Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan 9/18/25

That would be amazing.

Hey, good morning.

The September 18, 2025 meeting of the Select Committee of the Comprehensive Plan will come to order.

The current time is 9.36.

I am Joy Hollingsworth.

I am chair of the committee.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Rink.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Councilmember Sacca.

Here.

Councilmember Salomon.

Councilmember Strauss.

Here.

Councilmember Juarez.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Here.

Seven present.

For the record, Council Member Solomon is excused and Council Member Rink is excused.

Can we take the roll one more time, please, clerk?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Council Member Strauss.

Here.

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Here, and Councilmember Rank as well.

Will you please call Councilmember Rank for the role?

Councilmember Rank.

Present.

Ape present.

Thank you, and for the record and note, Councilmember Solomon is excused.

We will now consider the agenda.

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

Hearing none and seeing none, the agenda is adopted.

So good morning, everyone.

Today, just a heads up, well, we're happy to be here today as always, and we're gonna have a great day.

It's a great day to be a council member.

Today, we're only gonna be accepting written public comment.

Please drop off written comments at the front of chambers or send us your thoughts on the comprehensive plan.

You can do that at council at seattle.gov.

Today, we have a full agenda and a full day, council members, so really excited to get this process started.

We will be tackling amendments for the individual vote.

As a reminder, we split these amendments into three categories.

We voted yesterday on the chair's package, as well as any amendments that were pulled out of the consent package as well.

So we voted on those yesterday.

Day two, we are voting on individual amendments that were not included in the consent package.

These are for various reasons.

Maybe someone asked that the amendment be more discussed, more than one person asked that, wasn't sure how council would feel about it after talking to different council members and understanding their values and what they wanted.

And then also, if you propose Boundaries that are different, are different amendments that the boundaries of neighborhood centers, regional centers or urban centers that were changed.

And we also have a resolution and we will be talking about that more later.

We will now begin the discussion on the amendments as follows.

Council members will move their, this is how today is going to go, council members will move their amendments.

After receiving a second, central staff that we have here will provide us an overview of that amendment.

And just to confirm that overview of that amendment, we'll have that on the screen as well.

So you will be able to see it on the screen.

I know you all have a bunch of papers in front of you, but we'll be able to see it as well.

The sponsor will then address that amendment.

Members will have an opportunity to comment before a vote on each amendment.

Just a heads up, we have 40 plus amendments.

And so We're going to have to get through them.

So I kindly ask that we kind of keep our comments.

I'm not telling you how long you should take, but we just kind of keep our comments condensed as best as possible.

But please, this is for our open discussion about different amendments.

These steps will be repeated to each proposed amendment.

The order of the amendments will be considered in numerical order.

Amendments that conflict with each other will be considered last.

We asked central staff to go and look at the amendments that could potentially conflict with each other so we can vote on those last because I didn't want us to go through numerical order and you saw one amendment that was in higher numerical order and one that was lower and they might conflict with each other and it would have got confusing.

So I asked central staff to pull those out and we will vote on those after we go through the amendments in numerical order.

I will pause here to see if anyone has any questions.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

So where are, apologies, I don't have, I have the memo that has the order by the bill, but I don't seem to have the sheet with the reordered, the ones that got reordered, the pulled for later.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we will go, that's fine.

We will go one by one through.

There wasn't a sheet that was made.

Let me repeat.

There wasn't a sheet that was made that showed those pull.

We'll go through each amendment.

I think what would be helpful is that when we reach an amendment that might have been pulled, and I think that we only have two that go in conflict with each other for the comp.

So let me tell you what those two are.

Give me one second.

34 and 50. 34 amendments.

34 and 50 are conflicting.

Not conflicting, but they...

What's the...

Only one option can be adopted.

Only one option can be...

So 34 and 50, council members, 34 and 50, will be voted on at the end.

34 and 50. So if you go ahead and write those numbers down, I feel like a bingo caller.

34, 50. I did not say 42, no.

34 and 50. 34 and 50. Thank you, Chair.

Amendments, 34 and 50. Lish, go ahead.

So Amendment 34 includes a version of a Nickerson Neighborhood Center, and Amendment 50 includes a different version of Nickerson Center.

There's no East Ballard Neighborhood Center proposed as part of Amendment 34, so there's no conflict there.

Thank you, Mr. Whitson.

I was thinking about another conflict which will come up in the discussion.

All right, thank you.

Awesome.

So are we all on the same page there?

It's 34 and 50. Those two amendments will be voted on the end.

For now, we'll go through numerical order one by one.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chair.

Absolutely.

Other bill for House Bill 1110, there are a number of amendments that conflict, and I will ask staff for us to be able to get a sheet so we can make sure we follow along for that.

But right now, we'll address this one first, okay?

Awesome.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay, so.

I asked, I have letters, I have numbers on my sheets right now, and I still lost my place.

Would you like me to read into the record?

Yes, please read item number one into the record.

Thank you.

Agenda item one, Council Bill 120985 relating to 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 for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Awesome, thank you.

And we will continue our discussion of amendments to Council Bill 120985. That is the comp plan, starting with amendments listed for individual votes.

As I said, then amendments for potential conflict.

So now I'm going to ask council members, so we're going to start with number seven, and Council Member Rink, you are recognized as sponsor of number seven to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 as presented on Amendment 7.

Second.

It's been moved in second to amend council bill as presented on amendment seven.

Central staff, please provide an overview of the amendment.

Thank you.

Lischwitz and council central staff.

Amendment 7 amends a few policies in the land use element of the comprehensive plan to remove policy direction that leads us to require off-street parking spaces to be developed.

In particular, it removes policy LU 5.1, which says that we will use minimum parking requirements where appropriate, And LU 5.2, which says that we will set minimum parking requirements where they are implemented.

And then sort of expands the impact of policy LU 5.3, which says avoid setting minimum parking requirements for housing.

Awesome.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Rink, as sponsor of this amendment, you have the floor to address it.

Thank you, Chair.

Parking mandates are just that.

Mandates.

An arbitrary number with no scientific backing that harms our ability to build housing that's affordable.

Parking is important.

Don't get me wrong, please, before you all come at me.

Parking is important.

Deliveries, priority parking for folks with disabilities, our elders, loading and unloading zones and more are still essential.

And I will add that as someone who chooses not to own a car voluntarily, I know it isn't for the faint of heart, but I know I represent 20% of Seattle households that now live car-free.

And we know in order to achieve our climate goals and our Vision Zero goals, We need to be working to get more folks out of cars, walking, using our transit system, and biking.

And so we need to be taking steps in order to be moving towards that future.

And this means removing the mandate we've put on builders and housing providers to expect more cars than are needed.

There was actually some recent data that came out that over the past five years car ownership in Seattle has remained roughly stagnant and has not grown despite our population growth.

I think this is a fantastic sign moving forward but should require us to think a little bit more critically about how we are planning for parking in this city because parking artificially inflates costs for projects causing higher housing prices.

But I want to be clear that this is not an end to parking whatsoever.

It's an end to parking mandates.

Builders and housing providers will continue to meet demand for parking in their projects as needed.

And it makes sense because units with parking make developers a lot of money.

And in an Eco Northwest study we received in February, the findings concluded the addition of off-street parking on average increases the median price of attached housing by $26,000 to $116,000.

Depending on if parking is a surface spot or a garage.

And for rental properties, the cost of parking construction and the maintenance are built into the rent, whether you're parking on site or not.

And for those who do, they'll pay a parking fee, hundreds of dollars a month.

Parking mandates can also be a difference between a project moving forward or being scaled back or cancelled altogether, especially on smaller lots that would otherwise accommodate middle housing.

Large portions of the lot need to be paved for car storage and not housing.

And I'll also note that indirectly managing something is not as effective as directly managing it.

If we want to manage curb space, let's do it in a way that works by actually pricing curb space appropriately to ensure that we have it.

And we've been living under parking mandates for a number of years.

They haven't worked quite with how they've been sold.

There's this implied bargain that there will be plenty of space on the curb if there's enough off-street parking, but the curb always fills up first because that's the most convenient.

So with all that in mind, I hope you'll support Seattle in joining the ranks of cities big and small across the country, ending these mandates.

I want to also highlight the cities so far here in Washington that have ended mandates Spokane, Bremerton, Bellingham, Port Townsend, Bothell, and our neighbor Shoreline by ending this urban design, pseudoscience, and to cut the cost of housing construction in Seattle.

On a final note, I want to also note that this amendment is linked to Amendment 84 since the comprehensive plan has references to parking.

So if we were to remove these mandates in the comp plan and permanent House Bill 1110 legislation needs to reflect that.

Thank you for the time, Chair, and colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

I'm going to pause here to see if any of my colleagues have any questions or comments regarding Amendment Number 7. Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

On this amendment, colleagues, we do not have the level of public transit yet, as you all know, and families need cars in this city.

The city and the state both encouraged electric vehicles as a way to reduce our carbon footprint.

People have gotten on board.

We've got a lot of electric vehicles and they need parking.

I support, as someone like I've always said, didn't have a driver's license till I was 30 and I tried to use public transit as much as possible.

We still need to make sure that we have parking provided for the people that need to use it.

80% of the people need to use a car for one reason or another.

While I support the efforts to get people out of their cars wholeheartedly, we still are in a place where folks need parking in the city.

So for those reasons, I won't be supporting this amendment, but I don't want it to be said that I do not support climate goals.

I very much do.

That's why I have the amendments I have later on.

in today's list of votes, and I do support very much trying to get folks out of their cars as much as possible, and we'll continue to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council President Nelson.

This is a very worthy effort to address a very weighty policy concern.

And so I feel like this merits more discussion than we can have here.

Parking places, I'm told, underground parking places add about 45,000 to housing, to apartments in high rises.

It is very expensive and it raises the cost of housing.

At the same time, when I talk to neighborhood business districts, they're concerned about eliminating completely all parking without a seat at the table to discuss their needs for People to be able to park close to their businesses just to shop there and they're concerned that residents just end up parking on wherever and you know for and for too long for extended periods and we are still understaffed in parking enforcement.

So I am just signaling that I do I do think that we need to completely look at our parking policies.

However, right now, I feel like that is a conversation that merits having a full discussion with all parties impacted.

So I'm going to be voting no.

But thank you very much for at least signaling that this merits our attention.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

I first want to thank Councilmember Rink for your leadership in bringing this proposal forth, for seeing All of us as a city to have uncomfortable conversations about the role and relevance of cars in our city today and more importantly over the next two decades.

I am encouraged by some of the data that we have available in terms of overall car ownership rates At least not growing.

And as we build and grow and expand transit and improve our roads, I think we can expect to see that trend only increasing.

And so as chair of our transportation committee, I've also been keenly aware of some of the parking issues and concerns throughout our city.

And parking is actually one of the top constituent inquiries and concerns that we hear in our office.

It is compelling that removing this requirement could potentially lower development costs, which would also assist with housing goals, especially near transit.

That said, there's also a corresponding increase of a need for active on-street parking management, such as curb space, pricing permits, Basically, some spillover impacts.

And as we're moving towards fewer cars, which I strongly support, people who know how I get around know that I practice what I preach in terms of true multimodal transportation options.

But I've always maintained that we need to maintain our multimodal regional system.

I think it's a great idea What gives me some initial pause and concern is that it just hasn't gone through the level of review and study that some of the other concrete proposals are.

And that's why I'm comforted by the fact that it is in the companion resolution.

And once we have those requisite studies and analysis that the companion resolution calls on, I think our city will be well positioned to quickly implement.

But for now, for purposes of, Requiring this right now in the absence of any additional study analysis, I just don't think it makes sense at this moment in time.

But again, the companion resolution does call for the appropriate analysis.

But again, I want to thank you again for bringing this forward and forcing these important conversations.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

I'll pause here.

Is there any more additional comments on Amendment No. 7?

Seeing none.

As sponsor of Amendment No. 7, Council Member Rank, you were recognized for closing comments.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for your remarks and your consideration of this amendment.

to be included also in our companion resolution for further study.

All indicators have also noted, and as we've talked about in previous comp plan meetings, that something like this would have a positive impact on our environment given that we would be planning for having less cars.

To close, I'd say this isn't the end of Just to affirm any of the listening public, this doesn't signal the end of parking.

I would love to have a continued discussion with this body about how we plan for parking in the future and the role of transit and that thoughtful planning, but hoping we can also keep an open mind for the future of the city.

I know I see families getting around every day.

The bus to work this morning, I saw a mom with her two kids with a stroller right on the G Line.

And so families can get through town using transit as well.

I know it's a bit of a process to think through mode shift as well, but hoping that we can be visionary and think about what that future could look like.

So colleagues, I ask for your support.

I appreciate your questions and your consideration.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Rank.

And we can start with fixing the late eight.

That is important.

Will the clerk please call the roll, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number seven?

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

No.

Council member Saka?

Nay.

Council member Strauss?

Abstain.

Council member Juarez?

No.

Council member Kettle?

No.

Council President Nelson?

No.

Chair Hollingsworth?

No.

One in favor, six opposed, one abstention.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

And we will now consider the next amendment.

Council Member Strauss, you are recognized to move amendment number eight.

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, colleagues.

I move amendment eight to Council Bill 120985. Second.

It's been moved in second to amend the bill as presented on amendment number eight.

Council central staff, please provide an overview of the amendment.

Land use policy 5.4 talks about using maximum parking requirements to discourage single occupancy of vehicle travel where appropriate.

This amendment would clarify that phrase where appropriate and say that maximum parking requirements should be applied in regional centers that are served by light rail.

We currently have maximum parking requirements in most of the regional centers that are currently served by light rail, but not all.

Thank you, Lish.

Councilmember Strauss, as sponsor of this amendment, you're recognized to address it.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I'll tell you, the first time I saw this policy used, I was pretty confused.

Why would you put a parking maximum somewhere?

It's not designed for...

If we were to build the Pacific Place shopping mall today, it's not designed for Pacific Place.

This is designed for parking garages because we have seen, in places where light rail serves an area, Specifically in the industrial zone, when we did the industrial maritime zoning changes a few years ago, Soto and Ballard both have industrial areas that would allow parking garages.

However, if a parking garage is built because there's light rail nearby, it's not the highest and best use of that industrial land.

I would also say that's true in our regional centers.

So the connection here is light rail and a regional center.

The policy decision here, outcome that we are working towards is to ensure that people will not buy large parcels and then develop it into solely a parking garage because it's already served by light rail.

That's what I got.

Thank you, colleagues.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I will pause here to see if anyone has any questions about the amendment before us.

Amendment number eight.

Well, I guess you explained that perfectly, Councilmember Strauss.

Or chair, everyone doesn't like it either way.

Okay.

I was trying to beat glass as half full.

Okay.

Councilmember Strauss, do you have any closing?

No chair.

Okay, awesome.

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

Councilmember Rank?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

No.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Six in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

Councilmember Saka, you are recognized to move your amendment number 24.

Thank you so much, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 with Amendment No. 24.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on Amendment No. 24. Central staff, please provide an overview of the amendment.

Economic Development Policy 4.3 talks about workforce development strategies.

This amendment would focus that policy, provide more of a focus on communities that have historically been impacted by disinvestment and environmental pollution, such as South Park and the Duwamish Valley.

and emphasize hiring local residents as part of those workforce development programs and try and partner workforce development with climate resiliency in those neighborhoods.

It also amends policy ED 4.6 in similar ways.

Councilmember Saka, as sponsor of the amendment, you are recognized to address it.

Thank you, Chair.

This simply enhances the existing economic development section on investing in talent and developing our workforce.

Colleagues in my own District 1 neighborhoods such as the Duwamish Valley, so South Park and Georgetown, have been disproportionately impacted by heavy industrial uses where the land was, in many cases, exploited and lots of profits generated But those profits were exported outside of the community.

And meanwhile, the community has languished and seen been disproportionately burdened by the impacts of some of that.

Industry and growth that our entire broader region benefited from.

So this really adds emphasis to addressing that as a policy value and statement, emphasizing things like hiring local residents and growing employment pathways to community members facing systemic barriers to employment.

Colleagues in every single council district that we have, there are communities that suffer from historical underinvestment and are disadvantaged in some way, although it is fair to say, in my opinion, that those districts south of the Ship Canal suffer the worst.

But this really benefits all districts, all communities when we center the experiences and try to correct for some historical wrongs and doing right by everybody.

So I ask for your support.

I think it's, again, a fairly straightforward policy and value statement.

Just as an aside, went through a few wordsmithing iterations with the city attorney's office, with our law department, rather.

And you'll see in the memo there are still some potential legal concerns.

I do strongly believe that the policy rationale and justification for this particular amendment outweighs any potential legal risk or exposure.

We need to stand up for our values.

We need to stand up for what we believe in.

We need to fight back.

And I don't care who's in office.

So I ask for your support.

Again, fairly straightforward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

I will pause here to see if anyone has any comments on amendment number 24. Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number 24?

Councilmember Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

Yes.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized to move your amendment number 33.

Thank you.

I move amendment 33 to Council Bill 120985.

It's been moved in second to amend the bill as presented on amendment number 33. Lish, all you.

So as council members know, the conference of plan includes new neighborhood centers, And includes policies about what sort of zoning is appropriate in those neighborhood centers.

This amendment would amend that language to state that buildings greater than six stories may be appropriate near light rail stations.

There are currently two neighborhood centers near planned light rail stations, none along the current light rail line.

And just to emphasize, this amendment has been updated since the original packet was released to focus on light rail stations.

Thank you, Lish.

Councilmember Strauss, as sponsor of this amendment, you are recognized to address it.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, this amendment...

First, I want to say I heard community feedback.

When we originally developed this amendment, It was really, for me, focused on light rail stations, neighborhood centers that have light rail stations, and the words and other amenities were included, and that's okay.

And I heard community feedback to say, that can open the door to X, Y, Z, fill in the blank.

And really, colleagues, that's why we changed this amendment, because it is so focused, again, on how are we building density near light rail?

This amendment before us is an allowance for buildings to be taller than six stories, not a requirement.

And Lish, can you remind me, is Pinehurst the only neighborhood center that will have light rail in this next year?

That's discounting ST3 expansion, which I'll get to in just a minute.

Pinehurst will be an urban center, not a neighborhood center.

The two on the future light rail West Yale-Ballard Line are Dravis and the Delward Station.

That's great.

And neither of those stations are planned to be opened for probably a decade.

And the reason that this is important to me is if we leave this comprehensive plan as it is and those light rail stations come online earlier, yes, I know that the news has just been about that it might take longer, but I will tell you here today there are ways that it might come faster.

If we were to create these neighborhood centers and then it would be served by light rail, that we would have to be able to build higher than six stories, we would have to come back and amend the comprehensive plan to then allow for that zoning change.

This amendment before us is a policy change across neighborhood centers to say that as light rail stations come on in that That neighborhood center would not have to amend the comp plan to be able to change zoning.

So again, not a requirement.

This is an allowance, and I'd love to earn your support.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Wuerz, you were recognized.

Oh, thank you.

I'll be very brief.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

So this is exactly what we've been talking about since 2014, 15. That's why D5 has two light rail stations in D5.

I know that Pinehurst Holler Lake was added as a urban center to the other 25, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So what we were dealing with, and again, I apologize, I wasn't here for a bit and now I'm back, but a lot of these conversations were still going on when I was here.

So I just want to thank Council Member Strauss because this is the stuff that we have been talking about since this became very fashionable about 15 years ago about transit-oriented development, transit-oriented housing.

And as someone who lives in D5, the density at Northgate has just exploded with affordable high-end market rate, low-income, you name it, and it's a really expanding neighborhood.

And so knowing that we have 1 30th coming online soon, with the Pinehurst Hollow Lake being added as an urban center.

And then looking at the other growth that we have going on, I would invite any of you who have not been up in D5 to come take a look.

And so I want to thank you for this.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I'll be supporting this.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Are there any other comments?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number 33?

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Seven in favor, one abstention.

And the motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the next amendment.

Council member Rink, you are recognized.

Oh, we are.

Oh, I'm tripping.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

That comes at the end.

You looked at me like, what?

Okay, I'm sorry.

So we are now on council.

Council member Saka, you're recognized to recognize amendment 35.

Thank you, chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 with amendment number 35.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend Council Bill 120985 as amendment number 35. Lish, thank you.

Yes.

Amendment 35 is the first of a number of amendments that adjust the boundaries of neighborhood centers.

This one is related to the Fauntleroy Neighborhood Center, currently in the plan is named Endalign, and it removes areas on the east and west of the neighborhood center from the neighborhood center boundaries.

Thank you, Lish.

Councilmember Saka, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment makes minor tweaks to the Fauntleroy Neighborhood Center that are specifically fine-tuned to the unique characteristics of this neighborhood without sacrificing the density and the housing we desperately need to address our housing and affordability crisis.

This amendment speaks to the often mentioned concerns sometimes that we hear from community that the executive departments Did the best they could when drafting the final proposed executive proposal.

But also that we know Seattle, there's no one size fits all approach.

It is impossible to know every single street, alley, all the unique physical characteristics and the thousands of blocks in our entire city that spans 84 square miles.

So there's two main aspects, dimensions to this amendment, if you will.

One is a very minor, non-substantive name change.

And then the other, it adjusts the boundaries with respect to the name change.

Strong community feedback, overwhelming feedback is that We know, at least in West Seattle, everyone commonly refers to this neighborhood as Fauntleroy, not Endline.

Like in Queen Anne, Upper and Lower, or Upper Fremont, there's an Upper Fauntleroy Neighborhood Center and now a proposed Fauntleroy Neighborhood Center.

A number of stakeholders, including the Fauntleroy Community Association, would have been named the Endline Community Association As an example, but it was specifically not, it has no material impact, just a minor name change.

The other piece of this proposed amendment, we adjusted two sections from the boundaries based on environmental and physical considerations.

Having walked this specific Proposed neighborhood center end-to-end, boundary-to-boundary alongside directly impacted residents and constituents.

I learned more firsthand about some of the unique characteristics of this area.

The streets along Fauntleroy and 47th are dead ends, and there are 1,500 Roughly 1,500 or so residents who are dependent on this roadway to Brace Point for access to and from their homes.

The choke points are that they are backed up solid traffic when the Fauntleroy Ferry is unloading, which has 1.7 million vehicles per year and is expected to increase by over 2 million in the next couple years.

I should also know in this specific area, This is the only ferry terminal, the Fauntleroy ferry terminal is the only ferry terminal in the entire state fleet inventory that unloads onto residential streets, residential streets.

Additionally, the streets are narrow and there is a concern to allow for quick fire truck and emergency vehicle access both in terms of ingress and egress vehicles are going through at the same time.

There are also major infrastructure projects over the next five years, including the Bracepoint underground cable replacement, Fauntleroy Creek culvert replacements, and Fauntleroy ferry terminal replacement, all with anticipated major disruptions.

Fauntleroy lies in a basin.

This is important.

Because environmental concerns are an important justification underlying this proposal.

Fauntleroy lies in a basin where the Barton Street pump station overflows into the neighborhood and further reducing permeable solid ground would exacerbate the drainage flooding and the city wants to protect the fragile watershed and has already committed millions to restoring access to the upper Fauntleroy Creek by salmon.

This unique urban ecosystem must be protected And similarly, the second component of this boundary adjustment deletes or actually respects property owned by Seattle Public Schools adjacent to the Fauntleroy Schoolhouse with many community uses year-round.

So, colleagues, I ask for your support on this today, having had the privilege of Learning directly from impacted residents and stakeholders, primarily within this area, in this neighborhood and its surrounding neighborhoods, but broadly, West Seattle more broadly.

And while nothing is unanimous, These issues literally impact people's everyday lives today.

And on a going forward basis, the overwhelming feedback that we heard was supportive of this.

So for those reasons, I ask for your support today, colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

I will pause here to see if anyone has any comments regarding amendment number 35. Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Councilmember Sacca for bringing this forward.

And I want to commend you for your engagement with this community in shaping this recommendation.

I just want to say that at the top, appreciate your engagement with impacted neighbors of the end of line.

I do have a couple of questions for Lish, if that's all right, just on some of the impacts of this.

Lish, given the neighborhood center size as a defined term in the plan, does this reduction raise any concerns about that?

Neighborhood centers are locally designated, and so there aren't any regional standards that this city needs to meet.

So the general standard that we have in the comp plan is an eight-minute walk, and this excludes some areas that would be an eight-minute walk from the center of the neighborhood center, and that's a policy decision about whether or not it's appropriate to remove those areas.

Understood.

Do we know the loss in zoning capacity under this amendment?

We do not have specific zoning proposals yet for all of these areas, and I don't have zoning capacity numbers for each neighborhood center at this point.

Okay, understood.

With that, that concludes my questions on this.

I will say my comments on this, and I think this relates to a handful of the amendments we'll be considering today that are changes in boundary size that could result in the loss in zoning capacity.

Generally what will be guiding my decisions on these amendments are a recognition that Seattle is in the midst of a housing crisis, a housing shortage.

And I will be a bit skeptical of any amendment that is reducing our ability to meet the needs of our city at this time.

So respectfully for those reasons, I will be not supporting this particular amendment today.

But again, want to commend the sponsor for his engagement with neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Council President Nelson.

Thank you very much.

I'll make this comment once since it applies to each of the next 13 amendments under consideration.

I was under the assumption that these small boundary changes would be included in the consent package because I wouldn't imagine opposition to a district representative's amendment to neighborhood center boundaries because they know what their constituents want.

But I feel like now that we are voting on them one by one, I am going to abstain because I have not had the time to go out and talk to the constituents and all the different neighborhood groups myself.

So I'm going to be abstaining from this vote.

And I just feel like I'm prioritizing what I see in what What I see as good governance on my part to weigh in on issues only when I'm extremely well informed.

So this is not an endorsement or opposition to the changes in these neighbourhood centres that we're going to be discussing today.

It's just a statement of sort of where I'm coming from on all of them.

So thank you very much for understanding.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

I'll pause here.

Is that an old hand, Council Member Rank?

Yes.

Okay.

Awesome.

No worries.

Is there any other comments regarding amendment number 35?

Council Member Saka, do you have any closing remarks?

No, that is all.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on amendment number 35?

Council Member Rank.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Epstein.

Councilmember Juarez.

No.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Three in favor, two opposed, three abstentions.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the next amendment.

Council Member Saka, you are, sorry, Council Member Saka, you are recognized to address your amendment.

All right, let me gather, reorient myself here for a moment, please.

Okay, we're on 36. Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 with Amendment 36.

Second.

It's been moved in second.

I'll second it.

It's been moved in second to amend Council Bill.

Amendment number 36. Lish, please dive in.

Amendment 36 adds one large block to the High Point Neighborhood Center.

The block is zoned neighborhood commercial and multifamily and includes the High Point Library on it.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized and addressed your amendment.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

So, colleagues, As I mentioned earlier, I had the pleasure of walking all the neighborhood centers, all nine proposed neighborhood centers, and additional four urban centers in my district, including this one.

And I made a number of, I think, fairly minor boundary tweaks to reflect those walks and to reflect the opportunity at hand.

In some cases, we paired back, as in the case of the recently adopted neighborhood center in Fauntleroy.

And in some cases, we actually expanded The neighborhood center boundaries.

And this is one of those examples where we expanded the boundary in High Point based off some community feedback.

And so really excited about this proposal and the possibilities that it unlocks for our city and West Seattle more specifically.

I ask for your support.

And again, some of my boundary proposals reflect Reducing the boundaries, scaling the back a little.

Some reflect expansion and together on balance, it reflects a balanced approach.

And in any event, ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Are there any other comments on this?

Council Member Rank.

I apologize.

I think that's an old hand.

I still need to take it down, but I will take this moment to say I will be supporting this amendment and again, want to thank the Sponsor for thoughtful engagement.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Are there any other comments on this?

Awesome.

Can we call the roll for amendment number 36?

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Seven in favor, one abstention.

The motion carries.

Amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

We are on amendment number 37. Council Member Saka, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, 37. I move to amend Council Bill 120985 with amendment 37.

It's been moved in second to amend Council Bill 120985 as amendment number 37. Central staff, will you please tell us what's going on the screen?

Yes.

The Morgan Junction Urban Center is proposed to be expanded under the One Seattle Plan.

This amendment would take off a couple of blocks on the west side of 45th Avenue Southwest, and remove them from the proposed expansion of the Morgan Junction Urban Center.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized to address your bill.

Thank you, Chair.

So colleagues, I again ask for your support on this amendment.

We made these tweaks in direct response to community feedback and concern, centering the Feedback of those most directly impacted in this neighborhood and West Seattle more broadly.

So we made some small tweaks, including to the sidewalk, curbs, no gutters, that are next to a ravine and very steep slope, very narrow streets.

And it's also impacted areas also considered environmentally critically area.

However, the current language for ECA and the plan, as I understand it, doesn't include steep slopes, although it is included in the state HB 111 or 1110 legislation.

Again, I walk this area firsthand alongside impacted residents and go there regularly.

It's a great place.

Come check it out.

And proud that this was recently supported by the Morgan Junction Community Association or the Morgan Community Association.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

I'll pause here to see if anyone has any questions or comments on item number 37. Council Member Rink.

Chair, thank you.

Sorry, just since there was a mention of an ECA list, could anyone provide some more detail on the ECA matter for this particular change?

On the ECA, I can pull up the city's maps.

It'll be just a second.

All right, so these are the blocks that we're talking about, and they are ringed by steep slope and landslide prone areas.

Yeah.

But they're not within those areas, it looks like, or it's just on the edge.

Okay, so there's no ECA located within the initially proposed neighborhood center area.

This is just in proximity to.

Am I understanding that correctly?

It abuts the ECA area.

The properties on Bell Ridge Place, which is this curved street here, some of them do appear to have ECA, steep slope ECA's on there.

Okay, understood.

Thank you for breaking that down.

List, you're amazing.

Thank you, thank you.

Colleagues, given just this element, for me, I'll be abstaining on this one, just related to the ECA concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Are there other comments regarding amendment number 37?

Okay, seeing none.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Rink.

Abstain.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed, two abstentions.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

I will recognize myself to move the amendment.

I move to amend Council Bill 120-985 as presented in amendment number 38.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on amendment number 38. Lisch, will you walk us through this amendment?

Yes, this amendment would modify the boundaries of the Madrona Neighborhood Center, placing them on 32nd Avenue and 35th Avenue or the alley just east of 35th Avenue.

I want to note that there is a minor error in the description.

I'm not copying and pasting various documents too quickly.

The description should read, amend the boundaries of the Madrona Neighborhood Center, not the Wedgwood Neighborhood Center.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lesh.

I'm going to recognize myself to address it.

I brought this amendment, heard directly from neighbors in Madrona, that were concerned about environmentally sensitive areas off of 35th.

They suggested an amendment that was well intended but would significantly limit our ability to build across the city.

And I honestly just wasn't comfortable making such a broad change to the entire city.

Instead, I chose to adjust a boundary to reflect the neighborhood concerns without compromising city planning.

This took a ton of meetings and engagement with folks, making sure that I can try to find common ground as best as possible.

The other piece is, and I believe it's on the east part.

Yeah.

East part, there were also several legacy black homeowners on the western edge.

So excuse me, eastern edge.

I felt strongly about to making sure that the boundaries reflected what their issues were as well as that is the lens that I'm always trying to look through diversity, equity and inclusion.

So thank you.

I made this decision and would love your support on the amendment and we'll engage any type of Conversation or questions about this amendment.

Thank you.

Okay.

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll to...

Oh, sorry.

Council President Nelson.

I just have to say that I did...

This seems to make sense because, and I haven't heard from all the groups, but I did, when one considers the steepness of those slopes going down there toward the lake, that's what I heard most concerned about.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other issues?

Okay, great.

So will the clerk please call the roll on item number 38?

Council Member Rink?

No.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Juarez.

No.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Four in favor, three opposed, one abstention.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We're now gonna consider the next amendment.

Councilmember Rivera, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 as presented on Amendment 39.

Second.

I'll just second, sorry.

It's been moved and second to amend Council Bill 120985 as amendment number 39. Lish, please walk us through the amendment.

All right.

This amendment would change the boundaries of the Bryant Neighborhood Center, removing areas on the north and west sides of the center and adding an area on the south side.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Rivera, as sponsors this amendment, you are recognized to address.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I'm going to speak to this and the next two amendments that also address boundary changes.

These three amendments are based on feedback from and in response to constituents in my district, including the ones that live in these neighborhoods.

They all make minor tweaks to these neighborhood centers.

I understand and support the creation of housing.

We know we need more housing.

We're all aligned on this goal.

And I know this density needs to and should be absorbed by all the districts, which is why I did not propose to remove any of the proposed centers.

I know that the proposals the city makes need to take into account the amenities and what's going on on the ground in those neighborhoods and working with constituents.

I do think some of the concerns around neighborhood center boundaries across the city could have been avoided if the department had done robust outreach, including to constituents they may have thought would not be supportive of these centers.

Some of the issues that came up downstream could have been avoided.

In my experience, it is critical to do the robust outreach to bring people along and also find areas of compromise.

Doing this outreach does not mean you cannot move forward with your proposals.

But it does give the opportunity to let people feel heard and, as I said earlier, find some compromise.

I hope that the department will take the time to hear constituents in the next phase of this work.

Thank you, Chair, and I will not, like I said earlier, speak individually to the other two because I brought them for the similar reasons.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

I'll pause here to see if there's any other person that has questions about this amendment.

Council Member Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Just looking at what's before us, and I'm roughly estimating just with my eyes when I've looked at this, this looks like a 50% reduction of the neighborhood center.

Am I seeing that correctly, Lish?

It is slightly more.

So 20 acres are being removed and 16 acres are being added.

I did not include the total area.

And of the 16 acres that are being added, this looks like Is this developable?

Sorry.

With the change, it would be 16 acres total.

So, yeah.

So it's a large reduction, and the areas that are added, are these developable areas?

Well, you can see park space here in green.

The rest are sites, I think, currently in multifamily use.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I just wanted to get a sense of the total amount of reduction area.

This is a large reduction to a neighborhood center that is in a high opportunity area.

So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this this amendment.

I understand the pain points around engagement on this.

I think we've all I've experienced a lot of tough neighborhood meetings and conversations in this, but it's important that we're growing housing opportunity, particularly north of the Ship Canal, and so I'm not in a place where I can be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Are there other council members that have any questions?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on, I lost our place, amendment number 39, sorry, my bad.

Amendment number 39, thank you.

Council member Rink?

No.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

No.

Council member Juarez?

No.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Three in favor, three opposed, two abstentions.

The amendment fails and will not be adopted, but will now consider the next amendment.

Council Member Rivera, you are recognized to move amendment number 40.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 as presented on Amendment 40.

Second.

It's been moved in second to amend Council Bill 120985, Amendment Number 40. Lish, take it away.

Yeah, apologies.

The computer is not playing well with me.

Let me...

So, Amendment 40...

Sorry, are we on...

We're on Amendment 40. Let's see if Amendment 41 will work in just a minute.

I skipped ahead.

So, Amendment 40 would remove areas from the Ravenna Neighborhood Center that are within the Ravenna-Cowen Park Historic District, generally south of 65th Street, northeast 65th Street.

Thank you, Lesh.

Was that it?

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Okay, Council Member Rivera, you are recognized to address your amendment.

I don't have further comments from what I made earlier.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there any questions regarding amendment number 40?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Rink?

No.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Juarez.

No.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Four in favor, three opposed, one abstention.

The amendment passes, motion carries, and the amendment is adopted.

We will now consider amendment number 41. Council Member Rivera, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 as presented on amendment 41. Second.

Oh, sorry.

I don't know why.

Sorry.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on Council Bill 120985 as amendment number 41. Let's...

Yeah, and bear with me for just a second.

So Amendment 41, I'm sorry, I published the wrong version in package and I'm pulling up the right version.

It amends the boundaries of the Wedgwood Neighborhood Center.

And it would remove areas generally east of 36th Avenue Northeast and west of 34th Avenue Northeast from the neighborhood center boundaries.

Thank you, Lish.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I don't have anything further from what I said earlier.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there any questions regarding amendment number 41?

Council Member Rank.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for affording me the time.

Lish, it's my understanding with this change in the neighborhoods that there would be 16.8 acres removed from this neighborhood center under this amendment.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Colleagues, I want to lift up my own engagement with the Wedgwood neighborhood, of course, with respect to the district council member, Councilmember Rivera.

Our office has had A lot of engagement with the Wedgwood community asking for expansions to Wedgwood.

I know we'll be talking about Amendment 34 later, talking about South Wedgwood.

But I would want to take a moment to champion, I've certainly heard from neighbors in the area, the desire to be growing and allowing for more housing opportunity in Wedgwood broadly.

And so I will not be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to make it clear that I had a lot of engagement with Wedgwood neighbors as well, and they were asking for a removal of the neighborhood center.

As I said earlier, I didn't remove it because I think all neighborhoods have to absorb density.

It is not right to remove centers from any part of the city, and also I think there's always room for compromise in working with the Wedgwood neighbors, so that's how we came up with this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Are there any other comments?

I think that was the last one because you are the sponsor of the amendment.

My apologies.

Okay.

Well, clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Rink?

No.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

No.

Councilmember Juarez?

No.

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Three in favor, three opposed, two abstentions.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

We will now consider amendment number 42. Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized.

Thank you, Councilman Chair Hollingsworth.

Would it be welcome if I moved all of my amendments and spoke to them all at the same time?

It would be incredibly nice of you to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, friend.

I move Amendment 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49 to Council Bill 120985.

I don't have a 46 or a 47. Or 43.

That's correct because I'm running off of an old list.

We have 42, 44, 45, 48 and 49. I move those amendments.

Awesome.

Okay, awesome.

I move to amend Council Bill 120-985, number 42, number 44, number 45, number 48, and 49. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved in second to amend those bills, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49-lish.

All right.

It's a big package.

Yes.

Amendment 42 adds a new East Ballard Neighborhood Center at the location of 65th Northwest and 8th Avenue Northwest.

It would also remove the neighborhood center, the Finney Ridge Neighborhood Center, which is about eight blocks east of this, at 65th and Finney Greenwood.

Amendment 42. Amendment 44 would expand the South Magnolia neighborhood center, the Magnolia Village neighborhood center, sorry, to the north and remove some of the area at the south end of the neighborhood center.

Amendment 45. Would shift the boundaries of the North Magnolia Neighborhood Center to the north, focusing along West Government Way and remove some of the areas to the south of West Emerson Street particularly.

Amendment 48 would expand the Upper Fremont Neighborhood Center to the north and west and remove a couple of blocks on the south side of the Neighborhood Center.

And Amendment 49, move a couple of blocks on the west side of the northwest Green Lake Neighborhood Center, add areas on the north side of the neighborhood center, and rename the neighborhood center from West Green Lake Neighborhood Center to Northwest Green Lake Neighborhood Center.

And that's it.

Thank you, Lish.

Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized to address all of your amendments.

Thank you.

And as Councilmember War has reminded me, five amendments, I did bring them down from 27, although I know I've got a couple others scattered throughout here.

First, colleagues, I'd like to talk about the process that I used to develop these proposals.

Last December, I met with residents of District 6 during office hours regarding all of the different neighborhood centers.

We met in groups.

In quarter one of this year, I did walking tours in all of the neighborhood centers.

We then, for the people in those neighborhood centers, came to the district office.

We sat around the conference table with large maps on the table and markers and drew up different options, all of which were taking into consideration the grid connectivity.

The right-of-way attributes, are they narrow, are they wide, et cetera, and the grade characteristics.

From there, we drew these different lines on the maps and that created my options A, B, and C amendments, which is why I had so many.

My office then sent out a survey.

We had 1,100 responses to our survey that was out during August.

I then met with residents again at the district office with maps and the survey results, which created the final amendments.

I'll be candid in saying many of the residents I met with would rather I remove the neighborhood centers entirely And did not necessarily sign off on these approaches.

There were also many people that said that the neighborhood centers needed to be larger.

And these proposals that you see today, I think, are the best proposals that we can provide at this time that take into consideration the grid connectivity, the right-of-way attributes, the grade characteristics.

and how the neighborhood will prosper, the best ability for the neighborhood to prosper in the future.

So talking real briefly, the Finney Neighborhood Center, as Lish mentioned, we moved it to East Ballard.

We also expanded Upper Fremont.

On the map here, you can see a small expansion to the Northwest Green Lake, as well as we docketed the Finney Neighborhood Center, the largest of the options for future study.

The grid connectivity and grade up there is not great.

65th is not properly aligned.

If you've ever been stuck on the hill looking at the espresso repair, you know what I mean.

I know people don't drive stick shift anymore.

People don't drive manuals, but that is a hill to learn on because if you can get in first gear at 65th and Finney, you know how to drive a manual.

Otherwise you're gonna, Bump into somebody behind you.

There is a flat top at the top of Finney area and it's bordered by steep slopes.

That connectivity is north and south.

And this area was chosen by OPCD over East Ballard because the five bus runs more frequently than the 28 express bus.

Lish, if we could move to East Ballard, I'll speak about East Ballard next, which is, again, it is easier to adjust bus service than it is to engage in a Denny regrade.

We're not going to knock down Finney Ridge.

This option is the smallest option of the three that I put forward.

And I chose to do so because we're bringing this back from one of OPCD's first studies.

And the docketed version of this is the largest version.

So in here, the grid, it connects three different grids.

This was the border of Ballard many, many years ago.

The right-of-way characteristics are odd because division in Cleopatra are very narrow with the frontages.

Not on 8th.

We have in the center here, you can see a Goodwill, three empty lots, although one is a parking lot.

And sorry, I just lost my spot.

As well as it's near a former trolley line, which means that this area already has outside of these borders already have duplexes, triplexes and small apartments that are not allowed to be built today.

This East Ballard is a good place to start so we can grow from here.

If we could move back to Northwest Green Lake and then Northwest Green Lake, this shifted it up a little bit north and actually to the east.

It focuses on two anchors.

We have Duke's and the Ben and Jerry's over there on the east side.

And then on the west, there's a wonderful opportunity to make Linden and Winona another anchor.

These changes improve Not only the ability to have gathering places on either side of Aurora, it also requires us to improve the connection across Aurora.

The docketed version of this amendment would better connect neighboring urban centers to Green Lake.

And this area did take some of, expanded ever so slightly as we moved Finney Neighborhood Center to East Ballard.

If we could move on to Upper Fremont, I swear I'm almost done.

Upper Fremont, this is a flat-ish place that has some sloping areas.

South of 42nd drops very significantly.

West of Greenwood drops off very significantly.

And Aurora is a boundary here as well.

We did move this farther north.

On North 46th Street has the bus 44 route that goes directly to Light Rail.

And it is already an arterial that folks in the area expressed interest in having us use and leverage more than just having it as a boundary.

I did, after I put out this amendment, I heard a greater desire to do even more in this area.

We had already put out the amendment, so I wasn't gonna then change it even further.

And that's why the docket amendment goes all the way north to the zoo, because I heard from neighbors in that area that they thought that the low rise was already too low to be connected to Aurora, the parks and light rail.

If we could move on to Magnolia, so those three amendments are all connected to Finney.

We're gonna go into the other, so Magnolia Village, if we could start there.

Magnolia as a whole neighborhood is only accessible from one of four sides.

You either have to go under a bridge or over a bridge to get from the rest of the city into the neighborhood.

Overall, I have huge gratitude and appreciation for Magnolians, who said to me, we understand the need to have greater density.

We don't think that OPCD got the lines right, but we want to do our share.

Of all of the neighborhood groups that I worked with, and there's no slight to anyone.

It's just that the Magnolians came with solution-oriented conversation.

They really dug into the details.

And I think I heard a public commenter yesterday say, we don't want 23rd and Union something-something unless, like, Magnolia looks like 23rd and Union or something like that.

I'm not here saying that Magnolia is going to look like 23rd and Union, but, I mean, In many ways it could.

And what I heard from Magnolians is that they understand their role in taking their share of the density.

Granted, they didn't think that the lines were done right the first time, and that's fine.

And they came with different options in how we grew through there.

In the proposals that I put forward, we actually had nine amendments for Magnolia because the conversations with neighbors were so robust.

So we did have proposals to combine the two neighborhood centers down the valley and ultimately decided on leaving two neighborhood centers that focused on the valley.

So here in Magnolia Village, it focuses on 34th as the north-south corridor, which is already the main street through the valley.

This proposal leverages the open space of the parks.

It does address grid connectivity.

You can see in the southern portion of the original map, there are a fair number of fingers as the grid drops off into ravines.

And there is also an additional larger map docketed for further study.

Moving up to North Magnolia, if you will, This area, again, focuses on 34th as the North-South and Government Way as the East-West.

Government Way literally built Fort Lawton, which was the embarkation point for troops to World War II in the Pacific Theater.

It has the ability to handle a lot of people, trucks, machinery, et cetera.

In this area between Discovery Park and the western boundary of the dotted line here is a flat-ish area from east of the eastern boundary starts dropping off as well.

Between Government Way and Emerson, it is an uphill and downhill.

Interesting ravines to either side.

And there are environmentally critical areas in here.

This is how I understood the conversation yesterday so deeply because environmentally critical areas go through their own separate process to ensure that the protections are put in place.

And our decision today is regarding zoning and boundaries, right?

And so the environmentally critical areas have their protections that are already in place separate from this.

This proposal really does connect the neighborhood from Emerson all the way down to Fort Street using Government Way and 34th as the spine that connects many smaller clusters of connected grids.

Speaking to the two neighborhood centers, I did not bring amendments for Whittier Neighborhood Center.

I had gone on a walk with them, and I provided OPCD my feedback about it should be more narrow and long rather than the original proposal.

OPCD took that feedback and put it out as their proposal, which is why I had no amendments there.

I heard some neighbors asking for it to be reduced even further.

I heard others asking for expansions, and so we left this as the compromise.

I also heard from Tangletown residents We drew up three different versions of the maps, and while there was pluses and benefits to all of them, as well as the survey results for Tangletown, of all of the different neighborhood centers had the highest level of undecided.

And so Tangletown residents also requested that we just remain with OPCD's version rather than the ABC versions, as well as we docketed option A from that amendment proposal.

Colleagues, thank you for listening to all of that.

It has seriously been months and months and months of really hard work and meeting with residents repeatedly.

And I would appreciate your support on these changes.

There is not a net decrease across District 6.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

And just before I recognize you, Council Member Juarez, just to clarify what we're voting on, we have moved all the amendments from Council Member Strauss.

That is amendment number 42. 44, 45, 48, and 49. A member may request any of these amendments to be removed for an individual vote.

So just a heads up, if you want to remove any of those for individual vote, you can, but that has been moved as a package.

Council Member Juarez, you are recognized.

Oh, thank you.

I'm sorry.

You're good.

Unless that was an old hand.

No, it's a new hand.

New hand.

So I'm going to have to catch up here.

And this is a question for you, but I'm probably going to ask the sponsor as well.

So I'm going to speak to Councilmember Strauss's 42, 44, 45, 48, and 49, because he did.

So those are the five.

One, two, three, four, five.

All five of these are also in the docket resolution.

On page eight.

Okay, so let me get this out.

I know you're ready.

So for me, it's dispositive for me because I'm inclined to support these type of issues.

However, it's when I see a reduction that I have a concern, a reduction in the footprint of a neighborhood center.

That's where I have a concern.

That's kind of where I'm inclined to go because I think it We can talk later about what that means in the intent and what I was looking at citywide.

But for those five matters, what's dispositive for me, yes or no, is that if they're already in the docket resolution in which we are going to address, I believe, item 34 as well, in which I'll just say it.

Plain language, we get another bite of the apple to have SEPA review.

So if you voted no now, this doesn't prohibit further examination via the resolution six months from now.

Correct.

I would note that the difference between what's in the resolution and these amendments is that the resolution universally includes larger areas for study.

If these amendments do not move forward, then the boundaries proposed by the executive would go into place, including the Finney Ridge Neighborhood Center rather than the East Ballard Neighborhood Center.

So my issue are two, then.

So there's the SEPA issue going forward if it gets captured in the resolution.

And with these five, And again, please correct me.

I was trying to go through these and do my chart.

These are de minimis reductions, if you will, or not major reductions, if you will.

Some of them, like the North Fremont, are expansions.

Which number is that?

The North Fremont is number 48. So 48 is?

Yeah.

Magnolia Village 44 would be an expansion.

The North Magnolia looks like it's about the same.

And actually, I know Councilmember Strauss counted each block, so he's probably better suited to answer this off the top of his head than I am.

And West Green Lake is also larger.

Which one?

West Green Lake.

West Green Lake is larger.

West Green Lake is 49. Okay.

That's what I needed to hear.

Can you give me a little bit more info?

Yes.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

This compared to the docket, so these amendments before us right now amend the boundaries that OPCD created.

Right.

So the amendments that I'm putting forward, I believe, to better reflect grid connectivity, grid, you know, grade, and it moves the boundaries.

Yes, you shift them around, basically.

What's in the docket are conversations from neighbors and through the survey of other blocks just outside of what we have before us right now.

So what is docketed is an expansion beyond what we have before us right now for future study in case that wants to come up in the future.

So may I, Madam Chair, may I just talk?

Absolutely, yes.

So voting yes on these five, because they are in a block, and you obviously— I don't mean to interrupt you, Councilman Rewards.

We can't hear you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I feel like I should just grab the microphone and karaoke.

Thank you.

I forgot what I was saying.

So the five, and the reason why I think you walked it and why you had some changes to make with what OPC did, On the expansion, if people were to vote no on all five, as you said, Lish, they would go forward with the OPCD original boundaries.

But still, even if they voted no, these five would still be examined under the resolution.

That's correct.

For the SIPA piece.

Although I would say voting no on these amendments would...

It would state that the neighbors don't have as good of an understanding of the area, or it would state that OPCD knows better than the neighbors.

Okay, those are your words, not mine.

Yes, yes.

Okay, so for me now, now I understand it, but I get it.

So you can have both.

You can have both, and then addressing the reduction of Finney.

Yeah.

So in all of these, I literally went block by block and counted these blocks.

So with Finney...

There is a slight expansion to the east, which was Northwest Green Lake, slight expansion to the south, which is Upper Fremont, and slight expansion to the west, which is East Ballard.

Okay, got it.

So it essentially took the density off the top of the hill and moved it to the...

And, you know, when I look at 65th and 8th, It feels more connected to 15th and 65th than it does to Finney and 65th, even though it's a half a mile either way from 65th and 8th.

Right.

I don't doubt your facts here.

I'm not cross-examining you.

I'm just trying to understand.

Okay.

I understand now.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging me.

You're good.

Thank you, Lish.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Kettle followed by Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

This is the first time I'm speaking this morning, and I support the points made by many of my, you know, there's a commonality in the sense of, you know, I appreciate the macro approach from OPCD and the mayor's team, but at the same time, Understanding the district isn't quite there, and partly this goes to outreach, but partly it's just, there's a lot.

And particularly in the city that has ECAs, that has ravines, as Council Member Strauss just spoke about, and also the slopes, all the pieces, there's some commonalities here.

And so that's the reason why I've been acknowledging my colleagues Outreach and in-depth understanding of this, and it also goes to my amendments.

For me, Magnolia is a little bit of a special case because Magnolia was part of D7 and I have part of it.

I have East Magnolia, if that is such a thing, like East Ballard.

And so first thing I wanted to acknowledge, because I've seen it firsthand, the amount of outreach that Councilmember Strauss has done is incredible.

My team has been working closely with this team, particularly as it relates to Magnolia.

We've been engaging with Magnolia This is the exception to the rule on the whole of Magnolia, not just our part.

And I really commend, well, Councilmember Strauss and his team, but really, as he noted, the people of Magnolia, because they really engage.

And I know this area quite well myself.

My daughter plays soccer and has played softball and so forth here, you know, the village, the market and everything.

So I really commend everyone that's participating in this.

And so for Councilmember Strauss, I am definitely a yes on the Magnolia Neighborhood Centers, the Fremont, Green, all the work you've done.

The reason why I'm speaking is, and this was kind of hinted at the beginning when I mentioned number 42, And this ties into my number 50 and also number 34. And so I'm going to speak to the three as one aspect of all three that they share.

is their expansion and particularly with number 34, the need for a special EIS.

Colleagues, I serve on the Transportation Policy Board for the Puget Sound Regional Council.

I'm also on the Executive Committee, and on top of that, I am now part of an ad hoc committee that's doing a review of the Puget Sound Regional Council.

And I think the city should know that because of the delay, this comm plan was supposed to have been done, completely done, at the end of last year.

Here we are, and we're going into 26 in different aspects of it.

And this is important because The comm plan is a trigger for PSRC, and for those that don't understand the Pugetown Regional Council, that is where all the federal transportation dollars go through.

And for the city, if you don't realize this, the city of Seattle's in the penalty box.

We are in a proviso right now.

All projects are proviso-ed right now on the assumption that we pass the comprehensive plan and we do it within the time.

We're already gone into overtime.

And if we need, especially EIS, if this comprehensive plan goes further, We're going to be running afoul.

We're going to lose all those transportation dollars.

And I've not seen a single ounce of reporting on this, although I've seen reporters in the meetings.

There's been zero point about this.

And it's a massive piece to this discussion.

And it's been a massive piece to legal as well.

I've got a couple documents from legal.

And so this is the reason why, one reason, you know, in terms of number 34. I respect and I understand Council Member Rink's intention with number 34, but number 34 totally blows this process out of the water in terms of needing a special EIS, you know, the timelines and everything.

It would force us to run afoul of the PSRC and its rules.

And so, colleagues, we cannot do number 34. And because of that principle, I am removing number 50. Even though it's really small, I'm going to withdraw number 50. And because in principle, I can't say what I just said to Council Member Rink and then ask my colleagues to push forward on number 50. Now this also gives me an opportunity to introduce, I think you've heard it before, my concept of a neighborhood village.

We have multiple little neighborhood villages in the plan.

Some are already in due to my coordination and and communication with OPCD.

And this will go for the Nickerson.

It will become a neighborhood village.

I know that's a technical term, OPCD.

Director Coindango doesn't like it because it's not an official term.

But it's a term to acknowledge an area that does have the commercial, that does have the transit, that has that area where we can be densifying the housing.

So as part of phase two, there will be a neighborhood village for Nickerson.

But I am withdrawing out of principle my Amendment number 50 due to the concerns related to running afoul of our timelines as respect to the Puget Sound Regional Council.

And so for that, I would like to ask that number 42 be removed so then I can vote separately for this.

Again, I support the East Ballard, but I don't want to be I can't be one way with amendments, particularly number 30, and now what I said with 50, and then treat 42 differently.

And so out of respect to that process and to concern and the major issue that we have as a city, because truly we are in the penalty box with the Puget Sound Regional Council.

And it's kind of embarrassing sitting there in the meeting.

We're essentially being called.

They've been extremely gracious with us and they've given us this proviso process to help us out.

And unfortunately there's a few other jurisdictions, so it wasn't like we're the only ones.

But obviously City of Seattle, The big one, and it's unfortunate.

But here we are, and again, it's a major concern related to the federal transportation dollars and the other pieces that come through the Puget Sound Regional Council, that I will be voting no on 34, I'm withdrawing 50, and I ask now for number 42 to be pulled from the set.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

So for the record, Council Member Kettle is withdrawing his amendment number 50, and he is asking number 42 to be removed for an individual vote when we call the roll for this package.

Council Member Rink, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and I want to thank the sponsor of these amendments, Council Member Strauss, for your careful work engaging community and thinking thoughtfully through what's timely, what's important and appropriate.

I wanted to, I know we're taking up discussion on a number of different neighborhoods.

I just want to hone us back in quickly on Finney.

And just to clarify, because we're talking about a lot of different neighborhoods, we're talking about a docket resolution.

I think in the plainest of terms, could we just outline what is currently happening with Finney Ridge And while we're waiting for environmental review to go through with the docket resolution, what's happening there?

And then once we are done with environmental review through the docket resolution, what is the decision point before us as it relates to you, Finney?

Either question for the sponsor or Lish.

So let me state again, and I'll respond to you, Council Member Rink.

Thank you.

And I want to say, Council Member Kettle, I appreciate what you just stated because if we delay, we are going to be in some really big trouble.

It is my understanding from our lawyers that having both Finney and East Ballard, so being additive of East Ballard plus keeping Finney, Would absolutely trigger additional large review, whether that's a supplemental EIS or an additional transportation study.

And Councilmember Kettle, you're right.

We are so late that we are taking up Council Bill 120985. All of the Council bills we are taking up right now are Council Bills 121, fill in the blanks.

This council bill has been with us for so long that it is in a different numerical set than what we're taking up today.

And that is the importance of what...

And that's essentially it, right?

I have the choice right now of either keeping Finney or creating East Ballard, Northwest Green Lake, and Upper Fremont and having slight expansions there.

So then from there, there's also docketed boundaries for future study.

And so that is the conversation of in the future, do we want to be able to add a neighborhood center to Finney?

We can do that through the docketing process while at the same time Being able to amend the boundaries of these neighborhood centers, keep us below the threshold of needing a supplemental EIS, and be able to study future growth in a better way.

Did that answer the question?

I'm sorry if it did not.

No, it certainly did.

I know we have, the docket resolution I think is a new term for the listening public, and I think we just, I just want to make sure that it's abundantly clear that we have an opportunity to take up FINI once we complete that additional review.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rank.

Councilmember Rivera, followed by Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

For all of these amendments that are additive, I will say I share Councilmember Kettle's concerns.

We were, you know, in the aggregate, If there is more than was studied in the EIS, that could kick in a supplemental.

So it's not individually, it's all taken together.

And so I have concerns about, though normally I would not be telling other council members how, what they should do in their districts because they know their folks the best.

I will say I have concerns about, in the aggregate, all of these actions we're taking today kicking this into needing a supplemental, which will then cause a delay.

So for those reasons, I'm not going to be voting for these, but I'm glad that they're in the resolution because they can be studied, and then we can make a determination whether they do need a supplemental, and then we can determine if we move forward with a supplemental.

So it's not the last bite of the apple, if you will, now.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Chair, and I'll be brief.

I, too, echo the— I share the sentiment expressed by Councilmembers Kettle and Rivera.

That said, I do want to specifically acknowledge and recognize and applaud the work that's been done by Councilmember Strauss in your office to generate these proposed amendments.

And members of the public should understand that the fact that there are 115 plus amendments over the course of a month and a half is not a bad thing.

That's a good thing on such a highly complex technical piece of legislation.

That's a good thing because it shows that this body, this institution, We're trying hard to be responsive to the many pieces of community feedback that we're hearing, and we're trying to make adjustments accordingly.

And perhaps no better example of that is the work led by Councilmember Strauss in his office, as evidenced by his 27 or however many amendments.

So I just want to applaud and appreciate the work, sharing similar Concerns already expressed, but that said, I just want to say thank you to Councilmember Kettle.

I was actually going to ask and potentially awkwardly put you on the spot, because you do share Magnolia, and I'm glad you proactively offered your insights into that, because It is a very large neighborhood and kind of unique to have two council district representatives.

I know that if Seattle's largest neighborhood by population and land mass, West Seattle, and by the way, Seattle's first neighborhood, if that had split representation, I hope people will be curious to hear the thoughts on issues that impact the broader neighborhood from both representatives.

In any event, I appreciate the work, and thank you, Councilmember Kettle, for chiming in.

Thank you, Council Members.

Council Member Saka, can I just note you've missed the Dan and Bob show in Magnolia as we've been reaching out to community.

Sorry, Chair, I just had to follow that up.

We know.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

You're good.

And I see three hands on the screen, Council Member Juarez, Council Member Reint, Council Member Rivera.

If those are old hands, just let me know.

No, no, no, no worries.

There's a lot going on.

You're good, you're good, you're good, you're good.

No worries at all.

I know there's a lot going on.

We have a ton of papers, a ton of hands, a ton of talking.

So, and just a lot of information coming at us, so we're all good.

So, are there any more further comments?

Just for the record, Council Member Kettle has pulled out, yes, and I'll get to you, Council Member Strauss, are those closing comments?

Awesome.

Just for the record, Council member Kettle has pulled out amendment number 42. So we are gonna be voting on amendments number 44, 45, 48, and 49 as a package.

And how we'll do it is we'll do the individual vote number 42 first, and then we'll do the 44, 45, 48, and 49 as a package.

Council member Strauss, you are recognized to address for closing comments.

Thank you.

And my deepest apologies about the SEPA confusion here regarding docketing.

The docketing is a completely separate, even though it is looking at the same areas, it is a completely separate process from what we have before us right now in a really important way, which is those boundaries are different than the boundaries that we have here before us.

For instance, within Amendment 34, if Amendment 34 was docketed, those are not existing neighborhood centers.

Those are docketed for future use.

What we have before us are existing neighborhood centers that are changing boundaries and then have different maps for future study which is in the docket.

It is fundamentally different than what is being taken up with Amendment 34. So if we were to take, just in this area, if we were to take and add Loyal Heights, East Ballard, and retain Finney, we would be way over the EIS threshold.

If we were to retain Finney and do East Ballard, we would likely be above that threshold.

What I've done, these are all interconnected, and that movement of just less than a half a mile off of Finney to Northwest Green Lake to Upper Fremont and to East Ballard is not a net reduction.

It is actually a net addition of what we have before us.

And then the docketing process is completely to the side that continues the outreach that I have done with my residents to study future options.

So my apologies for adding that confusion.

It is coming from a place where It is because I've worked with so many neighbors who oftentimes have differing opinions, and that is the need for a future study in the docket.

Again, that docketing is very different than the experience we're having with Amendment 34, because the amendments that we have before us are the lines of the existing neighborhood centers today, and these amendments reflect the community outreach that I've done for Since December of last year.

So I ask you for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment?

Again, we're gonna vote on amendment number 42, which was pulled out, requested by Council Member Kettle, and then we will be voting on amendments 44, 45, 48, 49 as a package.

Is everyone clear with that?

Awesome.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on amendment number 42?

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Saka.

Nay.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Abstain.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Three in favor, two opposed, three abstentions.

The amendment passes, motion carries and adopted, and we will now consider the next amendment.

Not, sorry, we're gonna take a, I'm just reading a script, my apologies.

We're now gonna vote on items 44, 45, 48, and 49. Council member, ring, oh, excuse me.

Oh yeah, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council member, ring?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Saka.

Abstain.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Juarez.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

For in favor, one opposed, three abstentions.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We will now consider item number 51 for agenda.

We will now consider amendment number 51. Council Member Kettle, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

And to say again, I have withdrawn amendment number 50. For the reasons I stated, my concerns related to the special EIS and my service with the Puget Sound Regional Council.

That said, the concept of neighborhood village will be put forward for the area moving forward.

Regarding 51, Chair, I would like to move.

I've got to get my glasses on.

Amendment number 51 to Council Bill 120985.

Second.

It's been moved in second to amend Council Bill 120985 as amended on amendment number 51. Lish, will you please walk us through amendment number 51?

Yeah.

The One Seattle comprehensive plan includes an expansion of the Uptown Urban Center to the north.

This amendment would take that expansion area and instead add it to the Upper Queen Anne Urban Center, with the exception of a couple of blocks in the northwest section of the expansion area.

It would also remove a single block face along West McGraw Street.

And finally, it changes the name of the Upper Queen Anne Urban Center to the Queen Anne Urban Center.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Kettle, as sponsor of this amendment, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

And colleagues, there is a theme, as I noted just, but I just wanted to note, as Councilmember Saka started, it's about local knowledge.

And so while I recognize and understand the broad approach within the Mayor's One Seattle Com Plan, this amendment does a few things here.

One, it changes the name from Upper Queen Anne to the Queen Anne Urban Center.

My colleague, Councilmember Strauss, is usually the historian, but the area from Queen Anne down to Denny generally was known as Lower Queen Anne.

But over the years, over the decades, we've seen incredible growth and incredible development of what is now Uptown.

And Uptown is an incredible neighborhood and, within this context, a regional center joining within my district.

The South Lake Union Regional Center and the downtown regional center, the greater downtown regional center.

And this has also been formalized.

The neighborhood boundaries are roughly Roy Street.

There's a little bump there at Queen Avenue North.

And then it staircases around the hill.

So basically, this is Queen Anne Hill.

And this is what this urban center is for, hence partly for the name change.

This name change also highlights that we do have two neighborhoods here.

And the One Seattle Plan basically took one neighborhood and over went across into the Queen Anne neighborhood.

To fix this and to address the piece was to swap, to bring the Queen Anne Urban Center down to the Uptown Regional Center and to the neighborhood boundaries as they are.

Now, colleagues, I have coordinated, I have had discussions with OPCD to, kind of like to the earlier discussion, OPCD acknowledged that there's no issues with this swap, with this change of this area from regional to urban center.

And then we are good from that perspective.

And I've also been talking to them regarding the regional centers, the three that I have as well.

So there's no, from that consideration, there is no impacts to what we are doing today.

It also highlights, by the way, I mentioned Queen Anne Hill, the topography, a point that's been raised more than once, and I would highlight there's this particular issue, as you see in that one little block related to Ward Street, and it just highlights the challenges that we have with our topography.

One other element, and this is, again, a small tweak to the top, is to have a tweak to the northern boundary And this is in support of the Queen Anne Boulevard Park.

As discussed previously with the interim HB 1110 and also over the last couple days, there's a slight tweak to the north to support the Queen Anne Boulevard Park because it kind of comes down like a top of a heart with West McGraw Place.

And this is about, again, ensuring that The uniformity of the Queen Anne Boulevard parks to ensure that as we move forward, it's gonna be an amenity for the entire city.

And so these are the main elements of the amendment number 51. I do wanna speak as well, because I think my colleagues know this.

There was a lot of discussion by members of community that did want to shrink the Queen Anne Urban Center quite a bit, particularly from the east and the west, coming in towards Queen Anne Avenue North.

And in terms of working with community, the various types of community, and that's the challenge.

I'm sure we all have dealt with folks on the various range of of the approaches to our urban centers, our regional centers, and our neighborhood centers about this piece.

But I feel that the Queen Anne Urban Center does do our goals with the densification goals, but also does it within keeping the neighborhood character.

And I think this will be good for Queen Anne.

I recognize the points that are made, but again, I recognize that The densification that we're doing is in keeping with the goals, but it's also going to be done in such a way that the neighborhood character, if you will, will be strengthened, particularly when we add some little neighborhood villages, because at the end of the day, this is about creating a 15-minute SETI, and we're going to be doing this.

This densification has so many great effects.

We see this now on top of Queen Anne Hill with our new Salt and Straw.

We have a new Italian restaurant that we stole or copied, I guess, from my colleague from District 3. And the 7-Eleven is going through a major upgrade right now.

There's all these changes, and partly that reflects having the people there, the densification that we are looking through with the with the Queen Anne Urban Center.

And so I have a great amount of respect to all the input that I got on it, but taking in everything in its entirety, chose to maintain the Queen Anne Urban Center as it is now, but then to extend it south on Queen Anne down to Uptown in a sense to, If you will, regarding neighborhood stand up for Queen Anne.

And I just wanted to make this note because it's been a topic of discussion within the district and particularly within the Queen Anne neighborhood.

So thank you, Chair.

And colleagues, I ask for your support for this amendment.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Are there other comments regarding amendment number 51?

Any comments regarding 51?

Seeing none, the only comment I will make is you know a neighborhood is changing when your 7-Eleven is getting an upgrade, as I heard.

Interesting facts.

Council President Nelson, did you have a question?

You're off mute.

Okay, awesome.

Interesting fact, 7-Eleven is the only place where if you have a credit union account, you can use their ATM and get no fees.

It's an interesting fact.

So, 7-Eleven, no fees with a credit union account.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Rink?

No.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Sacca?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Six in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the next amendment.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 with Amendment 53.

Second.

It's been moved in second to amend the Council Bill on Amendment number 53. Lish, please walk us through the amendment.

All right, now for something slightly different.

The bill, so Council Bill 120985 makes a few amendments to the Land Use Code to recognize the new categories of regional center, urban center, and neighborhood center, generally just replacing the names of those center names.

This amendment Amends one of the places where those new names are being used to increase requirements for pedestrian improvements in the new neighborhood centers.

Currently, in regional centers and urban centers, any development is required to provide sidewalks, curbs, gutters, because we are anticipating high levels of pedestrian traffic in those areas.

This amendment would also place those requirements on all lots in neighborhood centers.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Saka, as sponsor of this amendment, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, at its core, this amendment is about improving accessibility and walkability for all.

This amendment is about better positioning our city to truly bring about 15-minute walkable neighborhoods for all.

This amendment is about Making necessary and appropriate upgrades so that we're not just welcoming new neighbors, we're making sure that they can easily navigate their new neighborhoods and communities and get around.

Unsexy, we're talking about unsexy curb and gutter and ramps, might be unsexy to some, and sidewalks, but This is an amendment that truly benefits all.

When we talk about ensuring we have thoughtful growth and thoughtful planning, again, we need to make sure we have appropriate infrastructure to support that.

And this amendment does exactly that.

We know that we have, unfortunately, we have a 27% current missing sidewalk network across the city.

This helps position our city to better address that.

I think it's a smart, common sense amendment.

We're already adding density in here in these specific neighborhood centers.

Let's make it more walkable.

Let's make it more accessible for all.

So I think it reflects an important policy choice to broaden the existing requirements regarding, again, some features that some would call unsexy, like curbs and ramps, sidewalks.

But they are very important, and they do truly make a difference in people's everyday lives, especially from an accessibility standpoint.

So I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Are there any comments regarding Amendment number 53?

Any questions or comments?

Clerk, will you please call the roll.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted and will now consider the next amendment.

And just for the record, I'm going to withdraw amendment number 111 with full intentions.

Am I allowed to address it, my amendment, if I want to?

Okay, awesome.

Okay.

Okay, I can address my amendment.

Okay, great.

Let me be clear.

I have full intentions of bringing this back to full council after the committee.

So I'm gonna withdraw it today, not because I changed my mind, But because I fully intend to bring the conversation to full council as I work on this amendment, I believe it deserves my collective attention and my collective action and accountability.

And I will be working with central staff to make sure this amendment is tighter.

Let me walk you through where I came with this because I'm going to say my piece on Amendment 111 and then we'll jump to 114. Last Friday during the public hearing, we heard a number of voices.

One of those voices stood out to me and it was from a young woman who stood courageously in front of the room and she basically said, do not erase me and talked about erasure.

That moment was more emotional and it was a truth and hard conversation that this city has been trying to avoid for far too long.

And let me say this clearly.

We have erased the Central District and it is a shell of what it used to be, not by accident, not by oversight, but slowly through a series of deliberate planning and development decisions and policies that over time may not be intentional but have unintended consequences, displaced families, and as a result has erased cultural identity and turned wants a thriving community into something that is really almost unrecognizable.

The facts are in the figures, and I'm giving you the antidote of what the Central District used to be, and I will come with facts and figures to talk about those disparities.

But in 1970, Seattle was home to the highest rate of black homeownership in the entire country.

The entire country.

Had the highest rate of black homeownership right here in Seattle, the Central District, 90% black.

It was a place where, despite the history of redlining, segregation, and exclusion, black families carved out a space to call home.

A lot of those families came from the South.

Great migration, as a lot of people remember.

It was a place of pride, resilience, cultural brilliance.

But over the past decade, the city's approach to planning and development has targeted some of these communities for intense growth.

And I wanna be honest that we have used historically redlined neighborhoods as our testing ground for density, zoning changes, and urban redevelopment, while protecting wealthy and wider neighborhoods without those same pressures.

In doing so, we've created conditions of displacement in disguise as progress in our city.

And these words are hard for people to understand.

They will hard for people to absorb.

They are gonna be hard for people to listen to.

I get it.

But I've been living this reality.

And we say, building more, when I hear people say, we need to build more housing, we need to plan for growth, and that will help with displacement, but at the cost of who and where are those growth targeted?

When I look at these policies, I don't see just zoning maps.

I don't see red lines.

I don't see height bonuses, far densities.

I just don't see that.

I see people that are no longer here.

I see elders who were forced to sell their homes because they couldn't afford rising taxes.

I see families who couldn't keep up skyrocketing rents.

I see cultural institutions, the churches, the businesses, the community centers that are now gone.

And I see us having more energy and passion for protecting tree roots over family roots.

We talk about growth helping with displacement, but when we are targeting it and it's uneven, that is not right.

Growth when concentrated in community is also burdened by historic divestment is just another form of eraser.

We are not just talking about buildings, we're talking about people.

So some have accused me of weakening the comprehensive plan for my Amendment 111. But I ask you, how strong are any plans that doesn't prioritize repairing the harms for community?

How strong are plans if we're not making sure that these plans repair the harms that are under the disguise of equity?

That is not about stalling.

I'm not about stalling growth.

This is about demanding fairness about how we grow.

And I'm asking ourselves, what kind of city do you want to be?

And who are we gonna belong to?

So I remain committed to bringing this to full council and making sure that I have numbers and facts and figures, that I'm not shrinking growth so people don't think I'm weakening one thing, but I am making sure that when I'm looking at every single policy in this comprehensive plan, that I look at it through equity and inclusion through my eyes, what I see.

Because I live this thing every day.

So I am about putting equity into motion, not just words about our planning and development and our decisions.

And I'm also committed to making sure I get this right.

So I'll be removing amendment number 111 for consideration and with the intentions to bring it back.

And yeah, I will stop there.

Thank you, colleagues.

Council Member Sockle followed by Council President Nelson.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to acknowledge and commend your comments right now.

I really appreciate hearing those, and I'm glad you so eloquently stated facts and history.

But more important than that is orienting and anchoring on solutions and the path ahead and how we move forward together.

You're absolutely right.

I forgot the exact terms, but you said that we've used something along the lines of, we use historically disadvantaged neighborhoods, primarily those concentrated with black and brown people, as testing grounds for density.

Facts.

Couldn't agree more.

Black and brown communities can't continue to bear the brunt of our housing crisis.

We can't bear the brunt and the sole responsibility for adding density.

That needs to be shared more equally and broadly across the city, in all neighborhoods, including more affluent, with less black and brown people.

And I think that's in large reason why the state came in And I think that's what we're doing with the requirement that now we're trying to implement here with this whole process to better address that problem.

And that very same construct that you just pointed out applies, I think, with equal force with respect to a few other conversations that we've had earlier today, we're going to continue to have later today.

The responsibility to add density, more growth, allow for more housing needs to be shared.

It's a shared responsibility.

So in any minute, just want to say thank you for your comments.

I thought you were going to drop the mic.

It was worthy of that, but I appreciate you and your firsthand real-world lived experiences and saying what needed to be said.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Council President Nelson.

I applaud you, Chair Hollingsworth, because clearly you remind us that growth for growth's sake without regard to historical wrongs and the current needs and wishes of residents in redlined areas is just plain wrong.

So you said it way more eloquently than I could.

I just wanted to applaud

to pledge your words and for speaking truth.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to thank you for your words and, you know, I applaud you, I support you.

And also I want to say that as we are planning for growth and we talk about density leading to more affordability, I'm from one of the densest cities in this entire country and that Density and affordability doesn't always come with better living conditions for people of color.

So as we're having this conversation, I would also like to see the focus on making sure that our communities of color have access to that housing that is getting built.

Because what I see a lot is people talking on behalf of communities of color and using communities of color to promote what they're trying to do, but I'm not necessarily seeing it translated into our communities of color enjoying the benefits of that.

So I really thank you and respect you for what you're saying.

I thank you for your words and I would like to see more than just lip service as we're engaged in this process, not just for us, but for the folks that are actually building the housing and engage in the development that is going to happen.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and I want to chime in as well, thanking you for your Your remarks and thanking you for also considering polling for today.

I know I expressed to you just my own a bit of heartburn about the introduction of the amendment at this stage, so I appreciate you at least pausing for today so we continue the conversation before full council.

But I want to also express my appreciation for you speaking to the realities of the history of land use policy in this city.

And the impact that it has had.

This was a large reason why I stood against and voted against the reductions in neighborhood centers across the city in high opportunity neighborhoods.

This plan is an important opportunity for us to be growing housing opportunity in many neighborhoods that have historically kept out people of color.

I believe the majority of this council, based on our own demographic makeup, could not I think it's important to name that.

But to that end, this is also where Amendment 34 comes from.

Wanting to grow more housing opportunities in the areas that have kept out many communities.

And so I wanted to just take that moment to thank you.

I'm glad that we have a little bit more time to consider this.

Again, I have questions also about what process may look like at full council as well.

But I wanted to at least take this opportunity to express that we have a lot of reckoning to do with our history and land use policy.

Thank you again.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

And I will have those discussions with central staff as we navigate.

But just so for the record, so you all know, I do intend to state my case for my amendment and then also bringing facts and figures.

And I'm gonna tell you this, I also welcome All the urbanists, all the folks that sent me emails in opposition, send me your ideas.

Send me what you think is a great solution as there are a lot of people that support this amendment making sure that we are not encroaching on the Central District and that we can put some of that pressure and some of that growth in different areas that have not always been that have not experienced growth.

And we've heard from public comment yesterday that we will not be happy until 23rd and Union, or until other neighborhoods within the city look like 23rd and Union.

And I think that is very important to note.

And so, Anywho, I welcome your feedback.

I welcome your solutions.

We are in this together.

This is not one versus the other, black community versus urbanists or any of that.

Send me your solution so we can make sure that we get this right and get this forward.

So I just wanted to throw that out there.

I will, is there any other comments?

No, Council Member Rank, that's an old hand, I'm assuming.

Yes, awesome.

It is, it's an old hand.

Yes.

Okay, awesome.

I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 120985, Amendment Number 114.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend Council Bill 120985 as Number 114, this is my amendment.

So speaking of which, so I had presented three amendments that were, came out of, well, actually four amendments that came out of Friday Hearing, but this is one of the amendments that was important.

And this change is continuing the name of the Central District in the CD of the historic lines.

So the Judkins Park Urban Center and changing that to the South Central District Urban Center.

One change, and I know it's a small verbal change, and I don't like to do verbal changes, but it is changing the south from the front of Central District to the south of Central District.

So it would read Central District South, and that is a simple change that I would like to amend and bring to that for the reading of it.

And colleagues, this was a request from the community to continue the name of the Central District in the CD, no matter what, regarding the boundaries, any urban center that is brought there.

So I ask for your support.

It's a symbolic gesture, but it also makes sure that that legacy continues to live on.

Thank you.

And I'll entertain any...

Oh, Lish, will you explain the amendment?

Sorry, I was just gonna call a vote.

As the sponsor described, this would change Judkins Park, the name of the Judkins Park Urban Center to Central District South.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lish.

Are there any comments regarding this change?

Okay.

Awesome.

Will the clerk please call the roll to amendment number 114?

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The amendment is adopted.

And just to clarify, it is read Central District South.

I made that amendment, that verbal change.

I just want to confirm with the clerk.

No, it was not.

I didn't.

That's fine.

We'll figure it out.

Do I have to re-vote?

I do.

Okay.

If the intent is to change this name of something we just voted on, then...

Technically, if there's no objections, we can reconsider it and we can then amend it.

Are there any objections?

Awesome.

Can we reconsider that?

And I would like to make a verbal amendment to change it to Central District South.

So I would like to put the South not in the North of the name, but actually in the South of the name.

Is that for the record?

Is that okay?

Awesome.

And then if there's no, then we can do a roll call vote or if there's no objections, then it can be adopted.

If there are no objections, is it okay that this is adopted?

Awesome.

All right.

Seeing none and hearing none, that is adopted.

Thank you.

I said- One last roll call to adopt amendment number 14, 114 as amended.

Roll call to what Amelia said.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez?

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle?

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Awesome.

The amendment carries and the motion carries.

Amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the next amendment.

Those are all the amendments that were not in Not in conflict with each other.

And now we are taking on amendment number 34. We were gonna take on amendment number 50, but Council Member Kettle has removed that from consideration for today, correct?

Yes, awesome.

So Council Member Rink, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Oh, you have to, yeah, to move your amendment.

I move to amend Council Bill 120985 as presented on amendment 34.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on amendment number 34. Lish, will you go ahead and do a deep dive?

Please.

Very briefly, this adds eight new neighborhood centers across the city.

Alki would be added in District 1. Broadview in District 5. Dawson in District 2. Gasworks in District 4. Loyal Heights in District 6. Nickerson South Canal in District 7. Roanoke Park in District 3. And finally, a South Wedgwood Neighborhood Center in District 4.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Rink as sponsor of this bill.

You are a sponsor of this amendment.

Go ahead and recognize it.

Thank you, Chair, and colleagues, we've made it.

We've made it to the spicy Amendment 34. So just taking a step back, during the scoping process for the environmental impact statement for the comp plan, there were 43 neighborhood centers included.

And the proposal we have before us today just contains 30. Throughout this process, there's been a lot of public comment.

And what we've heard overwhelmingly is the fundamental need for more housing in this plan to meet our urgent needs.

And this is supported with data and we know from the research coming out of University of Washington, homelessness is a housing problem.

And this moment requires bold action to grow housing opportunity across the city to also address our affordability crisis.

And this amendment works to address this by bringing back eight Neighborhood centers that were included in the original scoping of the EIS.

These eight centers were chosen due to their high opportunity index scores, coupled with comparatively low displacement risk.

And these neighborhoods already serve as anchors of their respective communities, hosting schools, small businesses, transit, libraries, parks, childcare, higher ed, senior living facilities, places of religious worship, and so much more.

And I, along with members of my team, took multiple days with members of the Complete Communities Coalition to bike to each of the proposed neighborhood centers, speak directly with neighbors, small business owners, and others about what these neighborhood centers would mean for them.

And they highlighted The desire for more neighbors, and with more neighbors brings in more students to schools, more customers to small businesses, more people taking transit rather than driving, and more families who can afford to live in Seattle.

And I want to highlight the schools aspects of these centers because a number of these centers contain or border schools that not too long ago were slated for closure.

I know the school closures that were discussed last year really rocked our community, caused a tremendous amount of of concern for the future of our city and how working families can afford to stay here and what kind of future we're providing for our kiddos.

And so I want to uplift that.

Last night, every member of the Seattle School Board signed a letter supporting this amendment.

Their rationale was clear that more housing means more students and a way out of our school closure crisis.

And I'll quote this section of the letter, quote, "'Council Member Ring's amendment would help address our enrollment and budget challenges by adding more mixed-use, family-friendly housing near existing schools in transit. These changes are needed and urgent. Many of these proposed neighborhood centers have significant overlap with school buildings that are currently under-enrolled and even schools that were considered for closure last year. Building more affordable homes near schools strengthens neighborhoods, reduces displacement, and will be a big step in ensuring every child in Seattle can attend a well-funded school close to home. And I know, colleagues, we all received that letter this morning. And on a final note, I want to make clear These neighborhood center designations do not set the zoning for these proposed centers. As we all know, we will be taking up specific zoning changes in the coming year or two. And so setting these designations only gives us the option to pursue more housing as we see fit in these centers. And many of these centers already exist under the definition of a neighborhood center. Just to quote that, quote, "'Neighborhood centers are places with a diversity of housing options located around a locally focused commercial core and or access to frequent transit.

Neighborhood centers generally represent the core of a neighborhood providing shops, services, grocery stores, restaurants, and other businesses that residents need to access on a regular basis.

These areas provide an opportunity for people to access everyday needs within a short walk or bike ride of their homes.

Allowing more housing in these areas can increase opportunities to live in complete connected neighborhoods, strengthen local business districts, and help people reduce reliance on cars." And so I'll conclude by saying, while some of these centers may not have every single example listed in this definition, with the right investments and with a neighborhood center designation and the priority that comes along with that, they can and they will grow their amenities and welcome new ones. So I urge you to vote yes to open up these amazing neighborhoods to more investment, more accessibility, and yes, more neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

I will pause there to see are there any comments regarding, you said it, spicy 34 amendment.

Those were your words, not mine.

Council Member Kettle followed by Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

And I just wanted to...

You know, it's interesting to see the listing of the neighborhood centers as part of this amendment.

And I just wanted to take the opportunity to say that respect to District 7, you know, I support the Dravis Neighborhood Center.

I think it's important.

There's already been quite a great amount of work.

And it's also the one little dry area.

It's proper land in what is formerly a marsh and a slough.

And so we have that in District 7, which I support.

And as you know, as I stated, I support a Nickerson Neighborhood Center as well.

So, I recognize, Council Member Rink, that you have us here, but we will be moving forward on the Nickerson Neighborhood Center that we had, that's withdrawn, but we'll continue with that.

And in the meantime, also, as you noted, with the zoning to kind of create the neighborhood village idea, they're joining a few others that I've been working with OPCD on and my team.

So anyways, I just wanted to note, I've already made clear my position on the amendment, but I just wanted to state that for the record, my support for basically my District 7, our District 7 neighborhood centers, Dravis and Nickerson.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Saka, followed by Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I first want to sincerely thank Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

By the way, spicy, I love spicy.

So my favorite, keep my spice turnt up.

But I really do sincerely want to thank you for bringing this forward.

And I really do mean that.

People who know me know that I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

And I'm glad you brought this forward because it raises important issues kind of to a point we talked about about five, 10 minutes ago.

In terms of we need to share the responsibility of growth across our city.

I am opposed to this amendment, primarily with respect to all but the ELKI proposal, primarily on the grounds we already talked about.

Lack of CEPA review, also what we haven't talked about.

I'll talk a little bit more later, because I have an amendment on the ELKI.

The well-intended, But still sort of last-minute nature of this proposal amidst a multi-year stakeholder comprehensive engagement process with communities.

So I do not support consideration of a neighborhood center in Elkai.

And again, I intend to discuss more fulsome detail later with my proposed amendment on the resolution.

But I am really glad that you initiated this conversation.

Because this is important now more than ever.

And appreciate you and your leadership.

Thank you.