Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan 9/19/25

Good afternoon.

The September 19th meeting of the select committee, the comprehensive plan will come to order.

It is 2 23 PM.

I am Joy Hollingsworth, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Rink.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Councilmember Sacca.

Here.

Councilmember Solomon.

Councilmember Strauss.

Present.

Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Kettle.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Council, excuse me, Chair Hollingsworth.

Here.

Five present.

Awesome.

We're going to now consider the agenda.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

I'll pause here to see if any other council members are on.

No.

Okay.

So colleagues, we are here because we knew about some legal concerns.

I put those amendments in the resolution to mitigate some of those risks.

And now we're going to have to move into an executive session because of some of those amendments.

were adopted and passed into the legislation.

And as chair, I'm going to be announcing that the Seattle City Council will now convene into the executive session.

The purpose of the executive session is to discuss pending potential or actual litigation.

The council's executive session is an opportunity for the council to discuss confidential legal matters with city attorneys as authorized by law.

A legal monitor from the city attorney's office is always present to ensure that council reserves questions for policy for open sessions.

I expect the time of the executive session to end by, I will say 3.05 p.m., so that's one hour.

If the executive session is going to extend beyond that time, I will announce the extension and the expected duration.

At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the Select Committee will come back to order to consider our items of business on today's agenda.

For the record, Council Member Kettle has joined us.

The Council will now Council member Rink is also here as well?

Oh, got it.

Okay, council member.

So for the record, council member Kettle and council member Rink are here.

Thank you.

The council is now going to move to executive session.

Council members, please log into the executive session Zoom meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

¶¶ Thank you.

Music playing Bye.

I'm going to go to the top of the top of the top of the top of the top.

Bye.

Thank you.

you you .

I'm going to go to the top of the top of the top of the top.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

I apologize.

Seattle Channel's not airing our audio.

Just wanted to make sure that there isn't anything on our end that we need to do to help.

Testing one, two.

Okay, we're good.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you, I apologize.

Thank you to the award-winning Seattle Channel.

I will repeat that.

At September 18th meeting, the Select Committee discussed individual amendments and postponed the bill.

to continue our discussion at today's meeting.

For today's meeting, we're gonna continue those last few amendments and we're also going to discuss the resolution as well.

Does anyone have any questions about what our next steps are so far for today?

Awesome.

I know it's been a slugfest and the light at the end of the tunnel, colleagues, is not a train.

It is the light, okay?

So before we proceed, I'm gonna go ahead and recognize Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to rescind amendments 54, 56, and 58 from Council Bill 120993 adopted at the September 18th meeting.

Second.

It's been moved and second for the rescinding of amendments 54, 56, 58. Council Member Rink, you are recognized to address those amendments.

Thank you, Chair.

Upon additional legal analysis, I've determined it is in our best interest to keep these amendments in the docket resolution rather to pass them in the legislation now.

And I want to be clear so the public understands this is not the end of these particular ADU topics.

Upon the completion of additional environmental review next year, Council can and I hope will re-add these to our land use code.

I'm very thankful to my colleagues and to the City of Seattle for loving ADUs as much as I do.

And as I've said multiple times before, ADUs represent one of the most viable affordable pathways to home ownership for working people in Seattle.

But for now, I believe deferring action until that additional environmental review can be done would be in our best interest.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Are there any other comments on the motion to rescind amendments 54, 56, and 58?

Seeing none, thank you, Council Member Rink.

Just a reminder, these are added to the resolution, so looking forward for those studies, for the environmental impact studies and for your love for ADUs.

Will the clerk please call the roll to rescind amendments number 54, 56, and 58?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Sanka.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and amendment 54, 56 and 58 is rescinded.

Are there any other comments?

Are there any other motions to be entertained at this moment in time?

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend the Council Bill 120993 as presented on amendment 76.

Second.

It's been move and second.

For Amendment No. 76, Council Member Rink, you are...

Oh, excuse me.

We'll go to Central Staff first, and then Council Member Rink will go to you.

Good afternoon, Lischwitz and Council Central Staff.

Amendment No. 76 would change the definition of major transit service to include frequent transit service.

As you may remember when we first discussed this bill, frequent transit service is transit service that has 15-minute headways, so regular bus routes that come every 15 minutes.

Major transit service is defined as rail service or express bus services.

By merging the two, parking requirements that are waived in areas with currently waived in areas with major transit service would also be waived in areas with frequent transit service.

So along any bus route with 15-minute headways within a quarter-mile walking distance of those bus stops, parking would no longer be required.

Thank you.

Council Member Rank, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, this amendment would change the use of the term major transit to frequent transit.

In passing this, areas within a half mile of frequent transit service stops would be eligible for bonuses that would be provided to stacked dwelling units, low-income housing, and low-income housing property.

Housing on property owned by religious institutions.

Using the frequent transit definition accepts the fact that buses that run at high frequencies but aren't designated as rapid ride routes still serve as important connectors in Seattle, which I can personally attest to as I know many transit riders in this city can.

But that being said, I will be withdrawing this amendment for later consideration after additional environmental review in the docket resolution can be adopted.

Chair, do I need to make a motion to do this?

Amelia?

At this point, because it's been moved and seconded, you can request to withdraw this motion.

Council Member Rink.

Okay, I request to withdraw this motion.

And unanimous consent.

Second.

It's been moved and second to withdraw the motion for Amendment 76. Are there any questions or comments?

Do you have any closing comments, Council Member Rink?

No, just thank you colleagues for your consideration of this.

Hope we can continue discussions on connecting access to transit to housing.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

And for the record, it is in the resolution as well.

Clerk, will you please call the roll to...

If there's no objections, we don't need to do the roll.

I'm learning Robert's rules as we go.

I'll get better and better every single time.

So there's no need to call roll.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Next, Council Member Inke, you were recognized to move your amendment number 85.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, amendment number 85, I move to amend Council Bill 120993 as presented on amendment 85.

Second.

It's been moved in second to amend Council Bill 120933 for amendment number 85. Central staff, please give us an overview.

Yeah, the state legislature this year adopt engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5184, which is required to be in effect by January 2027. It requires cities to have parking requirements that Do not require parking for residents less than 1,200 square feet in size.

The city may not have parking requirements for childcare centers and may not have parking requirements for businesses less than 3,000 square feet in size or at the ground floor of a mixed-use building.

This amendment would implement that bill.

Council Member Rank, thank you.

Council Member Rank, you're recognized for your amendment number 85.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Lish.

Colleagues, this amendment would simply bring us into compliance with the state law that was passed earlier this year regarding parking mandates.

I spoke a lot about parking mandates in yesterday's meeting, and while those amendments didn't pass, I'm hopeful that this amendment here strikes the right balance.

Parking mandates will need to be updated in the coming couple of years because of these state law changes, so rather than having to go through a complicated process A year from now, we can take action to enact these now.

So I ask for your support.

I think this is an important step forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Are there any other comments on amendment number 85?

Any comments?

Council President Nelson.

So, Lish, correct my understanding.

We have to comply with Senate Bill 5184 by 2027, correct?

Correct.

And the State Department of Commerce will be providing its guidance on implementation, is that correct?

Correct.

Do you know when that might be provided?

Supposed to be provided by the end of this year.

Okay, and there are also elements of state law such as parking maximums which differ from the amendments presented which would require us to open it up again to be in compliance regardless of passage today.

Is that roughly?

I think that's correct.

I'm not remembering which those are, but the state legislature has been very active in terms of providing additional mandates to cities, so you are probably correct.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

That's it.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Are there any more comments on the amendment before us?

Amendment number 85. Will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number 85?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member DiVetta.

No.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Abstain.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

No.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Five in favor, two opposed, and two abstentions.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

Council Member Kettle, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

With respect to Amendment 99, which was to the short title being eliminate the neighborhood residential amenity areas, I seek to withdraw this from consideration

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I think we just needed to verbally state that and no motion is necessary.

So thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Amendment number 99 is withdrawn.

Are there any comments regarding that motion or not that motion, but that withdrawal?

Seeing none, Council Member Kettle, you are recognized to move your amendment number 94.

Thank you, Chair.

Those that knew that we did have a version two of 94 if we had proceeded with 99, but as just noted, that was withdrawn.

Similar considerations as Council Member Rink with Amendment number 76. But for 94, as noted yesterday in my remarks as we started essentially our tree section, this is about doing what we can do to protect our trees as we densify.

And that's the spirit behind Amendment 94. Which does that.

We can have central staff speak to it, but bottom line is this is just about providing some additional bonus in order to protect our Tier 2 trees, which is really important for me as we move forward, as we look to essentially square the circle by densifying our city, but at the same time really We're protecting as best we can and to actually move forward on tree canopy and what we're doing.

So, colleagues, following, I guess, central staff introduction, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

You have to move it.

And I move Amendment 94 for Council Bill 120993.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill for Amendment No. 90 for Central Staff.

So as Councilmember Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

So Amendment No. 94, sponsored by Councilmember Kettle, would provide regulatory incentives for Either retaining a Tier 2 tree or planting or preserving medium or large trees that would result in a 10 percent canopy coverage for the site at tree maturity.

So I'm working within the point system that has been proposed by the mayor to achieve that, to achieve the score necessary, but also achieve a tree canopy coverage of 10 percent.

The regulatory incentives would be additional height up to 42 feet, waiver of amenity standards, and also parking waivers as well.

Thank you, Kittle.

And that was a great lead up into moving of your bill.

Do you want to address it as well, Council Member Kittle?

I think I addressed it enough.

And if I can continue on, I was getting some comments out there in the city regarding my love of evergreen.

So I will not speak any further on that topic.

And I'll just leave what I said yesterday as my approach and my position.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Are there any comments about amendment number 94, tree retention bonus?

Any comments?

Is that Council President Nelson?

Because I have a confused look on my face.

We passed Amendment 87 in the consent package, and I had an identical number 101, which I removed because it was identical to 87. So I just wanted to make how...

Could you identify the main difference between those two?

They seem duplicative, but I could be misunderstood.

I will have to remind myself what is in 87 here.

Please stand by.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

So, yeah, 87 is similar to Councilmember Kettle's bonus in that it allows the director to waive parking requirements for preservation of Tier 2 trees.

A distinction between Councilmember Kettle's amendment number 94 and 87 is that the regulatory incentives also include additional height and waiver of amenity area standards.

in the one that's before us right now.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Are there any other questions regarding the amendment before us on amendment number 94?

Clerk, will you please call the roll for amendment number 94?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

No.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Seven in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

Motion carries.

Amendment is adopted.

And that is all of the amendments, as I can see, colleagues.

One second, we're going to be at ease.

Okay.

These also don't have page numbers on them.

Awesome.

Thank you, I have a lot of papers up here.

Okay, so are there any final comments on the bill before us as amended?

This is your time to make any final comments on the bill.

Okay, awesome.

Okay, great.

Let's knock it out.

All right.

Sorry, there's no final bills.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Council Bill 120933.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Diavetta.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Salomon.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Any in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the council bill 120933 will be sent to full council.

Will the clerk please read item number

Do you want them to let you know when it will go to City Council?

Oh, yeah.

Central staff, will you let us know when Council Bill 120933 goes to full Council?

Sure.

So both Council Bill 120985 and Council Bill 120993 need additional environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act.

So the scope of that review is to be determined.

We'll have a better sense early next week.

But at the very, we're assuming, although this is not a foregone conclusion, that changes to the Mayor's proposal made by the Council today and yesterday can be accomplished through an addendum to an environmental impact statement.

An addendum process has statutory comment periods.

And additionally, it'll take some time for the consultants and the City to put together the analysis and make that available for the public for their review.

The Council should anticipate that both bills will not be back in front of Council until that process has run its course.

At the earliest, that will be late October or potentially early November.

Thank you.

Are there any questions regarding next steps?

Awesome.

Thank you, Ketel.

Will the Clerk please read item number two into the agenda?

Agenda Item 2, Resolution 32183 relating to the One Seattle Plan Comprehensive Plan Update, calling for additional measures by city departments to further advance the goals of the One Seattle Plan and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and other city departments develop additional amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in 2026 for briefing, discussion and possible vote.

Colleagues, this is our last piece of legislation today.

We made it into a resolution.

As I previously explained, I placed into the resolution some of the things that we had talked about that could potentially have environmental or legal risks.

This gives us a chance to study these amendments separately Outside of this process, so that some of the boldest ideas, which I really appreciate us pushing the envelope, bold ideas can be considered next time we have an update to the comprehensive plan, which we will be going through next year.

Phase two.

With that, we're gonna go into the vote of the resolution.

I believe we have four amendments today as a resolution.

We might have more, but four.

Right now we have four amendments today at the resolution.

So I'm gonna go ahead and move that committee recommends adoption of resolution 32183. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and second to adopt the resolution.

Central staff, will you please provide us with an introduction overview of the resolution?

Great.

Thank you.

And I am playing Jasmine Marwaha today.

I wanna thank her for all of her work Focusing on this while we were focusing on the other legislation you've considered this week.

As background, the Growth Management Act allows the City to amend the Comforts of Plan once a year.

In most years, the Council adopts a docket of items that it anticipates looking at in terms of amendments to the comp plan.

We've held that process for the last couple of years because we had the giant bills that you considered this week pending.

Next year, we anticipate a more normal comp plan year with more targeted amendments, and this resolution would adopt a docket of items that Council may consider in 2026 for amendments to the comprehensive plan.

The resolution does three things.

It reaffirms and asserts the goals of the 1CL comprehensive plan.

It requests that departments analyze and make recommendations for further changes to code to further implement the goals as stated in the resolution.

And it requests that OPCD and other departments develop amendments to the comprehensive plan for future council consideration.

Section 1 of the resolution includes goals for welcoming inclusive Seattle, affordable, accessible, livable, and safe, or as the Chair says, walls.

Section 2 sets out a departmental work program for 2026 to analyze many of the issues that you've been discussing.

Today and yesterday, including consideration of changes to accessory dwelling unit regulations, regulations related to environmentally critical areas, frequent transit service regulations, considerations of changes to parking requirements, additional work on tree protection, Incentives for mandatory housing affordability projects.

Incentives to develop vacant sites downtown, particularly the block across the street.

And further work on developing anti-displacement strategies.

Section 3 is specifically related to the comprehensive plan.

It requests OPCD to analyze and make recommendations on consideration of higher building heights in neighborhood centers, not just in light rail station areas, but in other neighborhood centers.

Consider additional neighborhood centers, as was proposed under Amendment 34, which you discussed yesterday.

Further modify boundaries of certain neighborhood centers, particularly in District 6, and analyze and make recommendations to comply with NAIT's new state requirements such as set by area plans for regionally designated centers.

I think many of you are aware that OPCD is currently working on developing plans for regional centers like downtown Northgate.

First Hill, Capitol Hill, et cetera.

So you can anticipate seeing new plans for those areas starting to come in next year.

Any questions before we move to amendments?

Awesome.

Thank you, Lish.

Are there any questions, colleagues, about the resolution before we jump into amendments?

Awesome.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized to move your amendment number one.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend the resolution with amendment one, which shall delete Elki from section three dot B dot number one.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the resolution as presented on amendment number one.

Central staff, please give us an overview of this amendment.

All right.

As you remember, you discussed potentially adding eight neighborhood centers to the future land use map.

Included among those was a new neighborhood center in Alki.

This would remove that neighborhood center from future study.

Councilmember Versace, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, I'm asking you to support this amendment that would make a minor adjustment and specifically remove the proposed Elkai Neighborhood Center.

And for clarity, I'm in full support of the 13 net new neighborhood centers and four urban centers proposed in my own district.

I support every last one.

I made a number of boundary changes and tweaks.

Based on very unique environmental and physical factors, in one case, I actually expanded the boundaries.

These adjustments were not made lightly.

They were based on my firsthand knowledge of the neighborhoods and their specific challenges and opportunities, and also working alongside the directly impacted communities.

It's a theme I think that many of us undertook when we consider our own amendment approach.

A proposed neighborhood center in Alki does not make sense at this time for really three main reasons.

First, it does not meet OPCD's own definition of neighborhood center.

Second, the geographic isolation and traffic constraints in the area make it impracticable.

And third and finally, there's severe environmental risk.

And central staff, if you wouldn't mind showing the map of where this proposed center is, specifically in Elkai, while I speak, that would be greatly appreciated.

First, Elkai does not meet OPCD's own definition of neighborhood center, nor does it meet the department's own objective evaluation criteria for selecting areas for potential neighborhood center designation.

Per OPCD, neighborhood centers are specifically defined as areas near transit with growing business centers, amenities, and added housing capacity.

Dibbing a little deeper into the policy weeds, if you look at specific policies pertaining to neighborhood centers, More specifically, GS 5.1.

It's contained in many places in this overall legislation, but for those following online, it's on page 26 of the Executive's One Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

GS 5.1 specifically states, and I quote, The city shall endeavor to quote, quote, designate as neighborhood centers areas with a locally focused commercial core and or access to frequent transit where diverse housing options could allow more people to live within walking distance of shops, services, transit and amenities, end quote.

So taken together, we can call Together, about four basic requirements for neighborhood centers.

Access to transit, the availability of social and community services, government services, clinics, healthcare facilities, community support services, et cetera.

Third, robust amenities, grocery stores, pharmacies, libraries.

Fourth, and finally, a commercial core business district.

And when you run that framework against the unique situation in Alki, only one of those conditions is currently met.

One of those four.

And that is, it's a commercial core.

There's a growing business district.

A lot of great restaurants and coffee shops and along there, small businesses that you all should check out, colleagues.

Again, access to transit, very, very limited in that part of the West Seattle Peninsula.

I know if you look on the map there, it's bounded by water to the north, west, and south.

Access to transit in that area, again, very, very limited.

Not a ton of availability of social and community services either.

Hardly any amenities, certainly no grocery stores, pharmacies and the like.

Again, the only condition that is currently met is the commercial core, a growing business district.

Simply put, it doesn't meet the objective criteria that have guided this entire approach.

And if we're going to add Elk Eye, I would submit that, why not let's just change the objective evaluation criteria for making neighborhood centers designations to specifically fit and accommodate Elkai?

Because under the current standard, it doesn't fit.

And by the way, we've done that before, colleagues.

As part of the 100-plus amendments, we've made modifications and amended the policies that govern and implement the various provisions of the comp plan.

If, as a policy matter, we think it makes sense at this time to add Alki as a neighborhood center, which I do not think it does make sense at this time, then let's change the objective evaluation criteria to make it work.

The second reason it's unworkable at this time is, again, look at the map.

It's a very remote, geographic, isolated area.

It has severe traffic constraints.

Access to Elkai depends on a very few finite amount of constrained corridors, really just Harbor Avenue Southwest and Admiral Way Southwest.

Increased growth would worsen congestion, impact emergency response times, and burden existing residents.

Other potential neighborhood center locations offer stronger multimodal connectivity.

Third and finally, colleagues, I mentioned earlier, climate resilience and the environmental risk presented.

Elkai sits directly on Puget Sound's shoreline, making it one of the city's most vulnerable areas to sea level rise, storm surge and erosion.

Encouraging new growth in this high-risk area conflicts, directly conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan's climate resilience principles.

Protecting Elkai's role as a recreational and cultural waterfront is more sustainable than intensifying urban growth in this area at this time.

Also note the strong community opposition against the proposed Elkai Neighborhood Center by those that are most directly impacted.

Since last night up until 2.30, Alone, all of us have received approximately 71 emails from directly impacted residents of Elki against the proposal.

71. Zero in favor.

And preceding that was hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of other comms that we've received opposing specifically the Elki Neighborhood Center.

And I understand why people feel passionate about these issues, either for or against.

At its core, these reflect long-term policy decisions, and they impact people's everyday lives.

And as part of some of these conversations, we know there's binary labeling.

We've heard the term NIMBY, not in my backyard.

Yes, in my backyard.

I think as part of these specific conversations, there's a new term, maybe.

Yes, in their backyard.

It's easy for some people, not from a community, to say something is best for them.

And if that thing is implemented, they're completely unaccountable and they don't have to manage the day-to-day as a direct result of that.

There's a lot of Yitbyism going on as well.

The Elkai Community Council and hundreds, hundreds of directly impacted residents have voiced their strong concerns.

We all know there is a lack of fair process and extensive vetting for this neighborhood center compared to other neighborhood centers.

Lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.

Each of the current neighborhood center designations was shaped by a robust multi-year stakeholdering and community engagement process.

And I believe Elkai deserves the same transparency and dialogue as every other neighborhood impacted by the comm plan.

In all, colleagues, again, I just want to emphasize that I do strongly support all the new centers in my district and all the ones that we've approved thus far in the comp plan legislation.

Each was shaped by community input through multiple rounds of outreach and pass-through reviews, including the required environmental impact statements, all of which was explored through an extensive, again, multi-year process.

It would be an overreach on my part for me to address the other eight areas being proposed for study in this resolution.

So my amendment is to narrowly delete Elki only from the study.

My amendment again removes only Elki because it clearly does not meet our currently agreed upon definition of neighborhood center.

That's very clear.

For those reasons, colleagues, I ask for your support on this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Are there any comments regarding amendment number one right now that's on the table?

Councilmember Rank, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I want to note that while Alki is included in this resolution, a reminder that this resolution simply triggers a study.

It does not bind us to enacting this center.

So by removing it from additional study ensures we can't even consider this moving forward.

And I don't believe that's in our best interests of the city.

One of the issues we've experienced in trying to move forward in our own policy goals in this whole entire comprehensive plan process is the fact that we've also been constrained by what was studied in the FEIS.

That's why this docket resolution is so important.

It gives us options.

And this amendment takes away that option to even consider this.

And I'll point to the letter signed by all of our school board members in support of what was Amendment 34, which also included this as a proposed neighborhood center, because they want more opportunities for families to be able to stay in the city to also address our enrollment issues.

And I understand the sponsor of this amendment is citing environmental concerns, and I won't Negate the possibility of that, but we won't know until we study it.

I also want to note this is a plan that we know will be for the next 20 years.

And in 20 years, I believe Alki could very well have a grocery store and incredible transit access and more amenities and services.

And by making this area and studying it as a neighborhood center, we're setting it up for growth that would create better demand to be able to afford these important needs.

So I will not be supportive of this amendment today, but I remain committed to continued engagement with the Alki community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Are there any other comments regarding amendment number one before we take it to a vote?

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number one?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Before we call the roll, Council Member Saka, do you have any final closing words?

I apologize.

No, thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, again, just ask for your support.

And how I approach this, I try to center the voices of those most directly impacted, starting with the folks in Elkai and the Elkai area.

And then the next layer outside of that would be all of West Seattle and then sort of The rest of the city.

And because it doesn't meet the objective evaluation criteria for what constitutes a neighborhood center, out of all of the neighborhood centers, I think this is a worthy candidate for removal at this time.

Growth is going to happen, everyone.

And we are implementing the provisions of the state middle housing bill.

And that is part of that designating certain neighborhood centers.

And even if we didn't designate certain neighborhood centers, there would be more growth and density in all areas of the city as a direct result.

So we need growth.

We need density.

My whole approach is just making sure we do it in a responsible, thoughtful manner that is mindful of those most directly impacted.

For those reasons, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number one?

Council Member Rink.

No.

Council Member Rivera.

Yes.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Abstain.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Council Member Juarez.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

No.

Four in favor, four oppose, one abstention.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

We will now consider the next amendment.

Council Member Rank, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Give me one moment.

I'm more than happy to move it for you.

You're all good.

Colleagues, I move to amend, oh geez, could you please move it for me, Chair?

I apologize.

You're good, you're good.

I move to amend resolution 32183 as presented on amendment number two.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the resolution as presented on amendment number two, central staff.

Right.

You might remember that there were two different versions of future Nickerson Neighborhood Center that were included in amendments for consideration yesterday.

Amendment 34 had one boundary for that area.

Amendment 50 had another Boundary for that area.

The map in the resolution currently shows the boundary as proposed under Amendment 50. This amendment would instead replace that map with one that shows both boundaries to provide options for a future study.

Council Member Wink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for moving my amendment.

Colleagues, my office worked with Councilmember Kettle's office to ensure both of our preferred visions for the borders of the Nickerson South Canal Neighborhood Center could be studied.

I'm happy that we've come to this welcome compromise, looking forward to this additional environmental review so we can hopefully see a fully realized Nickerson South Canal Neighborhood Center.

Thank you, and I ask for your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Are there other comments?

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth, and thank you, Council Member Rink, to include the coordination staff-to-staff discussions.

We do have quite a bit of staff-to-staff discussions.

Obviously, I believe The boundaries of the amendment that we had put forward, actually part of the neighborhood center that we had put forward, reflect what is best for the neighborhood center.

And as you can imagine, I've been in each of these areas from little kid birthday, so I know the area very well and the issues like with some of the transportation challenges.

So of course I prefer my boundaries, but I'm Yes, I support having a double study regarding the two areas and colleagues.

This also goes to the idea of neighborhood village, which we'll use in phase two.

No need for phase two.

We got it.

But we're going to do the neighborhood village.

And it kind of goes to the idea, I just want to say really quickly, is that We should be looking at opportunities to upzone a number of different areas and see which ones organically kind of take off, which organically have that kind of oomph behind them in terms of densification, whether from the commercial piece, the transit piece, the housing piece, how these things come together.

And I really look at this comprehensive plan as a step-by-step process.

We talk about 20 years, In reality, it's 10 years.

Well, actually, in reality, this is turning into like Texas and their census and redistricting.

We're going to be looking at this every year in a very major way.

We've kind of set ourselves up for that.

So I'm not concerned, you know, in terms of we got to do this because, you know, 20 years from now, because there is all these steps in between.

And I think neighborhood village is the way to do it.

We're going to start with this as a neighborhood village through phase two and then with the study and then making sure that we're not falling in violation of any laws, which is what we've been learning about today, potentially going ahead with the neighborhood center in the future, preferably of course with my option.

But again, colleagues, I'm fine with having the double study and I welcome it actually.

And thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Are there any comments before us regarding amendment number two?

Seeing none as sponsor of the bill.

I keep saying bill and amendment.

As sponsor of the amendment, you are recognized Council Member Rank to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Now I want to express again my appreciation to Council Member Kettle for his collaboration on this.

And with this welcome compromise, it just gives us options.

So I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number two?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Sanka.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Council Member Strauss, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I move amendment three version one to resolution 32183.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend resolution as presented on Amendment 3, Central Staff.

All right.

Yesterday, you adopted Amendment 42, which added a new neighborhood center in East Ballard and removed the Finney Ridge Neighborhood Center.

The resolution was drafted before you made that decision, and so it asks for a new neighborhood center in East Ballard to be studied.

and asks for a study of expansion of the Finney Ridge Neighborhood Center.

This amendment reverses that.

So it asks for a study of expansion of East Ballard and addition of Finney Ridge to reflect the vote you made yesterday.

Councilmember Strauss, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

And just if Councilmember Kettle's oversharing, I'll overshare a little bit as well, which is that receiving legal advice had we kept both neighborhood centers in It might be a challenge for us.

So we made the decision to move the Finney Neighborhood Center to East Ballard.

And thank you for your support in that.

This amendment before us right now makes that technical correction and also dockets space in both East Ballard and Finney to be studied for future decisions.

And that's just what this is.

I urge your support and would Yes, please support this, otherwise we're gonna have to, it upsets everything we did yesterday.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any comments on amendment number three?

Any comments?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number three?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none oppose, one abstention.

Motion carries.

Amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

Council President Nelson, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Colleagues, I move amendment four.

I move amendment four, please.

to Council Bill.

Second.

It's been moved and second.

To Council Bill 120993. Sorry.

To the resolution.

I move amendment four to the resolution.

Anyway, thank you.

Awesome.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the resolution as presented for amendment number four, central staff.

So Council President Nelson had an amendment 74 to increase height limits in neighborhood residential areas and low rise one zones.

That amendment was not moved and instead this amendment to the resolution would ask OPCD to study those height limits.

Council President Nelson, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I withdrew Amendment 74, which would have increased height limits from 32 feet to 35 feet due to the concern about it creating additional zoned capacity that was not studied in the final EIS.

We are already a year late updating our com plan, and we desperately need more housing, so it's critical to provide additional development capacity, and if additional study is triggered, that will slow down The housing construction in zones where we really need it.

So this was an idea that I had, and it was obviously not in the Mayor's One Seattle plan.

It was supported by Habitat for Humanity, and unfortunately, I'm just asking that it be removed for further study.

It is still a valuable concept because stacked flats require utilities and insulation in the floors between units, and without allowing for higher heights, we could be cutting into project feasibility.

Bellevue, for instance, has a 40-foot height limit in residential areas.

But again, the amendment as drafted could have created a loophole that created more zone capacity than was studied.

And by asking OPCD to simply study this, they can come back with language that recognizes the need for modest height increases.

in modern homes without causing concern about development capacity or slowing down the housing construction that we very much need.

Thank you.

Basically, I'm taking one for the team here and taking mine out of the...

He's trying to...

Anyway, that's it.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Are there any comments regarding Amendment No. 4?

Council Member Kettle, is that an old hand?

You're a young guy with an old hand.

All right.

Is there any further comments on Amendment No. 4?

Awesome.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the adoption of Amendment No. 4?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Sanka.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries.

The amendment is adopted and we'll now consider the next amendment.

Council Member Kettle, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

Colleagues, I move amendment five to resolution 32183.

Second, it's been moved in second to amend the resolution as presented on amendment number five, central staff.

I don't see it.

Colleagues, amendment five is basically amendment 99.

If we could just take one second, I apologize.

We're gonna ring it back.

They do not have a...

Is this, this is represented in amendment number 99 that was in council bill 120933. So amendment number 99.

So the amendment number 99 that was in council bill 120933 was withdrawn and he is moving it to the resolution.

My apologies.

So amendment number 99 from council bill 120933 has been withdrawn and it's been moved to the resolution.

I'm realizing now I have a different paper than everyone else.

I apologize.

Second on that, Chair, if a second is needed.

I think you second that I have a different paper than everyone else.

No, I'm trying to second the Amendment 5.

One second.

So let's rewind here.

I know it's been moved in second, but is everyone okay with that motion?

Do we need...

Yes.

Okay.

We don't have Amendment 5, so if there is some language, some specific language to propose, we can draft some here on the fly.

You may have some already in front of you.

Or we can work with Council Member Kettle to prepare an amendment for a full council.

Chair?

You were recognized, yes.

Chair, Amendment 99, which I withdrew, is really simple.

It basically eliminates the amenity area requirements for development in our zones.

And so basically it was, it just stripped that section out readily.

One second.

I apologize.

Hold on one second, Council Member Kettle.

The question right now is central staff does not have that amendment.

So we either, the couple options need to happen.

Can you explain those for us?

We know the content of Amendment No. 99, right?

That's from Council Bill 120993, which would eliminate amenity areas.

It wouldn't necessarily change any other standards.

It would just provide some more flexibility for a developer or property owner with what they want to do with their site.

They wouldn't have to have a specified amenity area for each unit.

That, in combination with other amendments, may require some additional environmental review.

So to the extent that there is a place that we would put it in the resolution, it would be in Section 2. So Section 2 is a section that deals with future comp plan amendments.

Likely, we don't need a comp plan amendment for this.

We just need some additional environmental study.

So we'd put that in Section 2, which sort of spells out the things that the Council is requesting that OPCD and SDCI study for future Council consideration.

So it would probably be, it would go towards the end.

It would be a J.

And we could, I think the language would be something like, I mean, we could improvise here, but you may benefit from saying something written down.

Is the recommendation for the council to consider that amendment today?

And I believe there's also another opportunity when it gets to the city council, correct?

Correct.

So right now this amendment would be a, I'm assuming this would be a verbal amendment to the resolution or this could be an amendment that would be brought to full council.

So that's what's in front of us colleagues.

Does anyone have any,

At this point it's been moved and seconded.

If the member would like to address their amendment and then from there we can determine if you want to withdraw it for the city council and then if not we can be at ease if central staff feels that they can develop it at this point but I would again leave that to central staff to see if that's possible.

We still need law review on that as well too.

Understood.

If I could just say something, my thing is to make sure that central staff has all the tools that they need to make sure this is executed properly and then also my colleagues feeling comfortable with it as well.

What we'll do is we'll have Council Member Kettle address the amendment, and then we will get insight from central staff.

Is that okay?

Yes, Chair.

Okay, so it's been moved and second.

Council Member Kettle, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you.

And just to follow up on Mr. Freeman's points about formerly known as Amendment 99, now known as Amendment 5 to Resolution 32183, It goes to the amenity area requirements, as he noted.

The intention behind this was really, because there's really hard-scaped amenity areas, was to kind of open up the possibilities for amenity area, as currently designated, for trees.

That was the intent.

That's based on But I do recognize that others do not agree with this.

So in a lot of ways, this is like a great example to go to resolution to get further study.

I will defer to the combination of our great clerk and our great central staff members in terms of best.

It's more than happy to do something here right now or to place it in full council, whatever the consensus is.

I will turn to colleagues.

Does anyone have any objection if potentially this was added to the resolution today regarding this amendment?

I'm seeing no.

I'm seeing no.

Okay.

So if, is there objection from central staff?

I'm not trying to put any pressure on you all.

If you'd like, we can suggest what the language may look like for the resolution and move that as an oral amendment.

I'm okay with that.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then again, if it is adopted, it would still need to go through law review and then there can always be further changes at the city council level to rectify any of those changes that need to occur.

All right, Ketel and Lish, is that something that you're okay with doing off the fly?

Yeah, I think it would be something like this.

There would be a new subsection J, which would be amenity areas, period, and the direction to SDECI to OPCD would be develop proposals to reduce or eliminate amenity areas in neighborhood residential and low-rise zones to facilitate design flexibility and tree protection.

I support that chair.

So he's going to have to move this.

If there's no objection, that amendment will be adopted into the resolution and we still have to call a roll.

Yeah.

Okay.

Essentially what we did is we just amended the motion to reflect central staffs, and then we can discuss the amendment as they just proposed it.

After that, then we can do the roll call.

Understood.

Right now we will entertain questions.

Council Member, you have one second, Council Member Rivera.

Go ahead, Lish.

No, we can answer questions while Ketel's typing.

Okay, awesome.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Including it in the resolution is asking OPCD to study the impacts of said proposal.

Is that correct?

I just need to be clear on what I'm voting on here.

Correct.

The council would be asking OPCD to analyze the impacts and make a recommendation on whether and how to remove amenity area requirements in neighborhood residential zones.

And then it would come back to us, Lish.

Correct.

The way the other ones are.

Okay.

Thank you, Lish.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

So just to clarify, Clerk, we do not have to take a vote on...

We do have to take a vote on this.

Yep.

On the amendment.

Thank you.

But not adding it to the resolution.

We're gonna be at ease.

Councilmember Rivera, wait till we come back from, well, one second.

All right, so the amendment would add a new section J to subsection J to section two of the resolution stating Amenity areas, develop proposals to reduce or eliminate amenity areas in neighborhood residential and low-rise zones to facilitate design flexibility and tree protection.

Could you zoom into that please?

I'm getting old.

I can't read that.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

I see council member Rivera.

Now we're going to engage comments regarding amendment number five that's been added into the resolution.

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry.

I have to, You know, for the record, I want to say the reason I'm not in chambers is because I attended the Association of Washington City's retreat, of which I sit on the board.

So I wish that could have been there in person, but I'm happy that I am participating online, but that's why I'm not there.

OK, so that said, clarifying again, the way I read this, though, it's not that we're going to study it.

It says OPCD send us proposals.

But so it seems different from some of the other things.

And I'm sorry, I need to go to the language of the resolution.

But so can you clarify, Lish and Ketel, is it that we're proposing they bring us proposals or is it that they're including it to the additional EIS work in the resolution?

We're including this in the resolution for additional EIS work.

Yeah, so the section this is in, is this would be in section two.

So section two is a departmental work program section.

And so the work program for the department would be to develop those proposals for 2026, and that proposal would include any associated environmental review.

So it would be consistent with...

Conducting SEPA analysis would happen on the ADUs, environmental critical areas, conduct SEPA, conduct SEPA.

So we could say conduct SEPA, we could conduct SEPA and develop proposals.

That would be an oral amendment to, I guess, what Council Member Kettle has offered.

Chair, if I may, so the reason Councilmember Kettle withdrew the amendment was because of the EIS concern, so I just that's why I'm asking for the clarity on this still needs to get EIS review before it would You know the proposals would come to us and I'm just trying to get the clarity on that.

Thank you council member Rivera and we're just getting clarity on your verbal amendment to the amendment.

It just, it clarifies the type of proposal, which is a SEPA versus not including SEPA.

So my recommendation is there's no objections of including the SEPA language.

We can continue with the discussion with the amendment as amended.

Awesome.

Is there any objection to that?

Awesome.

Thank you.

So next, council member, go ahead, Lish.

We've just gotten confirmation that there are no legal issues.

Awesome.

Thank you.

That was fast.

Thank you.

Thank you, great.

All right, so in closing, Council Member Cattle, you are recognized to address your amendment in the resolution, amendment number five, as amended and amended for oral.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth, and thank you, Council Member Rivera.

I accept.

I appreciate the input.

I appreciate the oral amendment to adjust this.

And I think it goes to what we were looking to do as I expressed.

So I am in support of this and colleagues, I ask for your support too.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number five as amended and amended and amended.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member DeVetta.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Motion carries.

Amendment is adopted.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Motion carries.

The amendment is adopted.

Thank you central staff and thank you legal for that.

Are there any further comments on the resolution as amended?

Colleagues, this is your time to say any other comments that you have about the resolution.

Chair.

Yes.

No further comments.

Councilmember Juarez.

It will be very, very brief, I promise, and I just hope we can send us off in a good way for the weekend.

All I want to say is this.

It does my heart happy

Will you please talk in the microphone?

I'm really happy when I hear and see our citywide representatives working with our district representatives, mainly today was D6 and D7, because that's what we envisioned in 2014 when we moved to district representation.

And I appreciate Council Member Sokka's passionate, you know, speech, because that's what we need to hear.

Because whatever, I know I didn't agree with you, but whatever you did today and whatever you said today stuck with me, and I will still come back to you as that well of information representing D1.

So thank you for that.

I think we're showing the public that we can act as a body that speaks to each other.

And I think we've learned, and I think, well, I know we know, and I just like it when we show it, that when we do have tension, that it can actually lead to compromise.

And so for that reason, I just want to thank you, Chair, for your leadership.

And I want to thank my colleagues for not only listening to me, but inviting me back.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Are there other Councilmember Rivera?

Thank you, Chair.

And I said this, but again, since we're taking up this last piece until we get to full Council anyway, just again, thank you for your leadership, for your transparency, for your partnership, for and your staff.

This has been a very long process.

I'm so appreciative that you agreed to take this on.

It's a lot of work.

Sometimes our constituents don't always see all the things that go into it, but I appreciate all the work that your team has done and that you have done, and also the partnership with the constituents.

Because I am very clear that I am here and I am honored to represent the D4.

So the constituents also were very active in this process and I very much appreciated that too.

So I want to acknowledge that as well.

So thank you and I look forward to taking this vote.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Salomon.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to echo my admiration for how you have shepherded this process, how you've handled the Incredible number of hours of public commentary, both in person and online.

However, you've made sure that those who wanted a chance to speak got a chance to speak.

The way that you controlled the chamber when it could have gotten spicy.

And your ability to facilitate, your ability to inject humor, to bring the temperature down.

Your leadership overall has just been And I just want to acknowledge you, thank you, and thank you for stepping in to shepherd this process and sticking with it and seeing it through.

Thank you, Councilmember Solomon.

Are there any other comments before I jump into mine real quick as we bring this to a close?

Okay, awesome.

We haven't taken a vote on the final, so yes, perfect.

Okay, so thank you all, colleagues.

We're gonna go ahead and take this vote real quick and then I'll get into my comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of the resolution as amended?

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries in the committee recommendation that the resolution be adopted as amended will be sent to city council.

And my assumption it's gonna be sent with all the other stuff that we have passed out of this committee.

Colleagues, thank you for your kind words.

I really appreciate it.

It's really...

Phenomenal to work with you all.

And also with that, there's no other items on the agenda today.

This is the last meeting scheduled for the Select Comprehensive Plan Committee.

And yes, it's on a Friday.

And I think that's a great day to end the week.

We will see these pieces of legislation at full council.

I want to mention that I'm really proud of the work that we did since January for this committee.

We had a lot of obstacles, but we pivoted from presentations to interim legislation to final legislation very gracefully, and I feel very confident about the amended legislation that we passed out of this committee today and the Seattle values that are reflected in the comprehensive plan.

Colleagues, I have always tried to be transparent, honest, collaborative, thoughtful, good team member, and you all have showed that back as well.

So I just want to thank each and every one of you for being great people and partners.

You have tested me plenty of times, but all of you have tested me, each and every one of you, but thank you.

I see your loving faces.

And if you just give me a second too, I want to read the beginning of the resolution real quick, because I think it's really important.

I know it's 5.05.

I'll be super quick.

I've listened to all of you on this mic, so just give me two minutes.

Is that okay?

Give me two minutes.

So the resolution, which I think is one of the most important pieces, is welcoming and inclusive.

New growth should welcome newcomers while preventing displacement of, I did not use BIPOC, but black, indigenous, people of color's communities Members of the LGBTQIA community, an under-resourced household.

We are not under-service, they're under-resourced.

The plan is intended to help communities thrive in a place and provide opportunities for former residents who have been displaced and also our newcomers.

Affordability.

The city growth strategy supports housing options that will work for all families and increase housing supply, including but not limited to development of duplexes, triplexes, stacked flats, ADUs and unit conversions.

This plan makes it easier for multi-generational households to live together and stay rooted in community.

Furthermore, the council encourages additional housing supply in areas that have been historically exclusionary in their zoning to reduce market pressure resulting in displacement.

Accessible.

City Council encourages the design of homes, public spaces that meet ADA standards, supports aging in place, create child-friendly environments, new growth, and should build with mobility and dependence in mind so everyone regardless of ability or age can navigate their neighborhood and live comfortably.

Livable.

The plan advances our climate goals, reducing dependence on cars, fostering vibrant communities where walking is easy, enjoyable, and part of daily life with access to restaurants, grocery stores, transit, everyday essentials.

Council intends to continue to invest in outdoor spaces, parks, and shared areas that bring people together, make neighborhoods feel welcome, connected, and resilient.

And last but not least, Councilmember Kettle's favorite word, safe.

The plan prioritizes safety through a new public safety element and supports well-lit streets, sidewalks, active spaces, and community-driven planning.

That is important because that starts the resolution to the kickoff of what this council will continue to work on Because the comprehensive plan is not over.

It is a working, breathing document that will continue to guide us for our city.

So do my colleagues have any more items of business before we complete?

Looking left and right, hearing none, this concludes September 19th, meeting of the Select Comprehensive Plan meeting.

It is 5.07, colleagues.

If there's no further business, goodbye.

Have a good weekend.

Goodbye.

Thank you.