the process.

I have great concerns about the throughput without this proposal.

And let me be clear, I have great concerns about the throughput of cargo without this proposal from the port onto I-90.

I am going to ask that you wrap up so that we can continue with the presenters, please.

I look forward to continuing this conversation and I'd appreciate a balanced stakeholder work group to lead us through this work.

One could argue that the stakeholder process and the presentations and the committee meetings that were held before the vote on this legislation also lacked a bit of balance.

That has been noted as well.

At some point, I would like to have a conversation why you removed industrial land from the BINMIC and then changed it into residential.

That is something that is inconsistent with what what we're all saying here is the importance of industrial lands.

And the reason that this was not put forward as an amendment during the final vote is that you have discouraged amendments at the votes of full council.

So what I'm trying to say is that this is not something that I just pulled out of a hat right now.

The conversations with the proponents have been ongoing since then.

All right, moving on.

Monty, would you please like to begin speaking?

You're up.

Thank you very much, and thank you everybody for your time.

Once again, my name is Monty Anderson.

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

This development of this maker zone is critical.

We have a huge economic opportunity here.

And I've been a part of this.

I've been a part of labor for 35 years now.

And one of the oldest tricks you can do is make it a, this is an either or choice.

I've seen that for years about, I can't tell you how many projects I've spoken on.

And that is an old trick you bring out.

You try to say who owns the property.

and then try to demonize one union over another.

And we've been to this show before.

I represent hundreds of workers at the port.

It would be against my moral and first my duty of fair representation to do anything that I thought would harm them.

I've been a part of this thing for years also, we all have.

And the facts bear out exactly why we're here.

We're here because this makes sense.

It's already been penciled out.

We've talked with everybody.

I've talked with everybody in nauseam for the last 18 months at the port, at the trucking people.

I've met with WASDOT over WASCOT.

We went out to Seattle Council.

I've met with community groups.

Went to the CID.

I'd worked with Tanya Wu at the time when she was here also.

I mean, everybody.

And everybody says the same thing.

gee, Monty, we want to do it, but what's next?

What if the Coast Guard comes?

What if they build an arena?

What if we get offshore wind?

I mean, everybody wants to do this thing, and I can say it out loud here to everybody.

Everybody knows the gig.

It's just delay, delay, delay.

And if you delay it long enough, people lose their enthusiasm.

So I want to be clear about this project.

It creates a lot of jobs, and it also sets a precedent for private investment in housing.

You know, we took a lot of time passing that housing levy, but there's still not enough money.

This is private investment.

Somebody's gonna take their own money and subsidize housing for working class people, and in the meantime, keep it affordable for 75 years and help the makers out and have a zone where people can actually live and work and create generational wealth.

And the only argument we have about it is the boogeyman that someday, that's all gonna fall apart and nobody's gonna, and the waterfront's gonna shut down.

And like I said, I'm very clear about the fact that I would never do anything that I thought or anybody presented to me in the last 18 months that would prohibit or slow down jobs at the port.

That's not what we do here.

We sit on many things together.

And those accusations, where I get it, when people are fed lines to red, to read that's what they do i mean we all do that right here's some talking points but i'm telling you as the fact of representing 20 000 workers here and workers at the port this makes sense and to this day nobody has shown me uh that that it doesn't so i want to thank everybody here for president you know for taking the time for that i know this is excuse me mr anderson council president thank you

You can finish your comments if you weren't able to, Sir Monty.

Sir Anderson.

Go ahead.

A lot of what I understand what you're saying, but you're also noting the tricks and this, that, whatever.

infer from that that you're associating that with the Council, that you're associating that with me.

And I will say, I'm a retired naval officer who has decades of service as a naval officer, an international security expert, understands international trade, maritime trade.

My position on this, even when I was a candidate, as my North Star was from that experience and understanding the international economics.

It has nothing to do with dirty tricks or these kinds of things that you're insinuating.

If you can, please exempt the council and the council members from that because my position on this was, oh, by the way, as a naval officer, I also have a Coast Guard Chief of Staff, former Coast Guard, Coastie.

That is where that comes from.

This idea that I'm getting talking points and I'm just mouthing these, if that's what you're impugning, is absolutely false.

And I want to make that point clear.

I'm a retired naval officer.

That drives my studies, my academic background.

That drives my position.

My experience on Queen Anne Community Council in terms of locally here in Seattle, that drives my position.

I'm not being a mouthpiece for anybody that's out here.

And I just want to make that point clear.

Because the way you presented it, one can infer that that's the point you're making.

Well, thank you for your comments, and since you're so intelligent and smart, and I'm just a stupid Mexican construction worker, I'll buy down to what you think there, buddy, and what I say.

That is wrong.

That is...

Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson, one thing.

You know what else?

Thanks for talking down to me, Bob.

Mr. Anderson, stop.

You know what?

Stop.

That last point?

That last point?

Are you kidding me?

Today is the 60th anniversary of my mother coming to America.

My father came three months beforehand.

$80 in his pocket.

He was a welder.

What?

That influenced my position.

My grandparents came here as immigrant fruit pickers, and they still are.

And the last time we were here, you had the gall to ask me if I cared about people that work in eastern Washington and Spokane.

Those were your words about migrant fruit pickers.

My family came here and picked cotton and tobacco before we kicked apples.

So the idea that you think that I don't understand what it's like, you said it first.

Am I right?

I will ask people to...

Let's stop this people interrupting other people and have respect and civility.

OK, so pause.

I apologize.

I see Councilmember Rivera, you had your hand up.

Council President, I'm just concerned.

Perhaps I'm just going to suggest and we don't have to do this, but a five minute recess because I feel like There's a lot of heated conversation that's gone back and forth, and I don't think that's well.

First of all, respectful to the panelists who have come here before before us today, and I just feel like we need a level set.

So just for your consideration, Council President.

How do people feel on the table?

I will.

Would you prefer to?

I don't need it.

I just want to ensure that the impugning is not impugning of the council.

And I would have to say that it is unclear to me when I was hearing Monty's comments whether or not he was really speaking of comments that came from previous public comment and not directly to you.

So let's move on.

Take a deep breath, everybody, and proceed.

If there are any other questions of Mr. Anderson, you're welcome to ask.

All right, go ahead.

Go ahead, Andrea, please begin speaking.

My name is Andrea Porter.

I'm the Seattle Made Program Director at the nonprofit Seattle Good Business Network.

Seattle Made is a network of nearly 700 local manufacturing businesses producing right here in the city of Seattle.

We support the development of a stadium makers district.

Seattle businesses, Seattle-made businesses include brewers, distillers, chocolatiers, bike builders, fashion designers, jewelry artisans, glassblowers, and almost anything else that you can think of that is made locally here in the city.

70% of our membership is women in BIPOC-owned businesses, many with five employees or less.

These businesses expand opportunities for local ownership and employment.

They build our region's long-term resiliency.

Their products and businesses showcase Seattle's unique cultural identity.

I hear weekly about the challenges of manufacturing in the city of Seattle.

One of the top challenges is the lack of affordable production space.

We see two to three Seattle made member businesses leave Seattle monthly to relocate somewhere else more affordable.

They do not want to leave the city, but they feel compelled to locate elsewhere in order to successfully scale their businesses.

As we lose these businesses in our city, we are losing the fabric of our community.

We hope you'll keep them top of mind as you consider this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, any questions for the, from my colleagues?

I received, I believe it was an email from you a long time ago about the difficulty of makers to find space and I did, I use a quote I think from a previous communication that we had that two or three per month are leaving Seattle.

Can you speak a little bit more about that?

Yeah, it's not that they are closing their businesses.

They just can't find the right spaces here.

They can't find, they'll either find very, very large spaces that they can't possibly afford or these very micro, small spaces.

So this sort of proposal creates a community, creates space that allows them to stay.

They can also share infrastructure, which is huge.

You know, maybe there are four wineries and they're all going to share the same sort of machine.

And then they don't have to each four individually have these four different components to their business.

So there's a lot of value in bringing these small businesses together in one area of town so they can share the infrastructure, share the resources, support each other.

And, you know, When I first started this job 10 years ago, we were having new businesses launch every month and now we're seeing a downward trend.

The city is changing and we really need to make space for these makers in the city.

Thank you for that comment.

And I do have to say that a bit of my own personal experience trying to find a manufacturing site in Seattle was what really did motivate my interest in this proposal as well.

All right.

Let's move on to what the, unless, one question, Lizanne, I did ask you here if there are, if I have misrepresented any of the facts that you and I have worked through or what's in the documents, do you have anything to add before we talk about the actual legislation?

One thing I guess that I would note, I've been working on these issues.

In a former life, I had Director Karen Dongo's job and headed up for the City of Seattle, the Strategic Planning Department with about 70 urban planners.

I've been working on these issues for some time, more recently for the last six and a half years with Councilmember Bagshaw as an enthusiastic supporter for us.

So I just wanna remind folks, we're talking essentially two blocks immediately next to T-Mobile Park from Edgar Martinez down to Holgate on First Avenue South and Occidental.

The stadium district is larger, but other than Waska, that's the only opportunity zone for us to do anything in left in the stadium district.

We can't do anything over the tracks in the Northeastern section.

We can't really do much on the Western side because it's within 200 feet of a shoreline.

That area has been zoned for commercial since the year 2000. There has, for the most part, been almost no industry left in those two blocks next to the baseball park for decades.

As you've seen from the photos, it's a lot of vacant buildings and deteriorating warehouses and vacant lots.

other than some good development on First Avenue.

So it's a transition zone.

And out of the stakeholder process was born the urban industrial zone.

Out of recommendations number seven and number eight, out of those 11 strategies that were agreed upon, was born the urban industrial zone.

Housing was the underpinning of this new urban industrial zone.

The stadium district is as of today, urban industrial.

We are listed in the comprehensive plan as urban industrial.

We were told, wait for the EIS to be conducted.

We did that.

The EIS went unchallenged.

It was not appealed.

And the EIS said that there will be no change in the level of service in terms of traffic, no change in travel times.

if any housing up to the amount of 990 units is added to the stadium district.

So if we trust the transportation experts, the Burke consulting that did that EIS, they said the level of service for traffic on First Avenue South from Royal Brougham to Highway 99 will remain a level C.

The traffic times will be 11 to 12 minutes.

there will be no change if we had 990 units of housing.

That's what the transportation experts concluded.

It was in the EIS.

And just the last thing I'll say in terms of process is the preferred, the published preferred recommendation from the mayor included up to 990 units of housing in the stadium district.

Yes, it did get yanked in the legislation that went to the city council, unbeknownst to a large majority of the stakeholders that were a part of that process.

It was without our knowledge and without our consent.

And it was frankly at the 11th hour that we were informed the deal that we thought we had, which we had been told we had for 990 units of housing in the stadium district was taken out at the last minute.

And we were told the timing sensitive, the table's been set, you've got everything you need in the comp plan, come back in a year and get the zoning change you need to actually enact the housing that we had previously told you you could have.

So from our perspective, We participated in that process in good faith.

And at the very last minute, we're told the timing's just a little sensitive now.

Table's been set.

You have what you need in the comp plan.

You're on the future land use map.

As having urban industrial, just go back and get the housing to seal the deal.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Council President.

No, I am going to proceed with the...

You can wait until afterwards, but I would like Ketel to go forward and present the legislation.

It could elucidate some questions and comments that people might have.

Sure.

Again, Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

I'm penchanting for my colleague, Lish Whitson, who's out this week.

I'm going to recapitulate some of the legislative history that the Council President described, talk a little bit about the current regulatory requirements just to sort of set the stage, and then talk about what Council Bill 120933 would do.

So a little bit about the context here and some of the legislative history, as has been mentioned.

The stadium transition area overlay district was created in 2000. Just to demystify some terms here, an overlay district is a district that overlays an underlying set of zoning.

Typically overlay districts are more restrictive.

An example of an overlay district that the city of Seattle has on all of its shorelines is the shoreline master program.

I see that we are, I don't know exactly how to fix that.

Okay.

Um, yeah, I think, yep.

So, um, maybe hold on just one second here.

Doesn't seem to work.

Okay.

So, uh, typically overlay districts are more restrictive, um, as is the case here with the stadium, uh, transition area overlay district.

Um, new industrial zones were created and mapped in 2023. Um, the results of the 2023 amendments, uh, for the stadium transition area overlay district, with some new zone designations, which I'll talk about here in a minute, but also allowing lodging uses, increasing the flow area ratio for allowed uses, exempting some street-level uses from flow area ratio calculations, which is sort of a technique to encourage those uses to be located at the street level, and also prohibiting housing within 200 feet of a major truck street, and that applies within the underlying urban industrial zone, which I'll talk about here in a minute.

Underlying zoning, urban industrial, the outline here is of the stadium transition area overlay district.

You can see some maritime manufacturing logistics zone designation up in the northwest corner.

That's the Waska site.

The remainder of the stadium transition area overlay district is urban industrial.

As has been mentioned, it's essentially a transitional zone transitioning from more industrial areas to more mixed-use areas like the Pioneer Square Preservation District to the north.

This is a little sliver of PSM, the Pioneer Square District, that comes down on the west side there, First Avenue South, First Avenue.

The Urban Industrial Zone, here's sort of an image of what it was sort of intended, the intended uses in the Urban Industrial Zone.

This is not necessarily the Urban Industrial Zone within the overlay district, just the Urban Industrial Zone generally.

transition zone, allowing a mix of uses, including residential uses, which is new for our industrial zoning as of 2023. Previously, residential uses were largely restricted to caretakers, quarters and artists studios.

So this is not a description of the proposed bill, but current regulations.

So in the urban industrial zone, not speaking of the urban industrial zone with the stadium transition area overlay district.

Housing could be allowed as an administrative conditional use.

That's a discretionary decision that's made by the SDCI director.

Essentially, a use is permitted if the conditions, all the conditions are met.

There is a long list of conditions.

These are not all of the conditions.

You can find them on page two and three of the memo, which is part of your packet.

And there are some other things that are included to mitigate sort of the conflicts of use, including sound insulating windows and air conditioning covenants that owners and future residents could apprise themselves of so that they wouldn't be surprised of the fact that there may be some industrial uses next to them.

And also limitations on proximity to the shoreline and also proximity to major truck streets.

So throughout the urban industrial zone, housing would not be permitted within 200 feet of a major truck streets.

That is a condition that has to be met to allow housing.

So Council Bill 120933, what would it do?

It would make amendments to the overlay district.

So there are some regulations that apply to the overlay district.

It would amend those regulations to allow residential uses.

So that's one thing that would have to happen.

The bill would limit, would remove the prohibition on residential uses within the stadium transition area overlay district.

It would also remove the limitation on housing within 200 feet of major truck streets, but otherwise housing would be permitted if it met all of the other conditional use criteria that apply in other urban industrial zones.

A little bit here about next steps.

This is a land use bill, so of course there's Some additional procedural friction.

There's a public hearing that's scheduled for February 24th, which means a possible vote could happen as soon as February 27th.

And that's it for me.

Okay.

Any questions about the precise legislation?

Go ahead, Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President, and thank you for the central staff analysis here.

And thank you all the presenters for being here today.

But I appreciate the central staff analysis here.

I want to move to slide four, if you may, please, where it just kind of has good succinct bullet points of the conditions that would be imposed by the proposed legislation here.

That last bullet under the require heading, it says the covenant stating that residents know that they are an industrial area.

Is that a covenant that is just an acknowledgement?

And would that covenant run with the land?

permanently and indefinitely, and as title passes over and over, it would just continue to run with the land in perpetuity.

Can you talk more about that covenant?

The short answer is yes, and I'll read- Sorry, I'm a lawyer, and so I care about these covenants details.

The short answer is yes, and I'll just read what the condition is.

So this is a condition that currently applies to residential development in urban industrial zones.

in other parts of the city.

So the owner of a building seeking a conditional use for the residential use must sign and record a covenant and equitable servitude on a form acceptable to the director, that's the SDCI director, that acknowledges that the owner and occupants of the building accept the industrial character of the neighborhood and agree that existing or permitted industrial uses do not constitute a nuisance or other inappropriate or unlawful use of land.

Such covenant and equitable servitude must state that it is binding on the owner, successors, heirs, and assigns, including any lessees of the residential use.

And the duration of that, is that in perpetuity, indefinitely?

So it would be, what's being described there is something that would be recorded against the property.

So it would be there as long as, yeah, it would be recorded against the property in perpetuity.

Thank you.

Councilman McKittle.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for Mr. Kiedel for a presentation.

Also, thank you, everyone, that you're here.

To be clear earlier, I was just to ensure regarding what could be inferred, obviously, because there's council members that are opposed.

But, Mr. Freeman, for your consideration, Your counsel for your, well, it's actually Mr. Whitson's central staff memo.

He says, you know, the stadium district is intended to provide a safe pedestrian environment for those attending events and to support a pedestrian character within the district while minimizing conflicts with industrial uses.

And then later he said, however, residential uses which may be permitted as conditional uses in other urban industrial zones are prohibited in the stadium district.

Is that what the 200-foot setback requirement accomplishes?

No.

It's actually just a straight prohibition against residential uses within the overlay district.

The proposal would actually be somewhat less restrictive than the conditional use criteria in other urban industrial zones because that 200-foot limitation would not apply.

And why is the 200-foot recommendation included in the agreement or into the And so why do we have the 200-foot setback requirement?

Oh, it's to mitigate impacts on residential uses from sort of heavy truck use and also sort of vice versa.

So for that purpose, and so, you know, and by the way, we'll have this chart for everyone.

This is a great chart that shows the port.

It shows the major truck routes and the heavy haul network.

And each of us and the council will get this.

It's really helpful in terms of understanding that point in terms of the impacts.

I'd like to follow up on Councilmember Saka's question.

As you noted, the, with Mr. Whitson's, sorry, he's not here, so his memo, but you're representing, you know, number seven says, the owners of a building seeking conditional use for the residential use must sign and record a covenant and equitable servitude on a form acceptable to the director that acknowledges that the owner, owners, and occupants of the building accept the industrial character of the neighborhood and agree that existing or permitted industrial uses do not constitute a nuisance or other inappropriate or unlawful use of land.

Such covenant and equitable servitude must state that is binding on the owner, successors, heirs, assigns, including any lessees of the residential use and so forth.

You know what, I read that.

And what does that mean?

And the context I like to ask that question is my first operational tour was up at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island when I was assigned to VAQ 132 back in the early 90s.

And as you know, Island County, every deed has a statement similar to this that says there's an air station and also a practice field on the island in Whidbey.

yet housing was, you know, but in place, and now there's lawsuits against the Navy, against the DOD generally, Department of Defense.

So given that example, and there's many more across the country with military bases, across the services, across the country, should we expect anything different here?

Should we expect lawsuits even though this piece, this is in the legislation right here?

I'll take that question as rhetorical.

We could do a little bit of looking.

I think there's a place where, in the past, the city has had a similar requirement.

I don't know if it's this requirement.

When some residential uses were permitted in BINMIC, near sort of the Dravis-Elliott Bay intersection, there was a similar requirement that went along with development of those buildings.

We could do a little bit of research to see if there had been any lawsuits that have been related to the proximity of the BNSF yard there.

Thank you.

So you can understand, though, why people can connect the dots because the dots have been connected in so many places across the country as it relates to that covenant point.

And so, again, it's the seeing into the future in terms of what is going to be expected.

And we just have to look to the north, not too far away, and Whidbey Island to see the impacts of that and the impacts on naval operations and our defense.

Thank you, Chair.

Can I add a point?

Go ahead.

I just want to also point out that the manufacturing businesses we work with, light manufacturing, they would be very interested in being in these housing units because they want to be closer to their businesses.

So being in these industries, they're aware of the sound that will be occurring.

And the more we can have more of these manufacturing closes, closer to the maker spaces, the better.

So I'll just put that in there that there would be some awareness of what they're moving into.

Got it.

And I see your hand up council member Rivera, but I also wanted to continue on.

Did you have one final point on this?

Lizzie, you know, why don't thank you council president for recognizing me.

Why don't we finish with, um, with the presentation and then I can ask my question.

Thank you.

Okay, Ms.

Zohn, go ahead.

One moment, nope.

Go ahead, please speak to the issue that was being talked about before.

I would just add that with respect to the 200 foot buffer between residential and major truck streets in the mayor's published preferred alternative, that was waived in recognition of the unique nature of the stadium district.

There are 40,000 plus fans navigating First Avenue South there for Mariners games.

There are almost 70 plus thousand fans there for Seahawks games.

I mean, there are events at those stadiums throughout the year.

It's a heavily pedestrian used area.

And somehow with those tens of thousands of pedestrians in the area, it works.

It has never shut down the port.

So it's recognized as being very unique.

I would also just say on covenants that the WAVE and the NOLO are examples of residential developments right there on the north lot of Lumen Field, and they did sign covenants.

Gridiron didn't, and they do complain about stadium and port activities.

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

Okay, Councilmember Strauss, I mean, one moment, please.

Councilmember Rivera still has her hand up and she has not speaking.

Go ahead, please.

Sorry, Council President, I'll go after we're done with all the presentation, with all the everyone speaking.

Okay, the panelists, I mean, thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

I really appreciate Monty, Andrea, Lizanne, all of the things that you've said.

I mean, what you shared is why there is merit in the conversation, right?

There are still things that we have to do.

Lizanne, you were sharing that somebody from the city had indicated to you that including housing in the stadium area was not part of the proposal that was sent to council and that you should come back a year later.

I never gave you that advice.

Are you comfortable sharing on the record who gave you that advice?

Because it sounded the way you presented it and there's no finger pointing here.

The way it was presented is that that was a done deal, that we would move forward with the industrial maritime and come back in a year.

And I don't think that that was the general understanding.

That wasn't my understanding at the time.

And so did I share that with you?

No.

It was not you.

No.

But many people, and it was just not myself, There were many, many, many folks in that stakeholder process that were told that the table has been set.

We gave you what you need in the comp plan.

Come back at a later time from the executive.

But no, it was not from you, Council Member Strauss.

And the only reason I asked that, especially about the year aspect, was because I too felt that to a degree.

Please ask if you can continue with your questioning of the panel.

Council President, you've provided everyone else that same ability to continue their conversation.

I'm requesting the same opportunity that every other elected council member has.

I will let you ask a question and then I would like to move on to our last presentation, please.

I'll just sum up with saying, I don't remember ever saying a year, that was never my position.

And what I said at the beginning of this meeting is that there is merit to the conversation and there are important things that need to go forward before I'm comfortable with housing in the stadium district because the transportation network between the port and I-90 in my opinion, is not working today, much less with any change.

And Mr. Anderson, I understand your argument about process because I've seen it weaponized in the past.

And I just pledge to you that I'm not using process in that way.

I'm trying to get us to a compromise.

OK.

It could also be, I would like to acknowledge that pressing people to talk about where they actually heard information could be very sensitive and I would ask that we also respect those conversations.

Go ahead, is, are there any other, okay.

Director of OPCD, could, do you wanna, please talk about perhaps a little bit what was going on the executive side as these documents were being prepared and then forming the basis of the legislation that we voted on in 2023. Of course.

Sorry, I thought I was doing that.

If we were finished with yours, Kittle.

Yeah, we were.

I thought I was not looking at the screen up there, but looking at the screen in front of me.

Here we go.

Yeah, see if you can get a bigger racket and figure out how to do it.

I can't do it in this mode.

All right, thank you for the opportunity to present to you all.

So what I wanted to start with was a reminder of the context for the legislation that you all passed in July of 23. So with the...

Well, I joined the City of Seattle in 2021, and the process that I was introduced to at that time and that we conducted for two and a half years was related to the creation of 11 consensus items with a large stakeholder group, over 60 organizations.

That's been referred to earlier.

I know that you guys have this slide deck so you can look at the details later.

As it relates to the legislation that was passed, there were seven of the- whoops.

There were seven of the 11, uh, recommendations that were incorporated into the legislation.

So that included, uh, environmental justice and climate action, stronger protections for industrial zone lands, high density industrial development, healthy transitions, uh, transition areas near urban villages, no new residential uses and Georgetown and South Park neighborhood goals as well as a, uh, as well as the identification of a master planning process, future master planning process for the WASCA and Armory sites.

And that the WASCA future master planning effort is in partnership with the Washington State Department of Transportation and the state.

Next slide.

So this is just a slide to indicate what the current underlaying zoning is that was adopted with the legislation that was passed in July of 23. And Keel has already gone through that, so we can go to the next slide.

And just because you have the diagram, the industry and innovation zone that I was referring to that did have very tall towers allowed in it, that's the purple area.

I did not have the benefit of this map for my presentation.

Go ahead, please.

Got it, excellent.

And just so that people know this, that, go back to that slide for just a quick second, orientation north is to the right, just different from the slides we were looking at before, just so people know what they're looking at.

So the urban industrial zone, that adopted zoning has a criteria which says that for limited housing that meets the criteria, that there can be no more than 50 units per acre.

And that zoning has been adopted and can be found in numerous parts of the city, which you can see there in the third bullet.

Next slide.

So you guys have already seen this diagram, but the function and purpose of the urban industrial zone is intended to foster vibrant districts that support a mix of local manufacturing, production, arts, and a sense of place.

The zone advances the stakeholder strategy of creating healthy transitions between core industrial areas and non-industrial areas.

This is a zone that, due to the proximity to non-industrial areas and businesses, could draw customers from adjacent neighborhoods.

It includes provisions for safe movement of pedestrians and freight.

Next slide.

So, related to the zoning standards for urban industrial, there's identification of ancillary uses, size of use limits, landscaping requirements.

Next slide.

And then accommodation for limited workforce housing, as has already been presented, that conditions that must be met in order to develop workforce housing include, uh, the 50 dwelling units per acre, uh, not within 200 feet of a shoreline, not within 200 feet of a major truck street, uh, and must, uh, include either must be either live work housing or qualify as caretaker units, um, or, uh, be provided as workforce housing.

Next slide.

So related to the environmental impact statement that was conducted for industrial and maritime, the EIS found that housing as proposed to be allowed in the stadium area via the urban industrial zone requirements and limitations would not significantly, would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Having said that, the adopted legislation does not currently allow for housing in the stadium transition area overlay.

Looking back at slide two, which identifies the consensus recommendations, just as information for knowledge of the council, At the end of last year, the City of Seattle entered into a South Downtown Seattle cross-agency intergovernmental collaboration agreement.

That agreement is signed onto by City of Seattle, King County, Port of Seattle, Sound Transit, WSDOT, Muckleshoot Tribe, and Suquamish Tribe to continue responsible stewardship of what we're doing in South Downtown and related to future development considerations and large projects that we are all stewarding together in SOTO.

And so it's a positive step forward for us as we look at continued stewardship of the conversation that we convened for that two and a half years and continue to see that work forward.

Thank you.

Um, it, so you're what, what I'm gathering with, are you, there is ongoing planning.

Nobody knows what's going to happen with this.

Well, the, it is not, are you saying that it's not contemplated to have housing where we are proposing it, but you're also referring to a large piece of property that's owned by, uh, by, uh, wash dot waska site, et cetera, or, and, and extends even beyond that.

So there's some question about how much housing is going to go in the area and where it could go, et cetera.

In addition that, is that what you're referring to?

Why do you mention that is what I'm asking.

With reference to the agreement, there are a list of projects that we know and considerations in South Downtown that we know that we need to be aware of and cross-coordinate and make certain that what we are doing within the public realm is in consideration of the neighborhood impacts and all of the missions of our each of our organizations and agencies.

So those include consideration of the King County Civic Master Plan, Pier 48, public realm improvements, South Downtown Hub and Union Station, South Holgate Amtrak expansion, short and long-term improvements on Third Avenue, the WASCA site redevelopment, the zero emission updates for the Metro bus station, or the Metro bus base, as well as development opportunities near future light rail stations.

Got it.

When you talk about that, that's sort of what I was thinking before is that there are potentially a lot of changes that could happen.

Who knows what's gonna happen with these large sites.

There could be housing, there could not.

It's within the area of port operations.

And sometimes it feels like we're just talking two blocks and this would be affordable housing when all of this other is going on.

And there are towers with 160 feet and so sometimes it just feels like this is a small thing to be concerned about compared to a lot of changes that could take place, but I'll probably have to talk that through you and also the port representatives so I can understand where some of the, where the future risks lie.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

First, I just want to thank all the panelists for being here, as well as all the folks that came out to give public comment, both in chambers and online today.

Very much appreciate hearing from everyone as we are reviewing this policy.

Director Kirindongo, I'm wondering, this policy, housing was not included in the comp plan, which is, of course, our 20 year plan for growth planning.

And I'm wondering why and I'm cognizant, I'm mindful that in the comp plan there is recommendations made beyond HB 1110 in a very robust way.

You all have you created this neighborhood centerpiece that hasn't been part of the city in the comp plan in the past, and it is to add more density across the city in this, like I said, robust way.

I'm wondering why this was not included in the comp plan.

And also, I had a question in mind as I was reviewing this.

And it's helpful to hear, Lizanne, thank you for bringing up that the context of some of this, because I was not aware that as part of the stakeholder process and all the negotiations around this in the past, that it sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, because what I heard you say and what I've been hearing is that this proposal for the 900 and 990 units, it's your understanding that it was going to be included as part of the comp plan.

And I know it's not in there.

So director, can you please talk about why it's not in there and why you didn't include housing planning for this area in the comp plan?

And can I just add to your question?

And I think also you're referring to why it wasn't included in the actual legislation that we voted on in 2023. Correct.

Sorry.

Well, then or now.

Okay.

I'm going to start with the question related to the comp plan.

So When I think about the work that we did for the two and a half years of a stakeholder group related to industrial maritime strategy, and then the adoptive legislation that was sent down to council, in a lot of ways, that was early work related to comp plan.

So if you think about what we have to do for the comprehensive plan, we're required by the state to update that plan every 10 years related to job growth and housing growth uh, across the city, uh, the first body of work that we took on was industrial maritime strategy.

Um, so ahead of the work for the rest of the zoning for the city, we, uh, put forth this legislation that was specific to industrial maritime for that, because that was adopted and we saw that process forward.

Um, uh, we did not revisit any of that work in moving forward with the next phase of our comprehensive plan work, which is the work that we've been doing for the last two and a half years.

So the other question

So it was in the preferred alternative, then what happened between the preferred alternative and the legislation that was sent down?

Correct.

Thank you, Council President.

So our job as staff is to look at the findings of the Environmental Impact Statement, and out of those findings, a preferred alternative is put forth to the mayor's office.

there's a distinction to be made between what the environmental analysis is or the environmental impact statement determinations are.

That is not the same thing as whatever gets put into legislation.

One is about environmental impact analysis.

The other is about policy recommendations and determinations by both bodies.

So that's why they're different.

Right, but can I, is it okay if I ask a follow-up question?

You know, my follow-up question is, Director Kirindongo, I understand you're saying the EIS tells you information you may or may not include it as part of the comp plan, but right now in this current comp plan, and that was the decisions that were made in 2020, three, 2023. But right now we're looking at a comp plan without and then legislation was sent down here without a final environmental impact statement.

So which to me is putting the cart before the horse, but nevertheless, so it's not always the case that you're waiting for the environment that you know, make your meet not The fact that you're saying, you know, we had an EIS that can give you information, but we're not necessarily including it.

And now we have, we're waiting on an EIS, and you made some decisions without even including the information from the EIS.

That doesn't, I don't understand that decision-making process.

I don't understand.

And I also, like I said, I'm hearing from Lizanne that there was this expectation as part of this huge stakeholder in process that somehow this was going to be addressed in that legislation in 23 and it wasn't.

So I'm just trying to understand why these decisions were made.

And I'm not, I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on from your explanation why If that was the process that had been engaged in with all the stakeholders, why then, and it was in the preferred alternative, why then it was excluded?

Did something happen?

Was there more conversation?

How did that come to be?

Sorry, are you understanding my question?

I think so.

So let me try to take a stab at it.

And if I get it wrong, you can tell me.

So it is a normal part of process for development of our policy work and legislation that, like, we do drafts of things that are informed very directly by community engagement and input.

And after that community engagement and input are complete, we take the next step forward and draft legislation for consideration.

OF FIRST, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, AND THEN WITH MAYOR'S OFFICE, AFTER DOING THAT POLICY WORK WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, ULTIMATELY, LEGISLATION GETS SENT DOWN TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.

SO THAT PROCESS TRANSPIRED RELATED TO WHAT WAS A VERY COMPLICATED PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

SO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE is specific to the EIS.

That's not the...

It isn't the same thing as the legislation component, the policy work.

So I don't know if that's answering the question, but...

There's a term of art here, which is a term of art to SIPA, and that is a preferred alternative.

And a preferred alternative doesn't necessarily indicate a strong policy preference by any of the decision makers.

It's really kind of a, it's maybe not a point of departure, it may be something very similar to what is proposed by, in this case, the mayor's office and OPCD, but the fact that it's labeled preferred does not necessarily mean that it is the policy direction from that body.

I don't know if that helps.

I mean, I think what you're sort of asking about is a deal, and was there a deal?

I don't know.

I wasn't part of those conversations, but it sounds like there may have been a deal or maybe possibly two deals.

And I can't I'm not in a position to speak to the deal making that was involved in the decision by the executive to send down something that did not allow residential uses in that area.

But it sounds like it was a political discussion.

I'm happy to just add a bit more.

I think your question, Council Member Rivera, is a very good one.

Your point on.

The mayor did publish publicly a preferred alternative.

That published preferred alternative did include up to 990 units of housing for the stadium district.

Yes, it did.

We do have what we need in the comp plan.

We are now on the future land use map zoned as urban industrial.

That urban industrial zone is based on small makers, businesses, housing, etc.

Got what we need in the comp plan.

But somewhere between that published preferred alternative and the legislation that was sent down to the council, there were very private discussions between just a very select few members of this large stakeholder group.

And the large majority of stakeholders were not part of that.

So I mean, that's politics.

But we were then shocked to find out the neighborhoods, the makers, the unions, the stadiums, the teams, many different folks.

Members of our coalition, which is very broad and very deep, were surprised that that published preferred alternative was not what was sent down to the council.

What we were told, I'm just being very direct here, is we gave you half a loaf.

You got what you need in the comp plan.

We set the table for you.

Come back later and get the rest of it.

Now you just need a narrow, narrow zoning ordinance change.

You don't need to change a comp plan.

You got what you need there.

Come back for that narrow zoning ordinance.

So again, I'm just being very candid and direct, but your question was right on.

Yes.

Thank you, Lizanne.

I just, because I want to make, so The preferred alternative, Ketel, normally there is a stakeholdering process and the preferred alternative is informed by that process, which sounds like happened in this case.

And so then it got included in the broad comp plan, but at the point at which legislation was transmitted for the zoning, that got left out, even though the EIS said there would be no issues with, you know, the traffic transit component of the mobility component.

So that's what I'm trying to figure out is between this preferred alternative that had been published, presumably with the input from all the stakeholders and then the legislation that did get sent down.

Why, given that the EIS said there would be no issue with that mobility piece, which I hear to be a big concern and I understand that concern.

why then um it was left out of the legislation that was really my my question so thank you lizzie and you articulated better what i was trying to ask and uh and i'd like to add that too i wanted to speak to dan's question too that um councilwoman rivera kind of came over the same thing um

You know, I hold my ethics pretty high here.

That's why I can speak with all people here, and they know I'm not gonna say anything later, right?

I mean, it's a trust you have with people.

But I'll tell you straight out, I was told by the mayor's office to come back in a year, and it'd be simple legislation, and we could support it.

It's exactly what I was told.

I mean, almost to the verbatim.

It's there, Monty.

Just wait a year.

And I told them, patience is for losers.

I said, I'm not going to, and they said, just wait.

So I did.

And I mean, I'm no snitch.

I'm going to tell you that right now.

But I'm telling you, that's exactly what I heard.

So to come back here, I knew better then, as well I could say, but I can't go back in time.

But if I would have known that it would have been treated like this, or I would have had these kind of ACCUSATIONS OR COMMENTS MADE ABOUT ME AND SOMETHING AROUND THIS, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TOOK A DIFFERENT PATH, BUT I DID NOT.

SO I JUST WANT, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY, FOR ME PERSONALLY.

THANK YOU.

AND I SEE YOU, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND RAISED.

I WILL JUST NOTE THAT THE FINAL LEGISLATION DID, COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, THE LEGISLATION DID ADD ABOUT 900 UNITS coincidentally to Georgetown and to, uh, to Ballard and South Park.

And so there was a lot of back and forth on, on housing that, uh, that was, that was added, uh, and some of it can happen during amendments, but like I noted the, um, there was removal of, of, there was a scaling back of the bin to, to provide for some housing.

Council member Kettle.

Uh, thank you, chair.

Um, A couple quick questions.

I'd like to say first, Mr. Anderson, I do think you're ethical in your doing and your approach, and I respect you.

My earlier exchange was, you know, in terms of the point made, and so I just wanted to say that, that I echo your point in terms of the ethical approach.

Thank you, Director, for your presentation.

Thank you also for highlighting that the Maritime Industrial, the Industrial Maritime Strategy, the plan as shepherded by my colleague when he was Land Use Committee Chair, was basically the first stage of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan does not include this bill.

So thank you for restating that point.

On your briefing, And this would probably be a little bit of a rhetorical question because obviously the mayor's office is not, at least publicly, is not weighing in.

But in terms of land use strategies, implementing consensus recommendations, page two, two of them, one is stronger protections for industrially zoned land and the fourth one is no new residential uses.

Essentially, And it's a rhetorical question, but this bill violates those two points, really, with the removal of the 200-foot rule, I would argue.

Again, you don't have to comment on that, but I just wanted to put that question out there, and thank you for highlighting that in the briefing.

And there's a couple other points, but I just want to go to the end.

The last slide says, the EIS found housing as proposed to be allowed in the stadium areas as via urban industrial zone requirements and limitations would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

The inverse of this is for me is, but would the industrial and industrial zone have adverse environmental impacts on the housing, on the residents that would live in that location?

Is there an EIS in terms of?

you know, the considerations of that.

And the reason why I asked this question, going back to the earlier exchange where I highlighted that today's the 60th anniversary of my mother coming to America, and three months before that my father came to America, My father's eldest sister married a GI after the war, and he was from Western New York.

And so therefore, I'm from Western New York.

And when I was a boy, I started reading the Buffalo Evening News reports about Love Canal.

And I think this is a consideration that we should be talking about.

And there's not been any talking about Love Canal type considerations for this location.

And so that's another thing in the back of my mind that informs my position on this.

As of right now, there's no EIS in terms of the impacts of putting housing on top of a current industrial zone.

Is that correct?

The EIS was specifically studied the inclusion of housing in an industrial zone.

Yeah.

So I, we drop a bit, I am...

Can I ask just one last question?

And just to highlight, the Seattle Hazards Explorer highlights that Soto is between two fault lines.

Great damage from earlier earthquakes, like in 2001, the unreinforced masonry piece, and it's a liquefaction zone.

And my thoughts on this is like, you know, when we're looking to work through this, And I'll pass, I'll highlight my colleague to the council president.

But these are major considerations from emergency preparedness point.

You know, as chair of the public safety, emergency preparedness is a key piece.

And these considerations, again, have not been talked about.

You know, liquefaction zone, you know, tsunami, you know, in terms of the, You know, the elevation in terms of indentation of the waters from a tsunami, this is a very vulnerable location.

And so my question is really like, you know, insurance, how does this work?

You know, we look at the LA fires right now.

We look at, you know, the hurricanes hitting Florida and the Gulf Coast and so forth.

These are major impacts.

So I just want to end on that.

Thank you, Council President.

I understand, and like I said, Georgetown, Binmick, South Park, pretty much still in the footprint of the big one.

But I completely understand the issue of emergency.

I'm getting at the point that there was additional housing added when we were going through the deliberative process.

I want to note that one of the persons that could not be here at the table but is listed as a presenter on the agenda is Patience Malava.

And I did say that I would read a bit of her letter.

Executive Director of the Housing Development Consortium, wasn't able to come here with us today at the last minute, so I'm going to read a bit of her letter.

The Housing Development Consortium represents more than 200 affordable housing developers in King County who are committed to ensuring that all people live with the dignity, in safe, healthy, and affordable homes in communities of opportunity.

We are writing to voice our strong support of Council Bill 120933 for residential uses in the stadium transition area overlay district.

As we know, there's an immediate need for more affordable housing throughout Seattle at every level, including workforce housing.

And housing in the stadium district will both provide affordable homes to many who need them and will also subsidize small maker businesses that create opportunities for women and BIPOC community members to create much needed generational wealth.

We are fortunate that there is incredible opportunity in what Mayor Harrell has described as one of downtown six neighborhoods, the stadium district to build up to 990 units of housing through private development with half of that required to come at 60 to 90% AMI.

This affordability requirement is for 75 years.

Thank you for your leadership on this important legislation.

Sincerely, Patience Malaba.

Executive Director of the Housing Development Consortium.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, I am going to call on you.

You have not spoken yet.

Go ahead.

And then we're going to wrap up.

Go ahead.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council President.

I have my timer on as well, but I won't need the 10 minutes.

I just had a quick comment.

It's not necessarily a question.

I just wanted to thank all the presenters and public commenters who came in today and the people who literally took off work to come down to the council meeting today.

I know it means a lot to my colleagues and myself.

I know some of my colleagues also have better knowledge on the history because of their engagement with some of this legislation, and then also I know Councilmember Kettle for his history in maritime service as well.

So I just wanted to put that out there.

And then my, just wanted to put out, you know, just the approach meeting with all sides from our office, labor unions to educate ourselves.

We'll be continuing to do that.

I also wanted to note that I understand both sides about housing and a need for our city, the economic engine in our city as we are growing as a city and how things continue to develop and change.

I also understand it from a small business perspective.

There wasn't a time the last eight, nine years where our family was ordering stuff from overseas and would have to wait six to eight weeks to get these massive amounts of supplies to be able to service our local economy and our government.

understand how important um that was as well um and and understand how important the the port is so i just wanted to throw that out there that i appreciate the conversations i appreciate people coming to the table presenting this and then the process trying to respect the process as well and and i understand um also to a lot of our other colleagues how much knowledge knowledge they have from council member strauss council member kettle and um as well so I just wanted to throw that out there.

Thank you so much.

Council President.

And this is why I was very happy when you stepped up to chair the Comp Plan, the Select Comprehensive Plan Committee.

So thank you very much for those thoughts.

I will, one moment please.

I see that there are two hands up here and then I will call on you in a moment.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

I just want to make a quick comment.

I want to acknowledge the public safety piece that has been brought up.

And I will say that the public safety aspects, the reason why I was around when Mayor Harrell brought up his downtown activation plan and I was in full support and a lot of that had to do with the fact that during COVID people were working from home and there wasn't as many people walking around downtown and that made it so some what I call negative activity was happening downtown and I think a big piece of that downtown activation plan was to activate the space positively to make it safer.

So I do think that positive activation of spaces is an environmental design piece to make spaces safer.

And having worked in between Pioneer Square and the ID right next to the stadiums and being there at night, I know it does not feel safe.

There are also some events that happen in that area.

at night and it just doesn't feel safe because there aren't people around there.

So there is a public safety component to this and I'm going to respectfully disagree with my colleague on the public safety piece because I've seen it and I do think it is a legitimate concern for that area.

So I did want to say that and I did want to acknowledge that positive activation of spaces does keep spaces safe.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead and let's keep comments quick.

I want to make sure that we are out of here.

I was hoping by noon, but go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, I also have a noon meeting that I'm late to and I'll be as fast as possible, but I've taken notes throughout this meeting so that I can speak just once.

Mr. Anderson, you would be a good medical doctor because you're smart and you have a lot of patience.

I'm trying to add some, a little bit of humor to a tense room, but I deeply respect you.

I count to the chair, no net loss of industrial lands is important.

It's important because we won't get these lands back.

I hold a no net loss philosophy and clearly from my actions in 2023 that with a good process, I can be comfortable with adding housing to industrial zones.

we are lucky enough to have a deep water port 0.5 miles from I-90 access.

And the entire maritime and industrial land strategy was based on compromise from these hard and fast positions, even like the one that I have about no net loss.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that we in the room today, and that was 1% as intense as the conflicts that I witnessed during the facilitated stakeholder work group, which is why we had an outside facilitator.

This work group was a meeting of the minds from divergent points of view, and we were able to achieve 87% consensus of the recommendations.

Not every recommendation had everyone in consensus there.

And from my perspective, the reason that housing in the stadium area was not included in the transmitted language or in this year's comprehensive plan is because a bill like the one before us today would blow up that deal.

from 2023 and the compromises made then.

Part of those compromises were to increase housing in industrial areas across the city, to make changes as the sponsor noted in the Ballard Inner Bay Manufacturing Industrial Corridor, to increase office space in SOTO beyond what was proposed.

to add 900 units, additional units, to places like Georgetown and up in Ballard, to add hotels in the stadium area.

Hotels are important because it increases that same similar type of vibrancy of human activity, but a neighbor that lives next to an industrial zone will call the police.

A person in a hotel will call the front desk to complain about the noise.

Part of that deal was to include the stadium area in urban industrial like Lizanne shared with us.

These changes were posed by the stakeholders and they begrudgingly agreed.

The stakeholders against the bill in the room right now who are against the bill before us had at one point told me that I had sold them out because of the compromises that we made across our city.

I was comfortable with those compromises that we reached because we had a deal.

But now we are back without a process.

And the only process that has occurred was a surprise introduction with the first time in a long time having a land use bill being referred outside of a land use committee.

I'll be clear that EISs are allowances.

I even just asked for a SEPA analysis to be more broad than what I believe a final bill would be because once it's published, if you want to have flexibility within that EIS, once it's published, it's only what has been published.

You can't increase flexibility from there.

The connection between the port and I-90 needs to be fixed today with just the current situation that we have between the port and I-90 without any changes.

That connection is critical because part of what needs to be addressed is between our deep water port and the interstates that connect us to the port of Boston, to Canada, and to Mexico.

We had a deal in 2023. Was I totally satisfied with that deal?

No, but it was a compromise and that's how compromises work.

And I still believe that there's a deal to be made with this, but this is not it.

The process that led us to the maritime and industrial changes was centered around communication, compromise and consensus as much as possible.

Today we have a divided room We have important stakeholders at the table, but not all stakeholders.

And the process before us today has been one of surprises, attempts at silencing separately elected colleagues and irregularly scheduled meetings.

Thank you, Council President.

I explained before you got here why the meeting is on a Friday.

And I do appreciate your reverence for industrial lands and there was uh, residential put right across the street from a manufacturing business in Ballard and elsewhere.

So Council Member Saka, can you go ahead?

You can ask your questions.

Okay, all right.

Well, no questions.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Just wanna express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to everyone who took the time to show up today, testify, listening to a very lengthy proceeding and a fairly intense one as well.

And, you know, I haven't taken a position on this issue yet.

I'm on my journey to learn as much as possible and educate myself.

And as part of that, been meeting with stakeholders.

I will continue to do so.

I had a productive meeting yesterday with, for example, with folks from the port.

Commissioner Calkins and others, but, and we'll continue to meet, do more walking tours of the area, meet with the brothers and sisters in the building trades and their individual member organizations and others, all sides.

But I acknowledge that this is a very delicate issue.

I appreciate council member Strauss who just left us for today in his historical knowledge and expertise.

Delicate issue.

This would not be something, just for clarity, that I would have personally proposed.

It would not be a priority of mine to propose, but now that I'm here, I have to eventually, at some point, take a position on it.

And which leads me to my other thought.

Council President, I applaud your leadership and bravery in bringing this forward.

Irrespective of the outcome, there are so many decisions that have strong political positions and strong for and against.

And it's difficult and it takes a lot of courage to bring something up.

And the easy thing to do is stay on the sidelines and kick the can down the road.

But I just want to acknowledge the bravery and courage from you.

We'll see where this goes, but just want to reemphasize my commitment to learning as much as I can and hearing from everyone impacted.

And there was a deal cut, negotiated.

Sounds like there's some last minute stuff by a few voices.

Others think that it was the final end all be all.

Here we are.

So anyways.

Thank you everyone for being here and appreciate this conversation, kicking it off today.

Thank you very much for those words.

Are there any final things that you wanna say?

Okay.

You're sick of it.

Okay.

So you're right.

And I am doing this because I felt that it was an, I didn't, I lacked the courage to bring forward an amendment back in 2023, wasn't allowed to do it at the full council meeting and have been in conversation with the proponents of housing in the stadium districts for over a year.

So I just want to simply close by noting that, reminding people why I'm doing this.

And what I want is more space for makers businesses.

I want affordable housing in a space that seems like it makes sense as it was identified in the preferred alternative, which is the stadium district, which feels more like downtown than the heavy industrial to the south of it.

And I certainly want to improve public safety as has been noted here many times.

And so that is why this is so strongly supported by the neighborhood groups representing the CID and Pioneer Square who couldn't come here today.

I'm sure that there will be more people that come forward at our public hearing, which is scheduled for February 24th.

And I would just like just a plug for the coalition of people that they're bringing this forward and the broad base of support it has.

This is the wind underneath my sails.

We all received this letter from the coalition, lots of logos.

I do believe that a letter was sent out to Council members again with additional logos of support, including, interestingly, USTW 3000, which it's good to be on the same site on some things.

So thank you very much, everyone, and this will be continued over the next month or so.

Next meeting is the 24th at 9.30.

Thank you very much.

Bye-bye.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you.