missing title

Good afternoon.

The December 16th, 2025 meeting at the Seattle City Council will come to order and it is 1 12 p.m.

I'm Sarah Nelson, Council President.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Lynn.

Here.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Council Member Strauss.

Here.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle?

Here.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Eight, present.

Thank you very much.

Just one moment here.

Alright, so we will now begin the public comment period that is regularly scheduled and there will also be a public hearing on a piece of legislation and that public hearing must occur after two o'clock, so per the notice that we put out already.

We are having an earlier meeting this week because it is, there's a lot on the agenda.

It's a 27 page agenda, more or less.

And some of those items, most of those items are appointments.

Nevertheless, we do have a lot to get through including our comp plan legislation.

So what we'll do right now is we will go into the public comment period.

If you signed up for public comment, but we're intending to speak to the, at the public hearing instead about the, the grocery store legislation, then just be mindful and skip this general public comment.

All right, at this time, and by the way, I just should note that this is my last city council meeting and I will have extremely brief remarks at the end of the meeting.

So I'm gonna spare us all those right now and just get right into public comment.

We'll now open the public comment period and you may read the instructions.

We have 20 in person and eight remote speakers.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they're registered.

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

Speakers mics will be muted if they do not in their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

We will now begin with our in-person commenters.

And we will allow for one moment, one minute each.

Thank you.

All right, we'll start with our first speakers.

And we have Yvette Dinesh, excuse me, and then Cedar Bushu, and then Martha Brown, and David Glogger.

Good afternoon, council members.

Good to see you again.

And as usual, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Also, I just came here for a brief thank you.

I brought you guys from, at the behalf of the Rainy Beach Urban Farm and Wetlands, Each of you get a bag of fresh organic produce.

So thank you for your work that you do.

And because last week was brutal, I have to admit.

So we'll see the two o'clock meeting.

And I guess I'll pass those to you via Amelia, your little bags of produce.

Thank you, dear.

Thank you for the treats.

One for each of you.

Thank you for sharing.

My name is Cedar Bishu and I am a resident down in South Park.

We need more social programs and one way to do that would be taxing the wealthy and we need these programs such as gardens and shared private places and weeds based on the properties to put them.

Making the city more well-fed and happier is good for everybody because a more desperate populace is a more violent populace, as shown in cases with the Fort Bragg Cartel and the numerous police gangs in LA, which are essentially operating as their own cartels.

And Martha?

Yes.

Thank you.

After Martha, it'll be David and then it'll be Sandy Shetler.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Martha and I'm a resident of District 4. And I'm here today just to say that I am supportive of affordability, density, but also preserving our existing tree canopy and increasing our green space in an equitable and thoughtful manner.

I'm concerned that Seattle is poised to hand the future of our city over to developers to exploit our beauty and trees and green space for their monetary gain.

And if you will continue to allow the outrageous removal of our healthy mature trees at the current rate, not only will we not meet our climate goals, but risk losing all the natural beauty that makes Seattle so special to many of us.

And without solid plans to protect our environment, especially tree canopy, maintaining our stormwater runoff and drainage, and stop building luxury housing, the goals of the resolution are not possible to meet.

So thank you.

David?

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Dave Gloger, and I'm a resident of District 5. I assume that you're seeing the news about the flooding in and around Seattle.

It is truly heartbreaking to see houses washed away and an entire neighborhood surrounded by water.

But when I look at the legislation that is being passed by this Council, I would guess that you're not paying attention.

The comp plan will clearly increase hardscape and decrease green canopy.

This will lead to more runoff and more flooding.

When are we going to learn that you can't keep cutting down trees and paving over 95% of properties and then act surprised when there's flooding?

On the King County website that shows sewer overflows, there have been 13 overflows in Seattle in just the past 48 hours.

This means raw sewage is flowing into our streams, waterways in Puget Sound, impacting the salmon and whales.

So it looks like somebody like Donald Trump is in charge here, yelling, build, baby, build.

We're a progressive city.

We can do better than that.

Thank you.

We have Sandy, and then we'll have Josh Friedman, and then Yvonne.

Yeah, I believe it's Yvonne, or are we?

Yes.

Sorry for the mispronunciations, but yes, please move forward.

Sandy.

Okay, great.

Yeah, hi.

I'm Sandy Shetler and I'm commenting on CB120993.

Yesterday, the United Nations said, nature isn't a guest in the city, nature is infrastructure and must be treated as essential like roads and electricity.

but our plan moves Seattle in the opposite direction by reducing green space and increasing pavement.

On a 5,000 square foot lot, just 36 square feet is required for trees, less than 1%, unless the tree already exists.

We are deeply grateful to Councilmember Rivera for Amendment 102 and those who supported.

102 protects the trees we have, but this plan still means more pavement in neighborhoods without trees and less climate resilience overall.

As you vote today, please consider what you can do in 2026 to reduce this harm and build a city that truly cares for future generations.

Thank you.

Council members, my name is Josh Friedman and I'm a land use attorney here in Seattle.

I specialize in helping housing, healthcare, and social services at all income levels to get permitted and built as efficiently as possible.

So many stakeholders, professional staff, and electives have put so much work into the first phase of the comp plan that is before you today.

Nobody is probably completely happy with it, which probably means that the legislative process is working the way it is supposed to.

We're a city that contains multitudes, so if anybody were completely happy with the comp plan, it would mean that not everybody was being listened to equally.

Thank you, council members, for all of your work and attention to detail in this first phase of the groundwork to enable the housing that our city desperately needs.

Please pass this first phase decisively without further delay so that we can start working in earnest on the next phase of addressing our housing emergency.

Thank you.

Evan, and then Ryan, and then Logan.

Hello, council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Evan Sexton.

I'm a resident of District 4. I just want to start out by expressing my gratitude for all the work that has gone into this plan by council members, staff, and the mayor's team.

That work has come through in the plan.

I still have my gripes with it, but at the risk of sounding too positive, I just want to commend you all for listening to all of your constituents, even the ones you may disagree with.

And I can acknowledge that this is a real balance that meets what residents were asking for.

On that note, I ask that the plan be passed as is.

Thank you.

Council President Nelson, other council members, thank you for the time to speak to you today.

I'm Ryan McKinster.

I'm the Advocacy and Policy Manager for Habitat for Humanity.

Thank you, Dan.

I need to pay attention to this more often.

I'm really appreciative of all the work that's gone into this.

I know it's been years.

I know the work of the city council, the city staff, as well as the mayor's office has gotten us here.

I wish this was the panacea way I hoped it would be.

It is not, but it is a great start.

We have about 204 home ownership opportunities in our pipeline currently in the Seattle area.

and this is a start to add to that.

In fact, my development team is already looking at good new possibilities in the coming year based on the changes you guys have made.

So I really appreciate it and thank you council member and council president Nelson for your help on these projects.

We now have, was it Ryan?

Logan.

You're Logan.

Okay.

Yes, that was right.

You're Logan.

And then we have Lily Hayward and then we'll go into remote public commentary.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Logan Schmidt with the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

On behalf of our members, I want to express our support for adoption of Council Bills 120985 and 120993, along with the accompanying continuing resolution.

Together, these pieces of legislation will meaningfully provide Seattle with more diverse, more affordable housing.

We appreciate the leadership of Select Committee Chair Hollingsworth throughout this process, as well as Council Member Rank and Council President Nelson for advancing amendments that improve feasibility and efficiency.

Exempting ADUs from MHA, increasing allowable ADU size, incentivizing cottage housing, and expanding stacked flat bonuses tied to green factor metrics are all smart, targeted policies that will support home ownership, missing middle housing, and infill production.

while other barriers still remain, MBACs will remain a partner to council in phase two and beyond.

Thank you and happy holidays.

Good afternoon, Council President Nelson and council members.

Lily Hayward speaking on behalf of the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce in support of CB 120985 and 120933. This comp plan update before you will make it easier to start a business, hire and retain workers, and grow families in all areas of the city.

You took a strong plan and you made it stronger, and your commitment to housing and affordability was at the forefront of this process.

We'd like to thank Councilmember Hollingsworth for your leadership during this time, and for Councilmembers Rink and Nelson for your partnership to our coalition, and to each and every one of you for putting forward amendments and taking votes that will increase our housing supply and make Seattle a more vibrant and accessible and sustainable community.

We look forward to working with you in the next phase in partnership and beyond.

We'd also like to say a particular thank you for Council President Nelson for your leadership during your time on council.

You've been a steadfast advocate for housing, public safety, behavioral health, and homelessness, and through it, place accountability and transparency at the forefront of that agenda.

And both the amendment comp plan and the ethics legislation on the agenda today are excellent examples of that.

Thanks so much and happy holidays, everyone.

We'll now move into remote public comment.

A reminder to our remote speakers, please press star six after you've heard the message that you have been unmuted.

Our first remote speaker is June Blue Spruce and June will be followed by Lois Martin.

Go ahead, June.

Hello.

Resolution 32183 version two lists positive goals that I support.

Thank you.

Fact as follows is the laundry list of developer-friendly provisions Its many loopholes puts Seattle's affordability, tree canopy, neighborhood livability, environmental equity, and endangered orcas at risk.

The resolution opens doors for developers to increase development and impervious surfaces after the plan is implemented.

Most of its positive language is vague and unenforceable.

It buys into the notion that increased housing supply will automatically improve affordability without addressing the fact that developers usually prioritize profit over affordability and neighborhood health.

The resolution mentions SEPA analysis in several places.

However, if the Council raises SEPA thresholds, most projects will not require this.

Please close the loophole in this resolution and pass Amendment A to protect this central area from further upzoning and displacement.

Thank you very much.

And I do want to thank

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lois Martin, and Lois will be followed by Greg Smith.

Go ahead, Lois.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm a legacy resident of District 3. I urge you to vote yes on Amendment A and to continue fixing the loopholes in Resolution 32183, Amendment A, Version 2. Amendment A creates needed space to pause and engage communities before expanding regional center boundaries tied to the central area.

At the same time, Resolution 32183, Version 2, we can seek a review and relies on an environmental impact statement that understates tree loss and increase hard surfaces that drive polluted stormwater into Puget Sound harming salmon and southern resident orcas.

These are connected impacts.

land use decisions, environmental review, and displacement.

Support Amendment A and close the SEPA and EIS loopholes before these harms are locked in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Greg Smith, and Greg will be followed by David Haynes.

Go ahead, Greg.

Hello, my name is Greg Smith.

First, I want to thank all of you for your months of hard work on this comprehensive land.

So it was not easy, and I bet it's not always comfortable.

So again, thank you for your work.

I ask you to pass the first part to the comprehensive plan as is today.

No more delays, please.

It's not your fault, but the comp plan's over a year late.

During this delay, more people have become homeless, others have become more and more rent burdened, and still the others have had to leave Seattle.

and in 2026, take up and pass the next phase of the comprehensive plan as rapidly as you can.

People are counting on you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Haynes, and David will be followed by Suzanne Grant.

Go ahead, David.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

The comp plan has been sabotaged by self-dealing landlords on the council with conflicts of interest.

They've weaponized the tree ordinance, they have weaponized the reappointments, and they distract from the infractions of changing laws that denied and put restrictions on the developers that cheated a whole bunch of people out of already built affordable housing.

And then They created what amounts to like the MHA fee fund where only politically connected nonprofits are allowed access to that money.

And it's hampered the efforts to build 21st century first world quality homes.

Yet the landlords have no problem with putting everybody on the side of the loud, obnoxiously noise polluted transit oriented side of the highway.

Repeating the history of acting like you're doing black and brown people a favor by creating modern third world warehouse echo slum pieces of real estate on the side of the highway.

that's too low to the ground.

It doesn't have the noise-abated walls.

We need an investigation of the abuse and have the new mayor fix the comprehensive plan that was under...

Thank you.

Suzanne Grant.

Suzanne will be followed by Patrick Christie.

Go ahead, Suzanne.

Thank you.

Tier 1 trees are currently not well protected on development sites.

The language in this resolution needs to say, protect Tier 1 trees, especially on development sites.

We also need protection for Tier 2 entry trees to maintain and grow our tree canopy.

Evergreens filter, retain, and cool stormwater, which saves aquatic life, including our endangered orcas and the fish they eat.

It takes one heavy rain to exceed our wastewater capacity and results in untreated sewage going into the Salish Sea.

The Ballard tank's not going to fix that.

Most toxic chemicals are not removed by our wastewater systems.

We need trees to filter and flow stormwater runoff, and there's not enough room on sidewalk strips to replace the many, many trees being removed, cut down on private property for new development.

Removing ADUs from FAR calculations and maximum density regulations will increase impervious surfaces, again, contributing to the stormwater runoff and increasingly killing our endangered orchids.

This is your last chance to keep Seattle green and not completely lose our emerald canopy.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Christie.

And following Patrick will be Orla Concanon and Aiden Thornsberry.

Orla, you're not present currently, so if you are planning to speak, please call in now.

We'll move on to Patrick Christie.

Go ahead, Patrick.

Hello, this is Patrick Christie.

I'm a university I've conducted research on policies around the world and I work a lot with Coast Salish peoples.

We know from decades of empirical work that transparent and inclusive knowledge identification of housing is important We also acknowledge there is constant pressure for development in Fugit Sound region and the impacts on water .

We live in a world where Fugit Sound tribes, which I want to speak on behalf, have clear rights to detail and legally binding information, and I feel that's a problem.

I plan on using this as a case study with a class for 150 students in the University of Washington the coming year

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Orla Concanon, and following Orla will be Aidan Thornsberry.

Go ahead, Orla.

Orla, you may...

There you go.

Hi there.

Hi there.

My apologies, everyone, for the technical glitch.

I'm on the road, but this is so important that I wanted to make a comment.

My name is Orla Concanon from District 4, and thank you for this opportunity.

I've had the opportunity to come in person.

As I think about what I want to say today, I ask you to please consider the resolution I'm speaking about, 120993. I just want to dispel the false narrative that it's either nature or density.

At this very moment, we have overflowing sewers.

We have a newborn baby orca in our sound and young calves only last month have passed away and before then as well.

We have wildfires that are clouding our skies.

And to quote the United Nations habitat program, cities have to stop treating trees as a decoration and start

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker signed up is Aidan Thornsberry.

Go ahead, Aidan.

Hello, my name is Aidan Thornsberry.

I would like to thank the council for their work in improving the comprehensive plan over the past couple months, allowing more housing for all Seattleites.

enabling better quality of life, more affordable city for everyone.

Additionally, please do not remove any areas like the central district donut hole or future neighborhood centers from future up zones.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was our last remote speaker signed up to speak.

Okay.

Let's go back to in-person public comments, starting with Carter Nelson, Jasmine Smith, David Moehring, and then Bennett Halston.

Carter.

Good afternoon, Council President Nelson and council members.

Carter Nelson here on behalf of NAOP Washington State, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, representing more than 400 members who create, own, and manage commercial real estate across the state.

This comprehensive plan reflects an incredible amount of work from you all, your staff, and so many stakeholders.

It's been a true group effort, and we're honored to have contributed through our work as part of the Complete Communities Coalition.

This plan sets Seattle on a path toward more abundant housing and inclusive growth.

After action today, the next step is critical, really focusing on high-density areas where we can deliver more of the housing our city needs.

That will require the market to play its part and for the city to continue removing barriers and making it easier to build.

Our members are committed to being part of the solution, and we're grateful for the thoughtful, collaborative work that went into this plan.

leadership and we look forward to continuing this partnership as Seattle moves forward.

Thank you.

Hi, council members.

My name's Jasmine Smith.

I am the Director of Local Advocacy for FutureWise and co-chair of the Complete Communities Coalition.

And I just want to say thank you so much to council members, central staff, clerks, Office of Planning and Community Development, advocates, the mayor's office, everyone who's come together over the past three years to put together a plan that incorporates all of our voices, that has been thoughtful and been bold as we look at how to prevent some of the tragedies that are surrounding us.

One of the biggest things that we can do is protect our wetlands and protect our rural spaces and to prevent sprawl and all of our voices being included in putting together a comp plan that includes all of us has really built something that's going to be incredible and I can't wait to continue this.

We have a plan that includes all of us from View Ridge to Finney Ridge to Dell Ridge from Columbia City to Lake City.

We have David and then following David will be Bennett.

Thank you David Mooring with district number seven interbay district Just two quick things.

One is I also want to support to pass Amendment A, especially after the September 18th and 19th discussions that was brought up by Council Member Hollingsworth and seconded by Rob Seca, we've got to preserve the Central District.

The second item I want to talk about is the proposed resolution for amenity areas, item J on page 5. It basically says to develop a proposal to reduce or eliminate amenity areas in neighborhood residential and low-rise zones to provide flexibility and tree protection.

if there's any message about exterior amenity areas taking away trees, there's a lot of examples here where they are preserved.

And so it's, you're not helping trees by taking that away.

And also you're not helping communities such as this 3728 South Angelina Street.

We have Bennett and then Jess Young and Tara Kemp.

Good afternoon, counsel.

So I've frequently suggested here that I thought one or more of you should do a Reddit Q&A, especially for controversial things like the surveillance bill.

I wanted to respond to something that Mark Solomon said to me about the suggestion before his term ended.

And he said it was OK to repeat this.

But he was talking about how he felt like it meant a lot more to a constituent if you were able to reply to an individual email or meet them in person in a town hall.

And so let me say, I get that.

I think, of course, it's true it will mean a lot more to that person.

The problem is that it doesn't scale up to the other 800,000 people in this city.

And think about a Reddit Q&A.

One person can ask a question, many other people can vote it up.

Also, I understand that it feels good to be able to make somebody's day like that by answering their question.

This might be a case where This might be a case where you have to choose between doing what feels good and what is best for the most number of constituents because it does help more people if you answer a question on a Reddit.

We now have Jess Young and Tara Camp and then Kyler.

Hi, council, good to see you.

I'm Jess Yang, ballot homeowner and HDC community organizer, speaking with the Complete Communities Coalition.

We're finally here at the end of the beginning.

I wanna express my appreciation for your hard work on passing an overall pro-housing set of amendments.

And I know it hasn't been an easy process, but thank you for taking the opinions of your constituents into account.

I ask you to pass both bills as they stand.

I encourage you to think about our unhoused neighbors and our essential workers who keep our community strong.

They need affordable housing now.

We're looking forward to continued collaboration as the process continues.

Thank you and happy holidays.

Oh, no.

Just deleted my testimony.

That one's better.

Yeah, I like this one a little bit more.

All right, thank you, council.

Hi, my name is Tara.

I am an organizer with FutureWise and I am a D3 resident, also a sprawl survivor from Los Angeles.

Today, I'm gonna be sharing community members' stories, what they've been telling us about their housing struggles and what they wanna see in Seattle.

on the notion of what struggles they have been facing.

From the U District, I cannot afford to eat, I can barely manage rent, and I was in the shelter last year, and I am fearful of all times of being back there.

From Crown Hill, in a recent search for new housing, I struggled with finding a space that was more than 250 square feet and less than $1,500 a month.

My previous apartment was demanding rent.

That was 35% of my net income.

on what they want for a future in Seattle.

From Inner Bay, we need housing of more kinds.

This must mean density since Seattle cannot grow geographically.

We have to end the notion that Seattle is mostly a city of detached homes with yards.

From Wallingford, I would like to see Seattle break out of its suburban mentality to captivate so many citizens and some of our leaders.

We need housing.

Do they all need or can afford the same style of housing?

I think not.

Thank you, council.

You have Kyler and then Jeff Paul and then Jesse Simpson.

Thank you.

Hello, counsel.

My name is Kyler Paris.

I'm a D3 resident.

I urge you to vote yes on the comprehensive plan before you.

We rarely get the opportunity in government to celebrate unequivocal wins.

I hope you take this moment today to celebrate what has been a really long and arduous process and maybe a little pat on the back to yourself or a drink.

Also, I want to thank all of the many advocates and residents of Seattle who have fought for years, who have shown up at town halls, at public comments.

This is a long process for them and for city staff.

Pretty incredible that we can now build a lot more homes in Seattle, increase affordability, and maybe at some point also make this a place where everyone has a home.

Thank you.

Good to go?

Yes.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Jeff Paul.

I'm with How's Our Neighbors?

It's so great to see you all today.

Particularly, shout out Councilmember Lin, the dais Susi Well.

It's really good to see you here.

I just wanted to thank you and congratulate everyone for finally getting through the first phase.

I know it's been a long road.

I'm sure you all are very tired, but I'm very excited that we can be here today.

I'm particularly excited that we're about to vote for it, I hope, a comprehensive plan that supports social housing.

I want to thank Councilmember Rocketto for putting forward Amendment 61 to support social housing.

and for everybody else for supporting it.

And also again, thank you Council Member Keitel for putting social housing in the legislative state advocacy platform.

We really appreciate that.

Thank you Council Member Rink for pushing for neighborhood centers so we can have more neighbors in this beautiful city.

And thank you Council Member Hollingsworth for prioritizing families with your density bonus for family size departments.

We are excited to continue to work with you all as we move on to the next phase of the comp plan to make this a city where everyone can afford to live and thrive.

Thank you.

We now have Jesse Simpson and then Jennifer Godfrey.

Hey, good afternoon council members.

I'm Jesse Simpson with the Housing Development Consortium and co-chair of the Complete Communities Coalition.

I want to thank you for your thoughtful engagement and leadership on this comp plan and neighborhood residential zoning before you today, and I urge you to pass them quickly.

Seattle has a deep housing shortage, a result of decades of restrictive policies that have made so much of our city off limits for new construction.

The consequences of the shortage are real, spiraling costs, displacement, long commutes, and families and individuals struggling to stay housed.

Fundamentally, if we want Seattle to be a more welcoming and affordable city, we need to build more homes.

And that starts with making it legal to build denser homes across the entire city.

Today's vote is a historic step forward for Seattle.

By prioritizing housing and your amendments, including with strong stacked flat and affordable housing bonuses, you've opened the door to meaningful progress.

Look forward to collaborating with you all on phase two zoning implementation for multifamily and mixed-use areas to fully implement this plan.

Thanks.

Hi, thank you for all of your work.

I would first ask that you address the serious typos in the resolution before going forward with that.

Otherwise, I speak on behalf of endangered species and humanity.

I look forward to a city that embraces the science of how evergreens reduce filter and cool stormwater.

Removing them creates conditions incompatible with aquatic life, including baby orcas.

A heavy rain can cause untreated CSO sewage overflows.

Many toxic chemicals are not removed by our wastewater systems in Seattle.

I look forward to a city that knows respecting tribes means respecting tribal knowledge of the ecosystem and acting on their guidance.

Their guidance was largely ignored.

Building more expensive homes creates more expensive homes.

Failing the environment, affordability, displacement, racial equity.

That's what's in this plan.

Builders will choose the maximum profit without regard to the environment.

Please protect good regulations to find a middle ground.

Middle housing is not six separate luxury homes on a lot.

We have Susan Fedora, Donald Breske, and then Mike.

Hello.

First, big thanks to Councilmember Saka.

You've been the absolute champion for District 1. We really appreciate you.

I know this has been a long, drawn-out thing, but community members across neighborhoods are witnessing a hyper-colonization of the land we occupy, driven by corporations, private equity firms, and foreign investors to further enrich the wealthy.

85% of projects going up in my neighborhood involve demolishing affordable homes only to be replaced with another single-family home that is three times more expensive and more than twice the size.

Hidden behind the provisions outlined in Resolution 32183 is the erasure of green space and climate resilience, prioritizing for-profit real estate interests and the false use of racialized analysis in the name of equity to justify fracturing of neighborhoods that still have green space, necessary drainage, and environmental resilience.

With the removal of thousands of trees and significant increase in impervious surfaces the past three years, we now lack the proper infrastructure to manage the increase in human waste and stormwater flow.

Over the past week, there have been dozens of combines who were overflows in the Puget Sound, threatening salmon, the life-giving relative of our tribal communities.

We have Donna, then Mike.

Hello, my name is Donna Breske.

I'm a licensed professional engineer.

My area of practice includes water system design and policy analysis.

The 2025 Seattle One Comprehensive Plan does not demonstrate compliance with the concurrency requirement to ensure the needed water system infrastructure is in place to support the projected growth.

The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that the land use element and the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent.

Revised Code of Washington 36.7 requires public funding sources identified for water system utility structure upgrades.

Seattle's geodata map depicts miles and miles of water mains listed as unsuitable for new water service.

There's nothing in the 2019 SPU business plan

Hello, my name is Mike.

I'm a little Seattle homemaker.

As a matter of fact, our family has been making homes in the Seattle area since the 60s.

That would be the 1860s.

I know a little bit of what it takes to develop a comprehensive plan like this.

I co-authored City Kirkland's comp plan in 1995. We called it the 2020 plan.

Well, that came and left.

And frankly, the homes I'm able to build now underneath this comp plan, we have been doing so, we're hitting below the median price point, three bedroom, fee simple properties for people who own their own land, park a garage off street, raise a family.

We're doing it with the precursor of this comp plan, can continue to do so.

So thank you for all your work on this comp plan.

Help builders like me, who have been around more than just a few years, may a few decades, excuse me, a century and a half, and help us continue to build Seattle's future, look forward to it.

And by the way, go Dawgs.

Is there a last registered speaker?

Okay, the public comment period is now closed for today and we'll move on to Could you please tell me now how many people are signed up for the public hearing, which we won't do?

We have other things.

We currently have two remote speakers for the public hearing.

Okay.

Just one moment, please.

All right.

We cannot legally start until two o'clock.

So let's go ahead and switch the order instead of making people wait for nine minutes.

We will go ahead and change the order here to get through some of the approvals of things first.

Does that pass parliamentary muster?

Okay, so we will move on to item F, which is the adoption of the introduction and referral calendar.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

All right.

Now, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

will now consider the proposed consent calendar.

Items on the consent calendar include Council Bill 121-144, payment of bills, 29 appointments from the Housing and Human Services Committee, 20 appointments from the Library's Education and Neighborhoods Committee, and 12 appointments from the Parks, Public Utilities and Technology Committee.

One appointment from the Public Safety Committee, 18 appointments from the Sustainability, City Light, Arts and Culture Committee.

are there any items that council members would like to remove from today's consent calendar?

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, council president.

I would like to remove item 80 from the consent calendar, please.

Could you please read what that item is?

Oh, appointment number 03382.

Thank you very much, okay.

Are there any other items that people would like removed from the consent calendar?

All right, okay.

Hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar and item 80, appointment 3382 has been removed and will be addressed separately.

So I move to adopt the consent calendar excluding item 80 and is there a second?

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar, excluding item 80. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?

Council member Lin?

Yes.

Council member Lin?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Sacca?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Aye.

Council member Allingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The consent calendar items excluding item 80 are adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes and legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf?

All right.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, council bill 121-126, amending ordinance 127-156, which adopted the 2025 budget making appropriations from the general fund for food programs and reserves.

All right.

I moved to pass council bill 121-126.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill.

I'll address it and then go ahead and open the floor to comments.

On October 30th, the mayor proclaimed a civil emergency associated with the federal government shutdown, which impacted the federal distribution of local SNAP benefits.

And on November 3rd, the city council adopted resolution 32186, which modified the mayor's emergency proclamation.

On November 12th, the federal government ended the shutdown restoring SNAP benefits.

And then on the 21st of November 2025, the mayor proclaimed the end of the civil emergency.

And so this bill would identify the general fund as the source of public funds to address the food security uses, including appropriations of 2.7 million to HSD and 300 and 1,000 to OSC.

And these amounts cover three weeks of food assistance totaling 1 million per week as authorized by the mayor's office during the civil emergency.

According to the city budget office, these represent the appropriations necessary to cover invoices received by each department.

No additional emergency food spending is planned.

The 2026 adopted budget approved by Council last month included 4 million reserve in the general fund to cover partial impacts from the ongoing food emergency, which had originally been estimated at 8 million.

Of this reserve, 3 million is available to support the food security appropriations here in Council Bill 121126. So this bill would appropriate the remaining 1 million to finance general as a reserve against future uncertainty about federal policy changes affecting city and community provided programs.

And so basically we allocated $4 million, $3 million was used, there's a million left over and this puts it in its rightful place.

So are there any comments?

All right.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

And I had assumed that as this is budget legislation, I would be the sponsor.

I see you're the sponsor.

So I'm going to be asking to be added as a co-sponsor.

I assume that this was a mistake.

Is that correct?

It is going...

That is fine.

Go ahead.

Sure.

Yep.

That was a mistake.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, this is budget.

legislation.

I won't rattle off how many pieces of budget legislation we've passed this year, but it is a high number.

This legislation for us is about us as a city stepping forward to care for each other when the federal government decides not to fulfill its most basic responsibilities.

Colleagues, while we were in the middle of the budget session, the food emergency became ever-present.

with the SNAP benefits ending.

And as the mayor provided access to emergency funding to provide food to everyday Seattleites, we as a council made the decision that using our emergency fund was not the right way to do it.

And so that's why we set aside $4 million for the effort during the budget session.

This legislation closes the loop on that effort paying for the surge in food support checking the receipts to make sure that we're not overpaying what the mayor promised and making sure that we had enough money to cover the need.

And so what amounted was we spent $3 million as a city in three short weeks to pay for food, which left a million dollars remaining, which we are putting to the reserve fund which sets us up to respond to the federal crisis, the next manufactured crisis from the federal government that we don't know what's coming because if the food crisis, if SNAP benefits had not been restored when they had, we would have spent $8 million between the 1st of November and Christmas.

And so this is prudent legislation to put that $1 million back into our reserve and to pay for the food without tapping our emergency fund.

This is the type of coordination that it takes to make sure that whatever the federal government does next, we're upholding our responsibilities as the last line of defense for working families in Seattle.

This strategy also streamlined the process preventing us from having to deplete our emergency fund for a different rainy day.

So colleagues, because this is budget legislation, it does require three quarters vote.

Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions?

All right.

Go ahead.

Please call the vote on the bill.

Council member Lin.

Yes.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Rivera.

Aye.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

All right.

The bill passes and the chair will sign up.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

It is now two o'clock, so we will go back to that other item, which is the public hearing.

So, one moment please, getting back to the script.

And please, if you didn't sign up yet, now is your opportunity to do that.

As presiding officer, I will open the public hearing on Council Bill 121094 or ordinance 127329 relating to negative use restrictions that limit a property's use as a grocery store or pharmacy.

How many speakers have signed up to speak today, please?

Excuse me, two in-person and two remote so far.

Okay, let's give each speaker two minutes and start with the two in-person speakers.

So we'll start with Donna and then Caroline.

Donna, Donna first.

Since it's a public hearing, I assume I could talk about whatever I want.

If not, please have somebody escort me away, and I will willfully be escorted by security.

I suspect that I am judged by me, the messenger, as opposed to the message I have to give.

Councilmember Kettle, your nonverbal communication toward me You must be speaking on the legislation.

If an officer comes to me and escorts me away, security officer, I will walk away with them without any confrontation.

If there is no objection from my colleagues, I will permit the comment that is before us right now.

So there is a lawsuit.

from SPU, it has nothing to do with the Growth Management Act.

It has to do with RCW 82, direct nexus and proportionality.

The section of the RCW that I'm talking about is RCW 3670. There is no lawsuit on that.

This is the disconnect in your Growth Management Act.

There have already been at least 6,000 unbuilt homes in the past 10 years because the water infrastructure is not available to support the growth.

I personally have had clients that put $10,000 into surveying in the hope of the ADU and DADU that have to just abandon after 50, after $100,000.

There's over 20 miles.

The comprehensive plan has a Seattle Public Utilities business plan in it from 2019. This in itself should be a red flag.

In 2020, Seattle Public Utilities released WTR 440, designating miles and miles of pipe as obsolete, and no new taps.

How could a 2019 report in your current comprehensive plan possibly have funding for something that was identified in 2020?

Please read this.

Thank you for your time.

Carolyn?

Council Members, I'm here to address you on the Library's Education and Neighborhoods Committee, Item Number 3, CB121139, landmarking the Stewart House.

When I appeared before the committee, Council Member Chin had a question, which I did want to answer now in the public comment.

If you've looked at the pictures of this residence, there's a garage Underneath that garage was always an apartment.

The garage itself has been made into a second apartment, and then a third apartment has been added to the top.

So this is not a property that houses a single household.

It's a property that houses four households.

I also want to touch on another reason why I think landmarking a Lionel Priest property is important.

I brought the book written by Professor Jeffrey Oxner as a prop to show you.

Please pause and just let the record show that this is not germane to the topic of the public hearing, but you may finish your comments.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

What I wanted to say is that honoring and recognizing Lionel Priest is restoring an important architect to a position that should never have been taken from him.

I'm not sure if the council members read this in the report, but one thing that happened was that Lionel Priest was a talented, well-recognized, and beloved professor of architecture at the University of Washington.

he was discovered by the dean that he was a gay man, and he was called into the dean's office on a Friday afternoon and fired, told, have your things out by Monday morning.

After that, in the 50s and 60s, this architect wasn't really recognized and honored and discussed for his contributions to architecture and buildings in our city.

Landmarking this house, which is the second house he designed, is a way to restore him to what he deserves.

Thanks for hearing me.

We'll go to our only remote public commenter that is present for this topic.

Our present remote public commenter for the public hearing is David Hain.

David, go ahead.

Actually, we have one more public commenter that's just signed up for the public hearing who will follow David Haynes, and that is Leo Kitchell.

Following David Haynes will be Leo Kitchell.

Go ahead, David.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

We need to get rid of that law that restricts the use of the property because it benefits the antitrust, monopolized shelf space that Kroger already arguably takes advantage of.

And I think we need to realize that when they talk about the farmers' market being more permanent, it has to be permanent shelf space in a normal location, not in the parking lot.

But getting rid of that law that puts restrictions, you know, that should have never been allowed to begin with.

And it's a telltale sign that Seattle has a backstab that's built into some of their city chapters that cheats the people and rips off the workers and the consumers.

So I just hope that, like, you expedite getting rid of that ordinance and proliferate the celebration of robust floor plans and 21st century first world quality redevelopments that are pedestrian centric and like resident friendly that doesn't provide the car centric infrastructure that makes everybody live on the side of the road, dealing with the road range.

We just get rid of the ordinance, you know, and anything else that restricts the use of, you know, first world quality robust floor plans.

but I swear the farmers market needs to have permanent shelf space in the neighborhoods with real real estate, not in the parking lot and not like one day a week, like the mayor acts like he's doing the people a favor, making the farmers set up until December to sell their stuff for like six hours and they got to pack up.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our public hearing speaker, Leo Kitchell, is signed up, but he is not present.

Leo, if you are there, you need to call in now, otherwise we are finished with the public hearing.

I'm not seeing Leo present.

I believe that was our last public hearing speaker.

Okay, thank you very much.

The public hearing is now closed.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

The report of the Library's Education and Neighborhoods Committee, agenda item two, appointment 3294, reappointment of Duane Chappelle as director of the Department of Education and Early Learning for termed August 1st, 2029. The committee recommends that the council confirm the appointment.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Rivera, as chair of the committee, recognized in order to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity and the honor, really, to present the reappointment of Dr. Director Duane Chappell to the Department of Education and Early Learning.

Dr. Chappell has been with the Department for a number of mayoral administrations, so quite some time.

We, at the committee level, passed it out of committee this past Friday with a four to zero vote and resounding support from the committee members.

I've been working with Director Chappelle with Duane now for eight years, and we've been through Think and Thin together, colleagues.

Some of you heard me say at committee, Dwayne is always thinking about how to better support our kids and our students.

He is one of the biggest advocates for kids.

And I have never seen him without a smile on his face and a positive attitude.

That is why many of us love Director Chappelle.

In fact, I don't know anyone who doesn't.

And I am really just proud to call him my colleague and my friend.

He's done great work at the department and I look forward to having you join me in reappointing him as the director of the Department of Education and Early Learning.

Happy to answer any questions that any of my colleagues have.

Are there any questions or comments?

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Council Member Rivera.

I just wanted to say that I had the great opportunity to meet with Dr. Director Chappell yesterday.

and talking about the FEP Levy implementation.

It was a great discussion and talk about priorities that I have.

The important pieces like early education, so important.

But also on the other end, Seattle Promise Program.

That is so important as we look to give that lift up for those young people in the communities throughout the city.

and as Chair of Public Safety, I would note too that that's a great opportunity for people to get an education for serving in public safety, whatever department that that may be.

And I also wanna thank Council Member Rivera for the inclusion, the K through 12 and beyond, including the Promise Program of supporting the trades.

I think that's very important.

and so I want to thank both for their inclusion of different pieces and putting the emphasis on that very important area.

So thank you and I look forward to voting.

Thank you very much.

Other questions or comments?

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I just want to say that I am proud to be able to support Director Dr. Duane Chappell referring to him in his official city capacity.

Yes, his fancy title is well-earned and important, but he is one of our esteemed leaders as well.

So proud to be able to support him today.

He shares, I think he's the right leader in the right moment right time in our city's history to help usher in and implement this generous 1.3 billion dollar voter approved levy, but also position our city to implement once and for all universal free preschool for all program in Seattle, which is colleagues, as you know, a huge priority of mine.

And I think our Mayor-elect as well, and I think a number of you.

So proud to be able to support our esteemed director's reappointment and looking forward to partnering with him and his team to help bring to life so many of these great investments.

Thank you.

Okay.

I don't see any other hands raised.

I'll simply note first of all that now is a good time to reappoint Mr. Chappelle, because there is a big body of work that's incoming to fulfill the FEP levy, which is the implementation plan.

And first, and before I just note that, I want to thank, since I have mentioned the education plan, I mean the FEP levy.

I want to thank Council Member Rivera for your leadership on that process and for really making us focus on the task at hand, which was to to get that to the ballot.

And now that it has passed, the big body of work is going to be, this coming year, figuring out what are those investments in the K-12 bucket that remain to be decided.

And so I mention this because it's good to have that continuity of leadership at the table as those decisions are made and as that levy fulfills its promise.

So that's one thing I'll say.

And then in general, First of all, I will note that usually we do have directors present when we reaffirm the department heads present.

So since he is not here, I will speak of him in the third person and just say that that he is a warm and caring individual who has always been open to the comments, questions, and proposals of council members.

Ever since I've been here, he has been very accessible and very responsive and I'm just very thankful for his leadership going forward as the FEP levy is implemented and for all other work that Deal is doing to improve the the lives and the education of our young people and in town.

So I will be supporting his reappointment with full confidence and gratitude for his service to the city.

All right.

If there are no other comments, we're not seeing any.

Okay.

I will then call the roll on the passage of the bill or the reappointment, please.

Council Member Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favour, none opposed.

All right, the appointment is confirmed.

Congratulations, Director Chappell.

All right, will the clerk please read item three into the record.

Agenda item three, Council Bill 121-139, related historic preservation, opposing controls upon the Stewart House, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

The committee recommends a bill passed with Council Members Rivetta, Rink, and Hollingworth in favor, none opposed, and one abstention from Council Member Lynn.

Okay, Councilmember Rivera, as chair of the committee, you're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, this is a property that was landmark by the city's landmark board.

This legislation imposes the negotiated controls and incentives agreement for that landmark designation, which is in this case, the Stewart House.

which the owners agreed to.

The historic property was built in 1931 in the Endelin-Arroya Heights neighborhood of West Seattle, and the Land Committee is recommending it at the passage of these negotiated controls and incentives.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions or comments?

Okay.

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council member Lynn.

Yes.

Council member Link.

Yes.

Council member Rivera.

Aye.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

All right, and will the clerk please read item four into the record?

Item four, Council Bill 121-140 Relating Historic Preservation.

Opposing controls upon the Linkton Springs Park, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

All right.

Councilmember Rivera, as chair of the committee, you're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Again, this is a park that was landmarked by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

This legislation would impose the negotiated controls and incentives agreement for the LinkedIn Springs Park.

The park was created in 1974. but the iron oxide and magnesium sulfide springs present in the park have long been associated with the traditional cultural heritage of our region.

And as such is what some consider to be the first indigenous landmark of Seattle as per the landmark preservation board's presentation at committee last week.

Our understanding on the committee from the landmarks preservation board is that they worked with community members who nominated the park, including some members from our tribal partners.

The designation is to landmark the park, not the place structure or the structure on the park.

In this way, if those things need updating, et cetera, parks can do that work, but that the park itself is being designated as the landmark and the Landmark Committee recommended its passage.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you very much.

Other questions or comments from my colleagues?

Councilmember Lin.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Super excited to vote in favor of this.

And I do just wanna highlight as potentially the first indigenous landmark, I think this is pretty special.

And I also think it's important to recognize as we look at historic preservation and landmarks that we need to recognize that as part of our history, many in our community, many communities of color, Many indigenous communities were driven out of the city.

And as we think about preserving buildings, we have to recognize that many communities were not allowed to own land and were not allowed to own buildings.

And so I think we just need to be mindful of that.

And I just look forward to finding additional ways to make sure that we are preserving the full breadth of our history.

And so that's why I'm excited to vote for this.

All right.

Thank you very much.

No further comments?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Councilmember Lin?

Yes.

Councilmember Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

All right.

And will the clerk please read item five into the record?

The report, the Governance Accountability and Economic Development Committee, agenda item five, Council Bill 121073 relating to the Soto parking business improvement area, changing the assessment rates and exemptions.

The committee recommends the bill passes amended.

Okay, as chair of the committee, I'll provide the committee report.

So first of all, this bill is step one in a two-step process to help the Soto BIA continue to survive and thrive amid dramatic changes to that neighborhood.

There are three mega projects slated to begin within the boundaries of the BIA, and for the public, we're talking about the business improvement area in Soto.

Most notably, the West Seattle Link extension, which will involve sound sound transit purchasing a significant number of properties within the boundaries of the BIA.

And under the current assessment rules, this would decimate the BIA finances since public entities do not pay into the system.

The first step modifies the assessment to be based on appraised property value instead of taxable property value, which will set the stage to eventually collect dues from public property while also aligning the assessment to come more closely, to more closely match what other BIAs in Seattle have in their code.

and then secondly, this will establish a stakeholder group in OED, the Office of Economic Development, to develop and provide recommendations to council on how to assess public properties like the Seattle Schools Headquarters or the Metro bus base.

This bill before us would not force any public entities to pay when they do not currently.

Any of those changes would be made with subsequent council action.

So this is, and this bill was requested by the executive director of the BIA and Erin Goodman.

And so we have developed this legislation in consultation with her also working with our central staff and with the Office of Economic Development.

So are there any questions or comments about the legislation?

Well, then I will simply say thank you, Erin Goodman.

Thank you very much for, first of all, prevailing upon us to make the necessary changes for the SOTO BIA to thrive.

I know how valuable the BIA is to the businesses in Soto, which are challenged by many things in that neighborhood.

You have always been such a tremendous steward of small business in general in the city, and you've been especially helpful to me in my role as economic development chair, not just about what concerns the businesses in Soto, but also what is very important to small businesses citywide.

You've been a very active and lucid stakeholder in a lot of decisions that have come before council that didn't directly involve BIAs, but I've always depended on you for advice and counsel when it came to small businesses in general.

And you were at the table in my second committee meeting talking about what small businesses need right now.

So I thank you very much for your service to the city and to the businesses within the BIA.

It's with my pleasure that I am stewarding this legislation that is really yours to help your good work.

All right.

I'm not seeing any other hands raised or any hands raised.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council member Rink.

Excuse me.

Council member Lynn.

Yes.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature on the legislation?

Well, on my behalf.

and will the clerk please read item six into the record.

Item six, Council Bill 121, 130 relating to ethics code prohibiting political consultants from concurrently performing consulting work with the city establishing a cool off period for political consultants.

The committee recommends the bill passes amended to Council Members Nelson, Catalog and Rivera in favor, Council Member Hollingsworth opposed and with an abstention from Council Member Lin.

Okay, as chair of the committee, I'll provide the committee report.

This is a good governance bill, colleagues.

The legislation was intended to address a straightforward problem, which is the conflict of interest that can arise when political consultants contract with the city to provide consulting services of other kinds, policy related or other services.

And sometimes that can confer upon their candidates a taxpayer funded political advantage and allow for the insider trading of non-public information that can benefit one candidate over another.

But mostly it was about making sure that our ballot measures that are put forward, really done in the public's best interest and that they are formed with policy interests in mind and then they are run by a campaign and then voted on subsequently.

We are really trying to close a loophole that blitters the line between government work and private enterprise of consulting.

And so I appreciate this came out of the committee with a with three votes in favor, one vote opposed, and one abstention.

And I have recognized over the past couple days that the actual legislation, first of all, would have required political consultants to register themselves in the campaigns that they're working on, for city candidates of office or city ballot measures.

It would have prohibited the concurrent, it would have prohibited political consultants from working on a campaign and also at the same time doing policy oriented work or providing other services that a consultant might.

And it would have established a cooling off period between doing political consulting and providing other consultant services to the city.

And I really do appreciate my committee members' willingness to entertain this legislation.

I understand, however, that and some of the prohibitory language goes too far and I understand that and so we have three amendments before us today and I do appreciate the people that are bringing forward the amendments for really engaging with this important topic today.

What we're really trying to do is strengthen public trust in local government and that depends on our constituents having confidence that what we're doing, that the decisions that we make are in their best interest.

And so I welcome the discussion of the amendments today and I also just thank the whole council for engaging in this conversation.

It's unfortunate that it had to come at the very end but I did want to wait until after the election season and of course after the budget discussions when other council meetings and heavy legislation is really not allowed.

So for this reason, this is coming up at the very end of my term.

It was not meant to be a rushed process, however.

Anyway, I will call on the sponsors of the amendments as they appear on the agenda.

Let's see, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 121130 as presented in Amendment 1 on today's agenda.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to go forward with amendment A and, oh, amendment one, excuse me, on my script it says A.

Okay, are there questions or comments from my colleagues?

Council President and sponsor the amendment, am I recognized?

Thank you for recognizing me as sponsor the amendment.

Colleagues and Council President, I'm going to speak just to my amendment right now.

I will raise my hand later in this process to speak to the underlying bill.

My final comments today will be based on the passage or approval or disapproval of these amendments.

From the beginning, this legislation has been pitched as a way to improve our ethics laws regarding consultants in the same way that San Francisco and Portland has.

I've heard colleagues share that Seattle should no longer be in the business of passing first in the nation legislation.

That's why I was surprised that in the new version of the legislation unveiled last Thursday, the legislation stripped out all of the reporting requirements and focused on consultants, not ethics.

The amendment that I have just moved would add those reporting requirements back in.

So said another way, San Francisco and Portland are reporting based.

They are not cooling off based pieces of legislation.

If we pass the legislation as it came out of committee, we would be passing first in the nation legislation that has not been tested.

if the council adopts my amendment, we will be back in place alongside San Francisco and Portland regarding this consultant's legislation.

And so my amendment would add the reporting requirements back in and it would bring us into the alignment with San Francisco and Portland that have been held up as examples throughout this process.

At the same time, the amendment would remove the provisions in the legislation that are counter to the San Francisco and Portland laws, like the prohibited conduct provisions.

It is often been said sunshine is the best disinfectant in government.

I agree.

This amendment would create that sunshine.

Adding these reporting requirements would create a more fair and transparent process for everyone involved.

and to me daylighting this requirement is central in this bill.

Removing it is unacceptable.

I hope that you join me in supporting this amendment to reinstate the reporting requirements and bring this bill in line with our peer cities instead of going further than anyone has been tested before.

And I say that just because we've got three amendments today This has been a very short process that we need more time, but I think we can get there if this amendment is passed.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

Are there further questions, comments from my colleagues?

I do want to note that the legislation in San Francisco and Portland do more than they, the regulations that confine the actions of political consultants in those cities is designed to prevent conflicts of interest.

That is mentioned over and over again in the San Francisco's ethics code.

San Francisco's ethics code explicitly applies to consultants and prohibits them from participating in decisions where they have conflicts of interest.

Page one states, if you are a city officer or employee, including consultants, but are not a board member or commissioner, you should disclose the conflict of interest on the public record and abstain from discussing or participating in the decision in any way.

And then on page two it says, all city elected officials, commissioners and employees are public officials as are independent consultants working before them.

and then it goes on to talk about the ethics code that is designed to prevent conflicts of interest, which means basically it's termed in San Francisco's code as advancing a financial self-interest.

And so that is why it explicitly mentions consultants.

So it's all in basically, I appreciate what you're saying, Council Member Strauss, that the reporting is important.

I absolutely do agree.

However, I would disagree that what we're doing here is completely groundbreaking or new.

It is the prohibition of doing two things at the same time.

The original legislation as presented before us prevents a political consultant from providing political consulting services to a city candidate or to a ballot measure at the same time as providing other consulting services and it's that concurrence that was identified as a problem because it provides for the conflict of interest in terms of the ongoing financial interest of that consultant's body of work and the unequal access to information that their political clients might receive.

and then the legislation would not say you can't be a political consultant or we're not trying to limit one's work with the city, we're simply saying that when you finish one body of work there must be a passage of time and that was the cooling off period.

that would allow for that same consultant to provide a body of work to the city.

And so that is the intent of the original body of prohibiting concurrent work, establishing a cooling off period, and then requiring the registration of political consultants.

And so, I'm trying to point out that there are similarities with what is currently being practiced in those other cities and what I was trying to do here.

We require lobbyists to register and not just get on the list, but also disclose their work.

And we also require city employees from working in a consulting firm, for example, especially on projects or with firms that focus on providing consulting services that directly relate to topics that they were working on as a city employee.

So there are similarities.

This is filling a gap by ensuring that consultants do not conduct that same work concurrently.

So it is In any case, I am simply saying that this is not brand new work and the impulse that drove it was the same principles that the other cities that this legislation was modeled on was based on.

So, however, I do appreciate you bringing back the reporting requirement.

So thank you for that and Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

So if I understand correctly, this reporting requirement is so that political, well, let me back up and just say my spouse is a political consultant in town.

He doesn't, nor has he ever had contracts with the City of Seattle, which I think was a big piece and actually the main piece of your original piece of legislation, Council President, to my understanding, it was trying to get at political consultants that have contracts with the City of Seattle would be prohibited from also having engaging in contracts with campaigns or political candidates because of that inside information.

from having the contract with the city to begin with.

So my understanding, Council Member Strauss, is that you are taking out the prohibition and then putting back in the disclosure requirement with the SEEC for political consultants engaging in political activity in the city that is campaign work or ballot measure work.

Understanding, however, is that political consultants engaging in campaign or elected of, you know, representing candidates and races.

Oh, you froze.

Councilmember Rivera, can you refresh?

We cannot hear you.

I don't know if you can, yeah, you can likely hear us.

Let's, is there, are there other hands up that, what did you say, Amelia?

I was just noting that we can get back to her, but if there's no further comments, it's the body's call at this point.

If we want to be at ease or if we want to continue with the vote on Amendment A. Sorry, Amendment 1. And she's off.

What'd you say?

She's off the call now, so...

Okay, well...

Hold please.

Let's be at ease until 2.45 and we'll take a short recess.

Council member Rivera, please log back on.

We're going to need you for- If you'd allow council members to leave the dais, would you like to be at recess then?

Yes, we will recess until 2.45.

Councilmember Lin.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Councilmember Sacca.

Here.

Councilmember Strauss.

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Eight.

Present.

Thank you very much.

We are discussing Council Bill one, two, one, one, three, zero.

And Councilmember Rivera, you had the floor.

Thank you, Council President.

Apologies, colleagues.

My Wi-Fi went out in my home, probably due to the weather.

And I couldn't join you in person today because I'm feeling under the weather.

So thank you for your patience as I was trying to figure out how to join back in.

Hopefully you're hearing me okay now.

I was make thank you I was making the comment that councilmember Strauss's reporting requirement seeks to get information that is already being reported to the PDC and SEEC via the campaign the campaigns who have to report their consultants so I'm not sure that it's adding anything that isn't already disclosed via all the campaigns in the city.

So I'm not sure it gets to the issue at hand, which is folks that have both consulting contracts with the city and outside campaign work in essence simultaneously.

And while I understand the comments about being first at the city.

I don't know the specifics of those other two cities, but I will say that the information being sought after by this amendment is information that you can already get from the PDC and the SCEC via those disclosure requirements from all the campaigns, including ballot measures.

so I'm not sure it seems a duplication of that information unless I'm reading your amendment not in the right way.

So I completely understand that and That is partly why the substitute that we are discussing did omit the reporting requirements because one could find that information, but the original and the original legislation included reporting requirements so that it was all in one place, but I will let Council Member Strauss address.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, as you just stated in its demonstration of how quickly this process is moving, there's no finger pointing in that statement, just a fact of the matter.

That the substitute bill that came to committee last week stripped out the reporting requirements because, as the Council President noted, they are reported in other places.

That took it out of being in line with San Francisco and Portland and started and created requirements that are not included in San Francisco and Portland.

The amendment before us right now brings us back in line with San Francisco and Portland's consultant disclosure requirements.

I will just be really transparent in saying I will vote for this bill even though I think it needs more time.

if this amendment passes, and if this amendment does not pass, and the underlying bill goes above and beyond what our peer cities are doing, I will not be able to support the bill at this time, even though I do think that, as you said, the impulse that drove you to do this work is the same as in San Francisco and Portland.

That's why I need our legislation to mirror those other bodies.

So I would love, I don't know, Council President, if you've got a take on this amendment, but I'd love to take a vote on it.

Are there any other comments?

Council Member Rivera, that's a new hand.

That's a new hand.

Thank you, Council President.

So Council Member Strauss' amendment is not, it strips the original your original, the council president's original bill from all, from the prohibitions and really in essence is replacing the bill with this reporting requirement that I guess I feel like it's already information we're able to get.

I don't know whether Portland or San Francisco require campaigns to disclose that information, so perhaps their bills are because that information isn't otherwise available.

I do not know that, but that is a consideration here.

And perhaps, Council Member Schaus, you can tell me whether Portland or San Francisco do not have the same requirements as the PDC and SEEC here for campaigns to have to disclose their consultants, in which case I'm compelled that the way that they set up theirs was because that information was not readily available elsewhere.

Otherwise I feel like your amendment is replacing the original amendment with justice information that can be obtained elsewhere in essence.

So I'm just getting to the heart of the matter here and what this amendment is actually doing.

Because when you say you can't vote for the underlying bill on this amendment unless this amendment passes, your amendment is essence now the new underlying bill.

Well, I'll let you know where I'm coming from.

I would still prefer a bill with both reporting and rules and some prohibitions about concurrent work and cooling off periods, but the reality is that we have to start somewhere and we must have change over the status quo.

And the original impulse of having a reporting requirement was so that directors or people in other departments when they are needing to hire a consultant for any kind of work would already, would have a place to go so that they know who are the political consultants and then know, and then maybe be able to narrow their field for their specific work if they didn't require those services.

So believe me, I, I agree with you that this is stripping two of the sections out or two of the actions that this bill would take.

And like I said, I'd prefer doing it all, but I understand why this bill does replace the original reporting requirements.

So I'm going to be supporting this amendment.

Okay.

All right.

So will the clerk please call the roll on amendment A.

Council member Lin.

No.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Rivera.

No.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Six in favor, two opposed.

Okay, will the clerk please, we have one more, let's see.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented.

No.

Councilmember Saka.

Saka.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 121130 as specifically presented in Amendment B on the agenda.

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented in Amendment B. Councilmember Saka get recognized in order to present it.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I couldn't agree more with the stated goal and intent of the underlying bill is to strengthen public trust and confidence in their local government, in this case, the city of Seattle government.

I also agree with the notion that this is fundamentally a good governance bill.

and what my amendment would do is to strengthen that even further, particularly on a going forward basis.

This amendment memorializes a commitment, it would memorialize a commitment by our council that should anyone want to make any future changes to our ethics code, it would first require a consultation period with our Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission on national best practices and ultimately delegate rulemaking authority, which in my view would strengthen public trust and confidence and promote accountability within government as well.

This enshrines, if you support this amendment, this enshrines a commitment for all of us that any future changes to the ethics code must be made in direct consultation with SCEC and ultimately delegating rulemaking authority directly to them.

And that can look two different ways as far as I can tell.

One, it can completely and totally delegate rulemaking authority to this independent committee of experts.

In my mind, that's acceptable.

Balance of power issues and how much of our authority as policymakers do we want to delegate to others This is one area where I would give the whole farm.

I think there are many valid and important policy justifications and goals underlying efforts to improve the ethics code.

But ultimately, and so I'm not at all concerned with impropriety in this case.

The underlying problem rests with the appearance of impropriety.

And so for me personally, I would be perfectly satisfied if we just completely 100% delegated that rulemaking authority to the independent committee of experts and let them live up to whatever rules that they come up with.

on a going forward basis.

Another way to do it is to, any changes to the code have to originate from them, S-E-E-C, and they would have to make recommendations to us that we can either adopt or reject.

But the underlying thing that we're ultimately deferring to an independent panel of ethics experts, would still hold true.

It's probably a matter of personal comfort, what you're willing to do in terms of accept or reject their recommendations or completely hand off, and I'm in the camp of completely hand off, because however valid and pure motive and intent Any changes that directly originate from individual council members are, or mayor, if it came up, if a proposal originated out of the mayor's office.

The appearance of impropriety is not where it could or should be.

And for those reasons, I think on a going forward basis, we need to be more hands-off with this and live up to, and all just collectively agree to live up to whatever the independent experts thinks.

And they're more inclined, I suppose, to more closely track and monitor all these national best practices and what sort of market and emerging best practices, et cetera, et cetera.

Our problems within the city and our challenges that we need to be most focused on, in my opinion, are homelessness, affordability, public safety, and ethics is important, but again, one topic that I think we can carve off and hand off to our independent experts to set what the standards should be.

So I think this is a common sense amendment, and...

I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Kettle.

Thank you Council President and thank you Council Member Saka for your amendment.

I agree with the underlying thought behind it and the intent behind it.

I do want to say three things.

One is there's a question of executive director versus the commission.

We did have the executive director and committee and the way it's written, it's not really clear on that point, commissioners versus the executive director or a combination.

And I think clarity on that is really important.

I do believe in involving them and granting them a role and having them be part of it.

I hesitate somewhat.

and it's not, as you said, it's not really clearly defined, but it says delegate rulemaking authority.

I think at the end of the day, we have to be accountable to ourselves.

We have to be responsible for what we're doing.

And so I do agree with delegating part of the process to them in terms of rulemaking authority to have them have a greater role to participate and to contribute.

But as written, and as you said, you can go a couple different ways.

I'm not sure on that point in terms of how it was written.

But I do think they should have a greater role.

But I also think at the end of the day, we have the the responsibility and accountability pieces to ourselves.

And then the last point, too, that I wanted to make, I just wanted to make three, is that the last sentence says, this work should produce and so forth.

This sentence really strikes me as an effect as opposed to specific language in the bill.

So those are three points, three observations.

You know, the question of executive as director versus full commission, you know, giving them a greater role.

But, you know, this idea we cannot delegate everything, but I do believe in having them have a very strong role.

And in my belief that the last sentence is really an effect sentence as opposed to, you know, council bill legislation sentence.

So thank you, council president.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

You know, I want to thank Councilmember Saka for bringing this forward and I want to thank Councilmember Kittle for his comments.

I, you know, I believe that we shouldn't be delegating our authority to our, you know, our bodies that are advisory in nature to the council.

I very much think we should be consulting with the Seattle Ethics Commission and Election Commission, but ultimately the responsibility is with us because voters have voted and elected council members to do this work, and it's part of the work that we're to be doing.

So while I agree that we definitely should be consulting with the SEEC on any changes we're making to the ethics sections of the SMC, it does live with us.

So for that reason, I will not be voting for this amendment, but I very much appreciate Council Member Saka you bringing it forward and bringing up the points that you just made.

Thank you.

I will be supporting this amendment because ultimately I agree with the principle that's driving it, that our Ethics Commission must ride herd on all things ethical that come before us, either directly to us coming, well, that are brought to us by constituent concerns or to address problems that we see that we want to advance and have a remedy for.

I want the record to show that I sent a draft of, well, an earlier version of my legislation to Wayne Barnett and I believe it was the, no, it wasn't anybody on the Ethics Commission, but I sent it to the to the director and on November 18th and I said, I would love it if you would weigh in on this piece of legislation at your December 3rd meeting.

I did not hear any response and so I pinged them again on the 24th.

So six days had gone by and I said, hey, just, letting you know that the draft had changed a little bit, but I would really like it if you would weigh in on your meeting on the third.

And then I heard from the chair that there wasn't going to be enough time to think about it in the week preceding the meeting on the third.

Long story short, I really did try to get some opinions, some buy-in, some advice, et cetera, from the Ethics Commission.

And long before that, when it first became sort of publicly aware that there could be an issue in this department, in this realm of political consulting in early September, I did reach out to Director Wayne Barnett and asked if anything could be could be done about this or if there could be any, what is the opinion of the commission, et cetera, and there wasn't much forthcoming.

So I do agree that we need to stay in our lane sometimes when it comes to these issues because we don't want it to appear that we are stacking the deck for us as electeds and as future potentially candidates.

So that is the situation that we find ourselves in.

I will be, what really has to happen is that I wanna make sure that we've got an extremely well engaged commission, that they are tracking what's going on.

It's been my impression that sometimes the commission is very involved in the actual campaigns and they're there to adjudicate on whether or not a campaign has, you know, has filed financial reports later, whatever.

But when it comes to these bigger picture items, sometimes, let me just say that we could use their guidance, more rigorous guidance, let me say.

And we saw what happened when we tried to change some ethics rules.

That shows you that Seattle really does care about ethics.

So I believe that the openings on the Ethics Commission should be posted, publicly posted.

And so I'm going to be encouraging that the positions are publicly posted so that when there are openings, whether or not they are mayoral or council, nominations or nominees slots that we get the widest possible array of people that are really interested in engaging on these issues that come before us.

So with that, if there aren't any other comments or questions, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

To close it out, I appreciate comments from all of my colleagues, Council President, Council Members Kettle and Rivera.

I think the position on Council Member Rivera is pretty clear, but Council Member Kettle, I heard some mixed feelings about this, which I appreciate.

I think this amendment.

First off, I work very closely with our central staff and legal team to construct.

I do think it allows us maximum flexibility on a going forward basis to involve the SCEC director only or director and the commission or just the commission or any combination thereof.

And I think flexibility is a good thing.

I don't think this purports to bind us in one decision path or another.

Instead, again, I think it does provide max flexibility, but the ultimate goal is we need to delegate and we can figure out what the color around the edges looks like.

I mentioned very transparent about what I'm personally comfortable with, but can figure out later what that delegation would look like and how that could operate.

But anyways, thank you, ask for your support.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of amendment two.

Council member Lynn.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

No.

Councilmember Sata?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Seven in favor one opposed.

Thank you very much.

The amendment passes and we'll now move on to amendment three.

It's amendment C.

Oh, amendment C, all right.

So, okay, are we going?

Yes, it was just amendment one and then amendment B and C.

Okay, thank you very much.

Seat, thank you.

Okay.

Amendment C is actually a partnership effort between Councilmember Rivera and myself.

This amendment C would require, and it was passed around to my colleagues here.

The effect of the amendment would be to require disclosure to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission by any political consultant that accepts a city consulting contract.

Requiring this disclosure by a political consultant will daylight to the SEEC and the public any concurrent roles of election campaigning and city consulting work.

So let me explain what is the purpose of this.

So the purpose is that I am putting this forward because I am still, and I will allow for Council Member Rivera to speak as well, it's still important that we know if we're not going to prohibit the certain with the concurrent work by political consultants, it's important that we understand which political consultants are also doing contracting with the city to do other work.

sort of preserve some of the transparency requirements that were in the original bill.

So if one is a political consultant working on a city ballot measure or for a campaign for city office, then if you also have a political, I mean a contracting a consulting contract with any of the departments or offices within the city, you must disclose that.

And so that is the purpose of this legislation so that we can at least have a better understanding of the range of work that our political consultants are taking on.

Council member Rivera, would you like to add to the comments?

Thank you, Council President.

I would just say that when you brought up the original legislation, my comment about that was I wanted to make sure this was narrowly tailored, and I've said this in the context of this conversation in the last week or however long it's been since we've been talking about it, that the point was to address the prohibited behavior was just to have an external contract with either, you know, a campaign of whichever variety, because having that contract with the city might give you information you would not other have that then you can use in your external contracts.

And that was the point of the legislation you were bringing to my understanding.

and which is what we voted on out of committee.

So this that you're bringing today is keeping that spirit of your original, which is just ensuring that the constituents, the public writ large has insight and transparency about the the political consultants' contracts directly with the City of Seattle because they don't have to disclose that right now.

That's not information you can get anywhere.

So unlike Councilmember Strauss's amendment, which I felt like you could get that information right now because the SEC and the PDC require campaigns too.

disclosed their political consultants, I felt like you could get that information.

You cannot currently get information about what political consultants have contracts with the City of Seattle.

So my understanding is that this amendment would do that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't actually, that was the point of which This is how I'm reading this newer legislation or amendment that you're bringing forward.

So if I got that wrong, please correct me.

But at the end of the day is to give transparency to a political consultant that has a contract with the City of Seattle directly, be it any of the city departments or a mayor's office for that.

That is correct.

I mean, that is how this is written after yours and my conversation.

And so it simply does allow for that information to be present to other departments that are also thinking about hiring a consultant as well.

Are there any further questions?

We just need to know, it is helpful to know when, and it does not prohibit doing both or having a contract for consulting services and also engaging in a kind of a campaign-related activity for a ballot measure or a candidate.

It simply just daylights that.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm just digesting this.

I understand we received this amendment while we were up here, so trying to understand at this time ramifications and just the Cascading impact of this, and I know we've had a fair amount of discussion about how we were trying to mirror more of the policies akin to Portland and San Francisco.

Do they have this kind of requirement, or do we know of other cities that have specifically this 15-day timeline associated with it?

What can you speak to about other cities that have this kind of measure and reporting in place?

What I was trying to do was to, the 15 days is to be consistent with the reporting requirements that I knew that Councilmember Strauss's amendment would then replace into the bill.

I don't know about the 15 days of...

I have to admit that I do not know if there is a time limit by which consultants in San Francisco or in Portland have to register.

Thank you for that.

Respectfully, I will be abstaining from voting on this amendment.

Just given that this is new and in an ideal state, I would have liked an opportunity to have a bit more time with this and confer with others, but I'm not in a place where I can vote on it today.

Thank you.

I understand.

And while you mentioned that, this is considered a walk-on.

And this was an attempt to sort of marry an intent with a live amendment.

So if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow for deliberation on an amendment that was not distributed by the council rule deadline.

Thank you for your grace.

Hearing no objection, the rules are suspended and will proceed with consideration and deliberation.

So in essence, I understand your point.

Are there other comments or questions?

Okay, I move amendment, I move to amend Council Bill 121-130 as presented on the recently distributed amendment C.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment C.

All right.

So simply put, this amendment ensures that there will be a public record from now on about which consultants are or have the potential to simultaneously engage in city campaign activities and then leave it up to, because of the passage of amendment B, leave it up to the, if this legislation passes, leave it up to the SEC, the commission to weigh in on whether or not this is an issue and how to remedy it.

Okay.

If there aren't any further comments on amendment C, Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment C. Council President, I have my hand up.

Go ahead, please.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you.

I'm not clear now.

So with Council Member Saka's amendment, are you saying all of this thing is going to the SEC to weigh in on and make a determination on how to move forward?

and that is not what I intended to communicate.

Can you restate?

Sorry, I may have misunderstood.

Can you restate what you said about that particular amendment and the SEC's role?

I'm just, I will be honest, this is with the latest breaking amendments, it's become a bit confusing to track.

So I just want to be very clear on what we're really doing here.

Right, and I do agree with the latest breaking ones.

We discussed this twice in committee and then I was responding to an amendment that was distributed late and wanted to maintain as much of the transparency as possible in the final bill.

This amendment allows for if political consultants who also have contracting work with the city must disclose that.

That's the shortest way I can put it.

Thank you, but I was asking about Councilmember Saka's amendment.

You made a comment about next steps, and I didn't understand that thread.

I was just saying that what we're trying to do simply gets it part of the issue.

And then that was a comment that was saying in the future, if there is anything that needs improvement with our consulting rules, whenever, that that is something that can be done up.

Yeah, that was just a general sort of offhand comment.

Okay, Council Member Kettle.

Council President, thank you.

I was just gonna note, given Council Member Rivera's remarks, and it's an important, and it's one reason why I did vote for the amendment B, was that in the first sentence, it says that the City Council commits that if it takes up again amendments to the code of ethics, then it will consult with the SEEC.

on national best practices and the consult word is key here.

So I think it's independent of this amendment C and it goes back to moving in the future.

So I think it's kind of independent.

I recognize the conflation, but at the same time, I think the key word in the amendment actually is consult and amendment B.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Rivera.

I think let's just move forward Council President and I have to say I'm gonna today vote no all the way across the board because it's become confusing in a way where I feel like it wouldn't be fair for me to vote with all the various points that now have come even just as early as yesterday and today and if we're going to consult with the SEC to give us future recommendations, then I'm fine with that.

But I don't want to move forward in a way today without having all these pieces coming together to really delineate what we're doing here.

Thank you.

I understand.

Thank you very much.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill, I mean the amendment C.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment C.

Councilmember Lin.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

Abstain.

Councilmember Rivera.

I will vote no.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And before you say the final number, Council Member Brink, it is not possible to abstain on amendments in full council at the final vote.

Would you like- I thought that rule was on underlying bills rather than amendments.

The council rules provide council members opportunity to abstain on only resolutions.

Understood.

Thank you for clarifying the rules.

In that case, to reflect my earlier comments, I'll be voting no.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, could you please give us the final vote?

Five in favor, three opposed.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

The motion carries and Amendment C is adopted and I will...

Are there any final comments on this bill from my colleagues?

Okay, well I want to thank you all for collaborating with me today so closely on this as we demonstrate the legislative process and the value of council action through robust debate and conversation and amendments.

We have a bill that we can be proud of knowing how significant a step in the right direction it is and to be continued whatever happens in the future.

Will this fix all forms of undue influence on policy at City Hall?

No. but it is a meaningful start.

It shed lights on an area where the lines between politics and policy are blurred in ways that erode public trust.

Passing this bill today will make our government better for the people.

And again, it is intended to strengthen public trust in local government.

All right.

If there is no additional amendment, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Councilmember Rink.

Excuse me.

Councilmember Len.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Fix in favor, two opposed.

Thank you very much.

The bill as amended passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

And will the clerk please read item seven into the record.

Agenda item seven, council bill 121-141 relating to city employment, exempting in positions from the civil service system, returning positions to the civil service system.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Okay, as chair of the committee, I'll address this piece of legislation.

City positions are either exempt from civil service rules or non-exempt.

An exempt employee means one who serves at the discretion of the appointing authority in a position exempt from the civil service rules.

from civil service rule one.

The council authorizes certain city personnel actions through ordinances.

This ordinance would authorize the Seattle Department of Human Resources director to implement the following personnel actions.

Exempt one position from civil service and return four positions to civil service.

Are there any questions or comments?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council Member Lind.

Council Member Rink.

Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Saka.

Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Council Member Kettle.

Council President Nelson.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

And will the clerk please read item eight into the record?

Edent item eight, Council Bill 121-142 relating to city employment establishing the deferred compensation analyst classification title series and corresponding rates of pay in the Seattle City Employees Retirement System.

Committee recommends the bill pass.

Okay, as chair, so I'll talk about it.

The legislation would create a new classification series for employees providing deferred compensation benefit services in the restructured Seattle City Employees Retirement System Department.

The current classification series of personnel analysts is restricted to SDHR staff.

However, staff working on deferred compensation in that classification have been transferred to SCERS.

And I should have said that Seattle City Employees Retirement System is referred to as SCERS department.

Anyway, the new classification offers a defined scope limited to deferred compensation work within the department rather than reference to citywide human resources services.

So this is executive requested legislation and I open the floor to any questions or comments.

All right, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council member Lin?

Yes.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Yes.

Councilmember Saka Councilmember Strauss Councilmember Hollingsworth Councilmember Kettle Council President Nelson aye A10 favor none oppose the bill passes and the chair will sign it will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf

Okay, and will the clerk please read item nine into the record?

The report of the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan.

Enchanted item nine, Council Bill 120-985 relating to the land use and zoning, repealing and replacing the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

Pursuant to a major update with new goals, policies, and elements, and a new future land use map, the committee recommends the bill passes amended.

All right.

Councilmember Hollingsworth is chair of the committee.

You're recognized in order to provide the committee report.

Awesome.

Thank you, council president.

Everyone wake up.

Y'all ready?

It started getting dark at 3.02 and it's been dreadful looking outside.

I'm going to just throw that out there.

But we're here and I'm happy to see all of the smiling faces here in our council chambers.

So colleagues, I'll keep my remarks short because I know you all didn't come to council meeting to hear me talk long, but I wanna emphasize how critical this legislation process was for the future of our city.

This council has a legacy, this council have a legacy of 20 year plan.

We have a wonderful honor and responsibility of amending our plans for transportation, parks, housing, arts, culture, and more.

And as the chair of this committee, I've led with a clear set of values I've expressed to each and every one of you, and you all have expressed to me how we are striving for a welcoming, affordable, accessible, livable, and safe city.

We have received and implemented feedback on how our community wants the city to look, feel, and adapt.

Now, I'm gonna be honest, we have a ton of more work to do, and there are several phases to this legislation to get through in the coming years, and we still need to strengthen it with our anti-displacement plan, tree canopy, diverse housing options, walkability, sidewalks, transportations, our baby's best interest policies, and everything that support and promote growth.

I'm proud of where this, and you all should be too, where this plan has landed.

It's a great starting point and I cannot wait to work on phase two and I really mean that.

So thank you council members for your thoughtful amendments.

Thank you residents for bringing us your wonderful ideas and also most importantly for holding us accountable.

the things we will approve on and I will say this on the dais and I mean it because we will do it next year is we will have better outreach to everyday people from our department to I know our office as well to make sure that people's voices are heard and we get everyone's voices across the city that is really important and also to colleagues I've enjoyed working on this with you and all the comments and conversations that we've had working in your office late nights Everything from start to finish, I've really enjoyed it.

And we've had hard conversation colleagues and I'm looking forward to us passing this today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that introduction.

So, just a second, please.

Is there anything that we need to be, okay.

All right.

Do my colleagues have any questions or comments going forward?

Oh, I need to move my amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Please, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, I'm going to move.

So those comments were the final comments, but I have some amendments that we have.

That was a great introduction.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 120985 as presented on Amendment A on the agenda.

Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment A.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, you're recognized if you would like to say anything more about it.

I do, because it's the amendment and I want to thank you all real quick.

We had a conversation yesterday and I want to thank you all for us doing a deep dive in this amendment during the council briefing and thank you colleagues for your engagement and conversations.

We had robust conversations in our briefing and this amendment obviously is to protect the historic central district lines.

You all know that this is a hill I'm willing to die on no matter what I put my flag in the ground, and so I really respect everyone's opinion today and everyone's vote, and we've had conversations about it, so thank you all.

Just to put it in perspective, because some people ask, the entire city is 53,000 acres.

This is 99 acres, 0.2% of the city, which comes out to 10% of the regional center.

This is the first step in which I am trying to make sure that that zone turns into an urban center.

So everyone knows my intentions.

I put this in the resolution to make sure that we are besides protecting the historic central district that we were making sure that we have anti-displacement plans and also the people that have been redlined in certain areas.

It means a lot to them to have certain boundaries in place.

I have no problem with areas being up-zoned in the city as long as we're designating certain lines and having the correct names on stuff.

Names and lines mean a lot to people and I think that's really important as well.

I've also been very, very transparent of bringing this amendment back.

I told people months ago that I would bring this back, so everyone knows that I brought this back as well.

And last but not least, I will be posting these full comments on my social media, particularly the comments I made in September, and also these comments as well, so people aren't picking and choosing what I'm saying here on the dais as well, that there is a complete record of what I'm saying fully, so people understand my intentions.

and they also understand my goals and outcomes to this amendment.

So no one is accusing me of anything.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there other questions, comments?

Okay, the amendment has been addressed and I'll simply say that this amendment will make an important future map change possible.

And so I know Council Member Hollingsworth that you really listen to your constituents and in your district and I know that you really care about Truly representing them and so I just wanted to say thank you for modeling and what a council District representative is supposed to do is just get get in there and really work through these things you and also I would say Your work on the comp plan in general was That was Class A, but I also note that in the midst of all of that process, you really did also have to really pay attention to what was going on in your own district.

So thank you for that.

Are there other comments or questions?

Councilmember Kettle, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Council President.

I just wanted to thank Council Member Hollingsworth and I think it's important to note that I recognize all the different pieces that I've noticed within the comprehensive plan, you know, actions taken by Council Member Hollingsworth to further her community, the Central District, District 3, and moving it forward.

I've seen this in budget as well and there's been some other little pieces that, you know, I see that, you know, the work that she's doing and moving forward on accomplishing her goals.

I do support this as a resolution and the only reason, hesitancy in terms of what will explain my vote is the legal risk as I was advised.

So again, totally support the effort, all the other different pieces, the comprehensive approach that you're taking.

and we'll support this in resolution, not here only because of the legal risk considerations that have been presented to us.

So thank you again and I look forward to supporting this through resolution and into the future.

So thank you.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

Through you to sponsor the amendment, can you please share with us if this amendment passes, how will we approach the zoning in this area next year?

Thank you, Council Member Strauss for that.

May I, Council President?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss for that question.

Let me back up here.

My original amendment was to restore an area that was neighborhood residential.

Further talking to people and understanding, we withdrew that, and our original intent was to make that area be an urban center.

we received information that because we did not post a 30-day notice to community, that that would put the entire comprehensive plan in jeopardy.

So we withdrew that.

This amendment does not.

There is some legal risk, and I understand that, but this does not jeopardize the entire comprehensive plan.

The intention behind this, the second phase to this, is during phase two of the comprehensive plan, is to then post a 30-day notice for us to upzone that area, particularly for that to be the Central District Urban Center.

So that is 10% of the regional center that would be returned to the Central District urban center that would not remain a neighborhood center.

It would be an urban center.

So this is the first step to be able to do that.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Hopefully that answered your question.

Thank you.

Yes, it does.

Just to say that this is one step in a two-step process and that there will be increased zoning from your perspective brought forward next year in this area.

Is that a correct summary?

Correct, there is no intention for me to have the urban center with a neighborhood area next to a regional center.

Our goal is to have it side by side to have a regional center next to the urban center central district and this is the first step so we can do a 30 day notice to the public so they know our intentions.

Thank you, I'll just pontificate that I believe that this error by OPCD was made by people who live in North Seattle that don't understand the central district boundaries.

That's a personal opinion.

With that, I will just say that I would have loved to have all of this wrapped up, but it's more important to serve the people of our city than it is to rush legislation.

I'll be supporting your amendment today because I know that we will be taking this up next year.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Chair Hollingsworth for bringing this forward.

And in the interest of transparency to the public, I used to live in this little area that we're considering right now.

It's a wonderful spot.

And to just preface my comments, I would say that Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan.

I voted no on all amendments that would reduce neighborhood center, urban center, regional center borders, because I believe that the current state that we were in with the housing crisis necessitates us to take bold action to ensure that we are able to build the housing that we desperately need.

So in that same spirit today, I'll be voting no on this amendment.

I appreciate the work you've done, Chair Hollingsworth, with community, and I look forward to working with you in enacting the docket resolution to ensure the central district is appropriately zoned within the central district urban center.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Looking twice?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Amendment A. Council Member Lin.

No.

Councilmember Rink?

No.

Councilmember Rivera?

Yes.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle?

No.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Five in favor, three opposed.

The motion carries and Amendment A is adopted.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 120985 as presented on recently distributed Amendment B version 2.

Second.

It's moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment B version two.

Council member Hollingsworth, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you colleagues.

And I want to thank council member Saka for his work and engagement on this.

And I'm actually going to defer to him for him if that's okay on this amendment.

I know I'm the sponsor of it, but we work closely hand in hand with his office to make sure that we had the technical information correct on this amendment.

And also too, that we were keeping the intent of the original language as well with transportation.

So council president, if it's okay, I would like to defer my time to council member Saka.

Council member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Just first off, I want to thank Councilmember Hollingsworth for her leadership and her partnership in developing this amendment.

The original amendment, so I'm the architect's colleagues, as you'll recall, of many, most of the substantive transportation-related comp plan amendments.

the original amendment as proposed by law, that was proposed by law when I was at the drafting stage and I intentionally rejected that.

It completely frustrated and rendered obsolete the important and compelling policy goals and justifications for putting forth the underlying amendment and gutted it to a point where where it was totally untenable, but as a fellow lawyer, I understand where they're coming from and legal risk and potential legal risks, I should note.

and the underlying issue is 100% a policy decision that we as council are empowered to make.

And I think there's a way for us to address all the disparate needs and considerations.

And by putting a firm target date, I think that gets us there.

And for us, to live up to these standards.

I think composite pavement condition index, PCI, I think.

I can't remember if that's the subject of the amendment or if it's asset sustainability ratio.

There are many ways to measure performance of roads, but in any event, Common Sense Amendment.

I want to thank Council Member Hollingsworth for her partnership and collaboration and willingness to learn and hear my perspective.

And because, you know, I always want to do the same with her and her terrific team.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any other hands raised.

I support this amendment.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment B version two.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and amendment B to version two is adopted.

All right.

Are there any further amendments on the bill as amended?

I mean, are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth for leading us through a comprehensive process on the first phase of the comprehensive plan.

I'm speaking with a little bit of enthusiasm because like you, I noticed that we've been here for about three hours.

It's dark.

and it's a moment for us to liven up a little bit.

Yes, let the record reflect.

The streetlights came on before 3.30 p.m.

because it is stormy and it's dark.

So let's liven this up a little bit so we can get out of here with a little bit more enthusiasm.

Seriously, Council Member Hollingsworth, you stewarded a very good process.

It is very challenging to bring everyone's work together into a collaborative manner, and you were successful in that.

I learned a lot from you watching this process, which is why our budget process went better, because I got to use some of the tricks and tips and tools that you used to improve our own process.

So thank you.

and I want to thank colleagues, all of you for your partnership in this years long process to approve this phase of the comprehensive plan in House Bill 1110. This also goes to the lawyers who did not like all of the questions I asked and central staff who worked on more amendments than I believe any other council member put forward.

Thank you for all of your work.

Those That high number of amendments came because I worked with hundreds of people, thousands through the engagement of my office, but many, many people one-on-one, whether it was going through meetings at my district office, walks around their neighborhood, coming back together around the conference table with maps and highlighters and pens and then having the amendments published and then having a survey to get people's feedback on that and then only bringing a few more amendments.

While OPCD was not able to engage those residents as directly as I was, I was just happy to do it.

This is what engagement looks like.

Engagement is not a one-time meeting.

It is a repeated, it is a repeated partnership that continues.

And so again, I wanna thank all of those neighbors who walked with me in the rain, came to the meetings late at night at the district office or filled out that survey.

Because of all of this collaboration we have before us today, legislation that will immensely expand our ability to build housing, combat climate change and create more opportunities for small businesses.

Let's also be clear our work on the comprehensive plan isn't done.

We've got more conversations regarding phase two to come and because of the limitations of the initial environmental impact statement we are passing a resolution that will conduct the additional studies to let us look at expanding housing opportunities even more in the future.

I look forward to meeting with our residents on that similar cadence as we did in phase one.

And I just wanna share my gratitude across the board.

Now I wanna talk about trees.

So I'm gonna shift gears a little bit.

In 2019, I was proud to help craft the resolution that set the pathway for passing the tree ordinance.

From 2020 to 2022, I pushed our city to put forward the tree ordinance and to transmit it to council.

In 2023, the tree protection ordinance was transmitted to council.

And my apologies, I'm just bringing up some of my other notes right here to make sure that I've got some accuracy.

So from 2020 to 2022, I pushed our city to transmit the ordinance.

And in 2023, we finally received the ordinance.

We then had it in committee and after eight committees.

So again, for the record, it was sent to city council on March 21st, 2023. And I made a public announcement ahead of that, outlining the schedule in which we would take up the tree ordinance.

We had committees on I'm gonna get even the subject matters.

So on Tuesday, March 21st, we had the introduction referral to the Land Use Committee.

On Wednesday, March 22nd, we had a policy discussion and an overview of the entire bill.

On Wednesday, March 29th, we had a policy discussion on the tree protections and tree protection standards.

On Friday, April 7th, we had a policy discussion on the tiers of tree protections, budget allocations and central staff analysis.

We then waited until Friday, April 21st to vote on a substitute bill that enacted collaborative changes.

On Monday, April 24th, we had a public hearing on the changes.

On Wednesday, April 26th, we had a vote on amendments.

And then on Thursday, May 4th, we voted on more amendments.

My apologies here.

and then we voted the bill out of land use committee.

I'm going to double check these.

So we voted the bill out of the land use committee on March 4th and then we waited 19 days and had the vote at city council on March 23rd.

after those eight committee meetings, 10 total meetings and waiting 19 days between committee passage and full council consideration, we received opposition from the Urban Forestry Commission in the last 48 hours before final passage, despite the Urban Forestry Commission being invited to all committee meetings as participants at the committee table and having the commission participating at the committee table for most of those meetings.

During the tree protection ordinance, I stated that I would bring fixes that I saw needed to be done to the ordinance.

As passing this ordinance, some folks had waited 20 years.

It was more important to pass the ordinance that did most but not all because we couldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

So in 2023, I saw fixes that needed to be made and I stated I would bring them.

I've been disappointed in the last two years with the lack of collaboration which is why I put forward the amendments during the comprehensive plan process.

This represents my package of fixes to the 2023 tree protection ordinance.

As I stated during the amendment process, tree protections should be taken into consideration as a standalone issue, not in the comprehensive plan.

Without the option of collaboration, I created my five amendment package improving tree protections in Seattle.

Amendment 92 was similar to amendment 91 that passed, which would give bonuses for housing with stacked flats if they protected a tier one or tier two tree.

Amendment 100 required a minimum planting of trees on parcels being developed with no excuses.

Amendment 103 did not pass, which would protect large trees outright that are located within five feet of the corner of a property.

Amendment 104 protects large trees by reducing other city requirements that would otherwise make removing a tree inevitable.

And I did withdraw Amendment 106, which was similar to the one that did pass.

My amendment would have reverted the tree protection area to what was originally proposed in the 2023 ordinance.

Colleagues, this represents the package of fixes to the 2023 tree protection ordinance.

And if we had a standalone process, we could have had a more productive conversation.

Alas, that did not occur.

And at this time, I will pass the baton to someone else to take up tree policy from here.

Thank you, colleagues.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, this bill, this comprehensive plan, places our city on our toes to achieve our goals in housing production, in building homes.

I believe this bill will help our city become the city it can be, and the city that we need it to be.

I recognize the differing opinions.

Trust me, I heard them all.

On the bill, on its amendments, and also on the process.

It is very complex.

and I recognize this has been a challenge and that it's been difficult, but I wanna thank a number of folks or groups, my District 7 Neighborhood Council that stood up and participated and reached out into communities and all the organizations within, but also various other organizations and individuals that stood up to comment on this legislation, on this comprehensive plan, or to meet me in community and to do a neighborhood walk.

and also the executive.

I recognize there's been differing opinions, but I had fruitful and positive meetings with OPCD in terms of District 7 and neighboring issues, so I wanted to thank them as well.

At the end of the day, I just want to close by thanking my team for all the effort that they put in.

My Chief of Staff, Steve Smith, Policy Director, and Brent Lowe, my district director, who's engaging a lot of these individuals, Rebecca Duran and Sarah Hanneman, who's come on a senior policy event and became like a point person on the comprehensive plan.

kind of motioned over to Council Member Hollingsworth.

I want to thank her and her team who I see out in chambers as well.

Yes, and for their work because again, this is not easy.

It's something that you stood up and took on.

And so I want to thank Council Member Hollingsworth and in support of her team and for getting the job done.

Thank you so much.

Council President.

Thank you very much.

Let's see who's next.

Councilmember Salkot.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I'll be brief, colleagues.

You're all looking at me like, yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

Good news is I don't need to vigorously disagree on...

I think this is something we can all be proud of.

And so I just want to take this moment to express my gratitude and appreciation, first and foremost, the community, members of the community, members of the public who came, oftentimes coming in person, testifying, showing up, sharing your emails, your letters, your documentation, hard copies of which were placed in the thing that were later sent out to all of us, meeting with our offices, my office on District 1 aspects, All the advocacy, all the advocates that were behind this whole effort just sincerely wanna thank you all.

It's a lot of work and I think this package for this phase is ultimately a better package because of the various advocates that were involved.

So thank you.

Also, special thank you to Chair Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth, for your leadership, for your stewardship of this whole process.

I think, simply put, you put on a clinic for all of us to learn from and incorporate lessons learned in our own, as we lead our own various committee work or select committee work on a going forward basis.

You were very collaborative, exceptionally collaborative, and ensuring that as many community voices as possible were heard and reflected in our process.

Bang-up job, exceptional work, and I'm thankful for you and your office.

I also wanna thank your entire office staff, starting with Alex, Nina, Cameron, Yonin as well, but Alex in particular, kudos.

My office really, really appreciated working with you in particular, but Councilmember Hollingsworth, your whole office, Alex did an amazing job.

And can't express thanks without shouting out my own D1 office team.

Chief of Staff Elaine Coe, District Affairs Director Eric Schmidt and Office Scheduler extraordinaire Logan Dooling.

Thank you, thank you for your tremendous contributions to this plan and the success of this plan and special shout out in particular to Elaine Coe who spent countless hours on a very complex technical set of work streams.

So thank you, and that's my comments for all the remaining bills too, so just one.

But again, kudos to Chair Hollingsworth for all your hard work and successes in getting us to this point.

Thank you.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm going to take a note from Councilmember Strauss and keep the energy up.

The dark is getting to me.

Hi, everybody.

This is an exciting day, and I want to join in the chorus of folks who are giving their thanks to Chair Hollingsworth for shepherding this process.

Thank you to you and your team for shepherding a fair and incredibly challenging process, but one that you all handled with a lot of grace through all of our ebbs and flows.

So thank you to you and your team.

Thank you to our central staff, Lish, Ketel, HB, I don't know where it'd be without you.

Thank you to my lead staff in my office, Caden Cook, for shepherding the amendments that represented my office's priorities in this process.

And thank you to every neighbor who invited my office to walk their block.

to every neighbor who came out and provided public comment, took the time to send an email, thank you to every organization who took the time to develop a position on the comp plan, and thank you to the coalitions who also spent time developing recommendations for us to take up.

When I talk to our neighbors about the comp plan, I often say that it's the wonkiest thousand-page document that has such a deep impact on our day-to-day lives.

Because at the heart of this, the comprehensive plan is about how we will live our lives, where people can live across our city, how we will ultimately move through our city.

and it represents our shared future.

And this update to our comprehensive plan represents such an important start in our work to make Seattle a more affordable place to live while also reconciling with our racist history of land use policy in this city.

and we have so much more work to do from this point.

The docket resolution, which we'll take up next, is evidence of the need to continue moving work forward in our housing opportunity goals, and I'm very much looking forward to working through phase two and phase three, implementation of the state transit-oriented development law, and so much more.

but all in all, this comp plan update is certainly a step in the right direction and represents a lot of people power and work and hard conversations and I wanna thank everyone who's been a part of this.

Thank you.

Council member, I don't know who had their hand up, Lynn or Rivera first.

Council member Lynn.

Thank you, President Nelson.

Just want to say thank you to everyone.

I did not really have the chance to work on this other than testifying along with many others.

Thank you to all the advocates here.

This is a momentous day.

And I do think this is an opportunity.

The reason we are in the position we are in today because around affordability, around homelessness, around unsafe streets, is because of mistakes that we have made in the past.

And this doesn't solve all of those mistakes, but I think this puts us on a better path, moving in the right direction.

I don't mean to somber the mood too much, but this past weekend we lost the life of a bicyclist on Beacon Hill, and that was pretty devastating for our community.

If we want to make real progress on Vision Zero, we have to think about how we're addressing our built environment, how we're building dense walkable neighborhoods with good infrastructure, for pedestrians, for bicyclists, and that we're transitioning away from our over-reliance on vehicles as a primary mode of transportation.

And again, you know, not perfect, but this starts to get us on the right path.

We've got a lot more work to do.

And just want to, again, give kudos to everyone who's put in the incredibly hard work for this.

So thank you.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

I made most of my remarks back when we passed this out of committee, so I'll just say I want to thank again our colleague, Councilmember Hollingsworth, for her partnership and stewardship of the comprehensive plan to get us to this point.

It was not a small feat.

There was a lot that you did, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

You really are such a joy, pun intended, to work with and your team as well.

And I really think this process went so, so as smoothly as it possibly could have been because of your stewardship of it.

So I really just want to recognize you and thank you for that.

I want to thank your team.

And then I'd like to thank obviously my staff, all our LA's help us do all the work that we do every day.

Nick and Jacob and Wendy and in particular Wendy because she was tasked with the comp plan and working with all the constituents.

I want to thank all the constituents who we heard from and partnered on this and who we've heard from in general and who came out to give testimony we really it is part of our responsibility to listen to all our constituents as we're doing this work as district representatives and of course we need to listen to the populace at large that is our job as elected officials so I really want to thank everyone who engaged and obviously also our central staff because the marrying of all the amendments into this document before us today was no small feat so really want to thank So thank Lish and HB and Ketel for all that hard work.

And just thank all of you for the engagement on this comprehensive plan.

I'm looking forward to it getting certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council to the next steps and so that we're able to meet the Growth Management Act requirements for this.

And I think today's vote is what is going to get us there next.

So thank you very much.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you.

I was remiss to not share my appreciation for the one person that got all of the work done in my office, Anthony Rodriguez, who walked every rainy step with me every evening with residents, made sure we had different colored markers so we didn't get confused, and most importantly, worked with central staff to get all of my, I think, nearly 30 amendments across the finish line.

Thank you, Anthony.

Great work.

I'll just say briefly that this is a long time in coming.

We've been working on this pretty much all year.

I think our first meeting was, I don't remember, maybe February, end of January.

But the point is we're about to make the largest change in Seattle zoning maps in decades.

So we are meeting the moment of our growing city and hopefully by extension our affordability crisis.

One cannot say that zoning results in more affordability, but I will firmly believe that the more housing we have, the more choice people have and that is good for our city and will hopefully give people of all incomes more choice.

So what we're doing is addressing a housing crisis here and we don't have enough for the people that want to live here and let alone the people that plan to come to our city.

So we must, of course, expand our development capacity.

I'm just saying the bottom line purpose of this legislation, and we'll get into obviously all of the height restrictions where the real fund starts, deciding how high buildings are, what views might or might not be cut off that I will, I'll leave that work to you all.

But I do want to note, since I have the opportunity to note that we also have to better align our goal for more housing with our regulations.

We do not want to inhibit once we allow for the capacity the actual construction.

Construction's costs are extremely high.

Seattle has gone far over the state green energy requirements.

There is now a requirement that there has to be a cost benefit, but we always have to be thinking about affordability in the end.

in the end.

We have to think about elevator requirements, condo liability laws, high taxes across the board for developing above the prescribed zoning, not just in certain neighborhoods.

But most importantly, we have to think about how we are really trying to meet our policy goals with what we write down on paper and what we get in this plan.

So I just wanna thank all the hard work that went into this and note that even when it comes to, as Sharon Lee would say, one of our partners in affordable housing, we do have to think about whether or not we're making it easy for landlords to operate apartment buildings here or affordable housing providers.

Keep those things in mind as well, because providing for capacity if housing doesn't get built is a problem.

So I just want to say, of course, I'm excited to be taking this major step forward with you.

And thank you very much, Chair Hollingsworth for leading us all along the way.

Thank you.

Okay.

I don't see any other.

Would you like to have the last word?

If I may, Council President, thank you.

Just want to thank our staff, our team, Alex, Kim and Nina for all of your hard work.

I really appreciate y'all.

Y'all know how much I care about you and just really thankful for all your engagement and central staff, Lish, Ketel and HB.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Council member Lynn.

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Aten, favor, none opposed.

as amended passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

All right.

Will the clerk please read item 10 into the record.

Agenda item 10, Council Bill 120993 relating to land use and zoning implementing a major update of neighborhood residential zones and modifying development standards and other zones to comply with various state laws.

The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Hollingsworth is chair of the committee.

You're recognized in order to present.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 120993 as presented on amendment A on the agenda.

Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment A. Council Member Hollingsworth, please go ahead.

For the record, it's almost dark.

Okay, so wake up everyone.

We are still here.

House Bill 1110 is, we are almost on the finish line.

So colleagues, this bill is a collection of technical amendments that central staff and we have discussed.

You all received those versions.

It's technical amendments to make sure that we are cleaning up House Bill 1110. we would urge your vote on this.

And if you have any questions, more than happy to answer them.

And I believe we have central staff in the audience, but we had a presentation yesterday to address some of those questions.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there any comments on the bill, on the amendment?

Okay.

Will the clerk, I support the amendment of course, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment A.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.