Panelists: Maria Barrientos, Jan Hendrickson, Bob Mahon, Jackson Schmidt, George Staggers (observing)

P4 staff person Sara Levin welcomed the group and gave brief introductory comments. This is the first opportunity for members of the P4 Panel to review a project; and the first P4 briefing on South Lake Union (SLU). Members of the larger P4 Panel self-selected this smaller group to review the project. The purpose of the briefing is to give P4 Panelists an overview of the SLU redevelopment, with a focus on the City’s process for disposal and redevelopment of surplus City properties.

At this briefing, Panelists will give City staff initial comments and feedback on the project. In a couple of months, panelists will get another briefing, as the project and negotiations are further along. Panelists were given materials – the Protocol and RFQ – to review prior to the briefing. These materials were also made available to the public via the City website.

In the 1950s, civic leaders in Seattle had a vision to create a ring of freeways around the central business district. This concept included an elevated connector between I-5 and SR99/Aurora, known as the Bay Freeway. The City, with financial assistance from the State, purchased a number of parcels along the Mercer corridor and near Lake Union in anticipation of the Freeway’s construction. This project, however, did not have the support of the citizens of Seattle, who objected to the impact the project would have on existing city neighborhoods and waterfront access. Citizens voted against the project in 1972. The City retained the properties already acquired for potential future transportation use.

In 1994 a civic group that sought both to redevelop a large portion of the South Lake Union area and to solve the peak hour congestion problems, proposed to build the Seattle Commons. Ultimately, the voters twice rejected this proposal, as it was seen as too expensive and too damaging to the South Lake Union neighborhood.

As part of the Comprehensive Plan mandated by the State Growth Management Act, the City conducted neighborhood planning, in which local residents, businesses and property owners worked together to develop the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan. The South Lake Union plan, considered a "success story", was approved and key recommendations in the Adoption and Approval Matrix adopted by City Council in March of 1999. Neighborhood residents came to consensus on three priorities:

• Development of South Lake Union Park
• Need for transportation improvements, especially spot improvements to enhance circulation
• Neighborhood character should retain the maritime and industrial heritage theme of the area

At the same time, the plan directed the City to redevelop City-owned properties in a manner consistent with the character of the neighborhood and supportive of an update of South Lake Union Park Master Plan that is currently underway. Mary Jean Ryan, Director of the City’s Office for Economic Development, was asked to lead a City Interdepartmental Team (IDT) in 1998, to look at the potential for redevelopment in the area.

The City is working to acquire the naval reserve property at the Southern base of the lake, and is updating the SLU Park Master Plan (with a public hearing scheduled for the end of April). The Puget Sound Regional Council gave a grant to the City, which was used to hire a transportation consultant to look at engineering and design of transportation improvements in the area. Visions for what should happen to the City’s properties range from being a cultural campus, to residential or biotech. The City continues to work with a group of neighborhood leaders, including local business owners and residents.

The city used an RFP process to hire two consultants--Heartland (real estate consulting) and MAKERS (architectural and urban design) to study options for the City owned properties. The consultants looked at current zoning of properties, options for uses if the height limit were raised, potential use of the individual properties, and potential use of the individual properties plus other surplus-City owned properties in the area. Heartland was asked to look at uses and financial elements, while MAKERS studied design potential.

In the Fall of 1999, the City worked with the public and a group of SLU neighborhood leaders (SLU Planning Committee) to clarify what the public objectives for the redevelopment in neighborhood should be. In late 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 30080 which detailed a set of public objectives.

In order to accomplish redevelopment as envisioned in the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan and as analyzed in the consultant studies, the City IDT concluded that seeking developers through an RFQ would best promote the City objectives while making use of the knowledge and creativity of the experienced developers. The RFQ (issued in January 2000) focused on the four properties between Valley and Mercer just south of the South Lake Union Park, since these are most critical in terms of access to and visual effect on the park. The RFQ also makes available six additional properties to the west, provided that the inclusion of these in a development concept can be strongly demonstrated to achieve the City objectives on the subject properties.

The RFQ asked that respondents incorporate public objectives and other development considerations into their development concepts, and set responsiveness to them as one of the selection criteria. The RFQ also anticipated P4 review in seeking appropriate information in submittals and notifying respondents of the nature of the P4 review.

Two submittals to the RFQ are being considered by the RFQ Selection Committee. One, from the Nordic Heritage Museum, addressed redevelopment of one of the City properties. The second, from Vulcan Northwest, addressed all ten properties.

The Oversight Committee found one submittal to be not responsive, and received letters of interest from several nonprofits (housing and youth-oriented agencies), asking to be involved as the project moves forward. Currently, the Selection Committee is planning to make a recommendation to the Oversight Committee. The IDT needs to work on its negotiation strategy, including a pricing strategy and addressing how to achieve public objectives.

The general discussion and Panelist questions/comments are paraphrased below:

Given that the Nordic Heritage Museum submitted a plan for only one parcel, how will the Selection Committee evaluate this response?

The City will consider this issue in the selection process.

Other panelist comments:  Are the two proposals mutually exclusive? Perhaps they can both be accepted, or one can work with the other.

How will the City evaluate traffic and transportation without knowing the development plan for the area?

With the agreement of the community, an RFQ rather than an RFP was issued. The City will evaluate the qualifications of who submitted and their overall response to development in the area. Themes of the Public-Private Partnership Task Force’s recommendations were also incorporated – especially the need to be clear about public objectives ahead of time and to issue an RFP/Q for the project.

Will the properties be sold outright or ground leased?

That has not been decided yet.

Is funding for development of the park in tact, and what kind of parking is built into the Master Plan?

There is no funding in place yet for development of the park. The City hopes to get park space open for initial public use by the summer. (Donald Harris pointed out details on a park map.) The City wouldn’t assume financial responsibility for developing the Maritime Center. The impending ProParks proposal could be a levy opportunity which includes money for the South Lake Union park. State funds may also be available.

Parking will be accommodated – it is on the list of public objectives. The City-owned land on the water’s edge is valuable, and will likely not be used for parking. Instead, the properties across the street could easily have parking as part of their development.

Will parking be free?

This has not been decided yet, but it will likely be market rate parking, like the lots at the Zoo. There is some free parking on the public right of way in the area.

Other comments from City staff:  Heartland is helping the City with its negotiation strategy. The target date to start negotiations is 4/17. The City Council has also hired a consultant to work on the project. The City welcomes any input on negotiation strategy from the Panelists.

When will the submittals be made public?

The recommendation to the Oversight Committee will include elements of the submittals. The submittals are RFQs and aren’t specific proposals.

Are transportation improvements funded?

The Mayor would like proceeds from the property sales to fund transportation improvements. The City Council will have final say on this. It is assumed that transportation improvements will cost more than the proceeds from property sales.

How does the neighborhood feel about the potential zoning change for a height increase?

The neighborhood decided not to make this decision as part of the neighborhood planning process.

The Panel would like an opportunity to review this project again in May, rather than delaying the next chance for discussion until the 12^th hour.