Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan 9/17/25

Hey, good afternoon, everyone.

The September 17th, 2025 meeting of the Select Committee of the Conference of Plan will come to order.

It is 2.02 PM.

I am Joy Hollingsworth, Chair of the Committee.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Council Member Saka?

Here.

Council Member Strauss?

Here.

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council President Nelson?

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Here.

Seven present.

Awesome.

And for the record, Council Member Solomon is excused and so is Council President Nelson until she arrives.

We will now consider the agenda.

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

Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Today we begin the process of the voting for the Comprehensive Plan and Permanent House Bill 110 implementation legislation out of committee.

This has been a marathon of a process to say the least, but we have three days of voting and for us discussion, and I'm confident that we as a council can navigate this process very gracefully.

When we started out with public comment, we heard many from neighbors, we've heard from many neighbors, community members and advocates during the public hearing about Friday's all-day public hearing.

However, we wanna allow time for folks to give comment on the chair's consent package before us today and any other comments that you have regarding our amendments.

After the public comment, we're gonna move on to considering the consent package for the comprehensive plan.

Then we will consider a substitute bill and the consent package for House Bill 1110 legislation.

We will also have time to vote on amendments that have been pulled from the consent package for individual consideration.

The select committee will continue voting on both bills tomorrow, where we will vote on items removed, or excuse me, from items, individual votes, and the resolution.

So we have a number of meetings.

Today we're gonna be voting on the packages put forth, any items removed from that, and tomorrow we're gonna be voting on our individual amendments.

And that meeting starts at 9.30 a.m.

sharp.

With that, we're going to open up the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should be related to items on today's agenda and the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

We have 19 in person and 22 remote.

Awesome.

So everyone's going to get one minute to speak.

And will you please read the instructions for public comment?

And we will then start with our in-person speakers first.

We'll alternate.

We'll go 10 in person.

We'll do 10 online and we'll go back and forth until we finish our period.

Thank you.

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered on the Council's website and on the sign-up sheet available here in Chambers.

If you have not registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of the public comment period on the Council's website.

or by signing up on the sign-up sheets.

When speaking, please begin by stating your name and the item you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the air allotted time.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speakers' microphones will be muted to allow us to call the next person to speak.

The first 10 speakers, and we have speakers numbers one through 10. If you can start lining up on both podiums.

Thank you.

Awesome, speakers one through 10. And for the record, Council President has joined us.

Thank you.

I don't know who's speaker number one.

Speaker one is Martha.

Yeah.

Awesome.

You're up.

Lucky.

Hello.

Okay.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Martha and I live in district four.

I'm here to speak in support of amendments 93 and 102. Seattle's mature trees provide health and climate benefits and we need to preserve what remains of our most valuable trees.

These amendments ensure that we will keep them.

Our trees clean the air, reduce stormwater runoff, and protect whales.

I'm sure you've all heard of the tragic loss of yet another baby orca.

They keep us cool during hot weather and just are part of our communities for centuries in some cases.

I ask you to vote yes on Amendment 93 because it will incentivize developers to preserve trees and create spaces for more.

This allows reductions to setbacks and offers height and floor space bonuses.

Without this change, 95% can be paved cementing a future without a green space.

Vote yes on Amendment 102 because it will close the loopholes and the tree ordinance that allows developers to cut down all trees.

Thank you, and again, vote yes on amendments.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Pamela Adams, and I'm a four-year resident of Alki Beach.

I'm the freelance beaver detective here in Seattle.

I've been following beavers in your urban watersheds since I got here.

And I just want to say trees and beavers are doing great natural processes for our urban environments.

It's like a little mini Alaska in Longfellow Creek with wild coho salmon coming up.

If we cut down trees, beneath the trees are roots in that root structure with soil.

Those are filtration devices, and the mature ones are irreplaceable.

So why can't we figure out new engineering, just like we did Meadowbrook Pond for stormwater?

Why can't we keep the trees and find other engineering around that for our infrastructures that we do need?

But we really need our natural processes.

The beavers have been doing amazing stuff.

People think they're nuisance.

Some people think trees are nuisances, but they are ecology.

So I really want to I want you guys to really think about, and I vote yes on number two and 93, please.

All right, Speaker 3.

Hello, David and Bertrand Murray again, here to talk about Amendment No. 74, which is currently in the consent package.

I would like to ask that the committee consider pulling it out for vote.

The reason being is that the reason provided for 74 was to add more height, add more floor-to-floor height of 10 feet, which we've been using for decades, and also add more for structure.

Well, the real reason is so that they could add four floors, unfortunately, because if you look at this diagram I prepared and also leave some in the box for you.

is that the 35 feet plus the pitch roof of another five feet is 40 floors.

You can also go, 40 feet, I'm sorry, which is four floors.

You can also go the other way where you send it down six feet and then go up to the 35 feet, you can also get four floors.

The worst thing with the basement is that it's not counted in four areas.

So essentially you could have your 2,500 square foot house, you could add another 700 square feet, sell it for that much more money.

Be very careful about Amendment No. 74, and I ask you to vote no as it is now, and I'll leave these for you in the box.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Speaker No. 4.

My name is Cedar Beshu, and I am advising the Council to vote no on Amendment No. 74, the reasons being as that The implementation of the townhomes and the four-story houses will serve to create more gentrification and make the area unaffordable.

And people that can't stay will drive down businesses and therefore the local economy.

This desperation also causes more violence in the city and causes homelessness to go up.

And fascist and far-right groups can use these Wellspring of homeless people and desperate people as breeding grounds for recruitment for their organizations, and they tend to go after local politicians as well.

All right, my speaker five.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kathy Minch from West Seattle in District 1. I urge you to support Amendments 93 and 102, which would together go a long way in rebalancing the protection of existing trees with future housing.

These are common sense policies, particularly since the effects of climate change are already upon us, with longer droughts, higher summer temperatures, and more storms.

It is possible to keep our valuable tree canopy throughout the city, not just in our public parks.

Our city is unique.

Bordering Puget Sound, encompassing lakes and creeks and covered with trees.

Seattle would be forever changed if the trees that have been here for 30 or more years disappear from our neighborhoods.

As you have heard and as other cities have demonstrated, it is possible to build housing to include existing trees as well as allow for more.

This is a turning point.

You have the opportunity to influence the future livability of our city.

For decades to come, please make the right choice in adopting these amendments.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Hans Schieffer, and right now I should be in my U.S. history class.

Let's talk facts.

Amendment 102 does not slow down or block housing.

In 2022, the developers claim that tree protection adds cost and delays to development, but Seattle's hearing examiner dismissed the claims as guesswork.

The tree protections do not add costs or delays.

102 is good because it protects trees in areas with few trees, especially where they're most needed, like my friend in the Georgetown neighborhood where trees are few and far between.

Please do not be short-sighted.

102 is crucial for our city's future.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And what class did you skip to be here?

I skipped world history.

Understood.

All right.

Better.

Yeah.

If you need me to sign your excusal slip, I will.

I got you.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Jennifer Barnes.

I'm an architect, and I live and work here in Seattle, and I am here to speak for the trees and for housing, and to ask you to vote yes on 93 and 102. This cannot be a binary choice, and as urgent as the housing crisis is, I find it unthinkable that we are now debating this.

We've drilled it down to this either-or question.

Trees are obviously a huge asset value, added value for my clients and for all of us.

Abundant nature is what makes this city truly exceptional.

It's why people want to move here, but we are starting to take it for granted.

If we think we can only provide housing at the expense of nature, we are not asking the right questions.

Heat Island effect, polluted runoff.

This is only getting worse.

Nature mitigates these problems for free.

Cities all over the globe are spending millions to re-green.

Why would we de-green?

Thank you.

We're at number nine.

Is there speaker 10 as well?

Is there a speaker?

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Thanks again for this continued opportunity.

I'm urging you to vote yes, please, on Amendments 102 and 93. There are a handful of misperceptions that I'd like to try to clarify in this short minute.

Because of judicial prudence and private property takings law, Amendment 102 cannot Impact the number or the size of housing.

And also, regarding the cost of keeping trees, as the gentleman before me said, the one skipping history class, the independent review, the Seattle Hearing Examiner, dismissed these claims and marked them as speculative.

So do other cities have this type of review board?

Yeah, Seattle, the Emerald City should as well.

We have it in Atlanta.

LA, Portland, New York.

So let's keep the Emerald City green.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And speaker number 10, and then we'll go to online.

Well, I never thought the cities and counties would let the state get so deep into zoning.

It's a problem that we're seeing here.

Not the saving of older buildings in Seattle.

We have destroyed so much affordable housing in this city.

The city refuses to keep a ledger or keep track of what is actually happening, which was part of the compromise that brought together the urban villages in the first place.

We should be taking a look at saving the existing housing we have, and I'm particularly concerned in Upper Fremont because we have some older, smaller buildings.

You keep raising the zoning, and what you're going to find is that all of a sudden the affordable housing becomes unaffordable.

Now, some developers are crowing about their profits.

I heard one recently claim 400 percent.

But you also see people like Lehigh looking at selling buildings.

Maybe we should look at affordability, just not numbers.

And Seattle is probably still way over his own.

Thank you.

Now we're going to do online.

We're going to alternate.

I'm so sorry.

Thank you all.

We'll go to online 10 and then we'll come back and we'll do speaker number 11.

Tiffany McCoy, please.

Oh, I see you're unmuted.

Please start.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Tiffany McCoy.

I'm the co-executive director at How's Our Neighbors and a District 1 resident.

I'm calling to thank Councilmember Hollingsworth for including Amendment 61 in your chair's package and to thank Councilmember Kettle for drafting and sponsoring Amendment 61. This amendment will go a long way to helping the social housing developer carry out their mission.

This also shows your dedication to concrete anti-displacement strategies.

As we go through these amendments the next few days, I ask that you all look at the amendments through the lens of how they may help or hinder the production of social and affordable housing.

With this in mind, I ask that you oppose Amendment 102. It is true that we can and must prioritize both housing and trees.

We care about climate action.

This is why we mandated passive house development in new social housing units and why we support the elimination of parking mandates.

Unfortunately, 102 will add time, cost and complexity to projects with no assurance that the alternative would be feasible or able to receive financing.

We now have Lois Martin and then Ebony Aragunna.

Good afternoon, council members.

The Black community built and sustained the Central District, surviving redlining, gentrification, and decades of displacement.

Yet large parts of the Central District are at risk of being carved into other neighborhoods, erasing continuity, cultural anchors, and our history.

I urge you to vote yes on amendments 111 and 114 and on the resolution mandating anti-displacement strategies in redlined neighborhoods.

I also urge you to support equity-focused amendments like 1819, 20, 26, 28, 31, 75, 81, 93, 102, and 110. Measures that make housing growth healthier, more livable, and more just.

If development were truly equitable, Laurel Hearst, View Ridge, and Windermere would look like 23rd and Union in the CD.

These amendments are justice in action.

They are Black Lives Matter in action.

Vote yes.

Thank you.

We have Ebony Arunga and then Matt Hutchins.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Ebony Arunga.

I live in District 3 and I work and grew up in District 2. The Black community built and sustained the Central District, surviving redlining, gentrification, and decades of displacement.

We urge you to vote yes on amendments 111 and 114, and on the resolution requiring anti-displacement strategies in historically redlined neighborhoods.

Without these measures, more of the Central District will be carved away.

With over 100 acres already at risk, absorbed into Capitol Hill, Madison Miller, and Jenkins Park, each step erases our continuity, our cultural anchors, and our history.

We've already seen this happen when 12th to 14th was reclassified as Capitol Hill.

The same erasure continues today, echoing the Trump administration's attack on Black institutions and Black history.

Seattle cannot remain complicit.

If development were equitable, Laurelhurst and Magnolia would look like 23rd and Union.

Next, we have Matt Hutchins, followed by Al Licata.

Go ahead, Matt.

Hi.

If you read the plain language of Amendment 102, it says SDCI can require the total redesign of the site if, quote, you could feasibly increase the retention of existing healthy trees.

Feasibility isn't reasonably defined beyond unit count and size.

You could have a similar unit count and size but require A crazy Tetris-like configuration of 10-foot wide units fit around the trees.

Something that's physically possible, but not viable.

As an architect, the standard is impossible to design for.

How does the design team prove that there are no alternatives?

How does SCI prove that they've looked at them all?

Proving the negative is impossible.

In Rivera's Amendment 93, I don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of things have changed.

The required planning areas have gotten much bigger.

Some doubled in size.

The minimum setbacks, no longer, or minimum distances, no longer setbacks, items the distance between buildings, and it eliminates bonuses for preserving large trees.

It's a bad faith move to change, to revise the text now.

Thank you, Matt.

Next we have Al Lakata, followed by Erica Bigelow.

Hello, my name is Al Licata.

I want to thank the council for providing this opportunity to give public comment once again before the votes.

I wanted to speak today to urge a council to support amendments that gets us more affordable housing, allows easier building of social housing, and is supportive of the climate.

I want to specifically speak on amendments 91 and 84. Amendment 91 extends and stacks that bonuses for developments that preserve trees.

I think this is a common sense provision that allows us to preserve our trees while creating more housing that is meeting the needs of more people and is more desirable.

I also wanted to counsel to support Amendment 84, which removes off-street parking requirements citywide.

Providing pavement for cars and allowing our city to perpetuate more car use is incredibly damaging to the environment.

It allows us to remove trees in areas where we can preserve them I want to encourage the council to remove parking mandates.

Thank you.

Thank you, Al.

Next we have Erica, followed by Logan.

Hi, my name is Erica Bigelow.

I live in District 4 in the South Wallingford neighborhood.

And I am calling in today to ask the council to please remove this area, the South Wallingford Gasworks neighborhood center area.

And vote no on Amendment 34. As you all are aware, this was presented or proposed only in August.

And I would hazard a guess that most of the neighbors that live within this area still don't know that this is on the table.

So our neighborhood has not had an opportunity for inclusive public engagement that's been provided to the other neighborhood centers over the past year.

So it's important that this neighborhood, which has like our Our neighbors here to the West, Fremont, the gentleman from Fremont who spoke, we have a lot of diverse housing.

We have a lot of renters.

We have a lot of houses that are subdivided, and there's a risk of those being lost and not being affordable.

So please vote no and remove our neighborhood until we've had a change.

Thank you, Erica.

Next we have Logan followed by Beatrice.

And Chris Collins, you'll be the last caller in this subsect, and we will go back to in-person.

Good afternoon.

My name is Logan Schmidt, a District 5 resident, and I'm here on behalf of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

We're encouraged by the strong slate of amendments under consideration today and tomorrow, and we appreciate the many pro-housing amendments introduced by Council President Nelson and Councilmembers Kettle, Rink, and Strauss.

Regarding tomorrow's individual votes, we urge you to vote yes on amendments 34, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 70, 91, 98, 99, and 106. These amendments expand housing opportunities by excluding ADUs from density calculations, broadening stacked flat bonuses, and removing amenity area requirements.

Wes, we ask you to vote no on amendments 81, 93, 100, 102, 103, and 113, which would reduce site flexibility by decreasing setbacks, and add objective review standards that make it harder to deliver both affordable and market-rate homes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Logan.

Next we have Beatrice followed by Chris Collins.

We see you online.

Just press star six, Beatrice.

Good morning.

My name is Beatrice Hughes.

I'm in District 1, the Alki Beach area.

I'm calling to oppose Amendment 34 and specifically adding Alki as a neighborhood center until we have an opportunity to be educated and provide appropriate input.

The existing zoning in Alki is as high as the area can support.

In the past five years, we have had an increase in multifamily duplexes, ADUs, DADUs, and high-rise townhomes, four-story townhomes and apartments.

which has resulted in increased traffic, reduced parking, a strain on our infrastructure, increased safety concerns, and an increased need for city services, i.e. police and fire.

Alki cannot withstand further upzoning.

It's not even clear that Alki meets the definition of a neighborhood center, as it has been deemed unfit to rezone in this area based on research data, transportation, feasibility, and environmental impacts.

We have many questions.

How are the boundaries drawn?

Seem to be arbitrary.

Where are the environmental?

Thank you, Beatrice.

Next we have Chris Collins, and then we'll go back to in-person speakers before we come back to online.

Chris, good afternoon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello.

Just off the cuff, I have a few things.

A little small picture.

I want to try to save some 100-year-old giant cedar trees at 76th and Dayton, but we'll deal with that later.

Big picture, I'd like you to approve amendments 93 and 102 to your plan.

And the huge picture is that back in the 1920s, this is for our young student here skipping history class, the city council had the foresight and the citizens were willing to approve the building of Diablo and Ross Dam up in the North Cascades to provide inexpensive power for the citizens of Seattle for many generations to come.

We are reaping the benefits of that huge burden that they put on themselves.

And to this day, it was important for you to make big, big, big, huge decisions.

And this is one.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Chris.

And now we'll go back to in-person speakers.

Welcome.

All right.

Numbers 11 through 19. And we're starting with Jasmine.

Hi.

Thank you.

My name's Jasmine Smith.

I co-chair the Complete Communities Coalition, and I'm the Director of Local Advocacy at FutureWise.

We've been doing a lot of talking about trees and density together.

We're very happy with Amendment 91. We really see it as striking the right balance on being able to ensure that we're able to unlock housing and trees together and grow up that supply of both of our tree canopy.

Alongside...

of our tree canopy alongside our housing supply.

Unfortunately, we see that amendments 93 and 102, while aligned in spirit, and have a lot of good parts to it, is ones that would ultimately impede affordable housing as passed.

What's going to help us have both homes and a thriving tree canopy are straightforward protections of the trees we most want to protect, removing barriers and flats and uncertainty that don't guarantee protection.

And that's why we're working on reform at the building Thank you.

Number 12?

Hi, council members.

Jess Simpson from the Housing Development Consortium.

First, I want to thank you for bringing forward a really strong consent package of amendments that meaningfully improve on the mayor's recommended plan.

They'll help Seattle address our deep housing shortage and grow in a more equitable and sustainable way.

As you go through the final days of amendments, I urge you to support the amendments that further incentivize housing alongside trees while avoiding those that create new barriers to new housing.

I ask you to support Amendment 91, which creates a meaningful height and floor area bonus for stacked flats that retain trees, creating flexibility for the kind of development we most want to see, accessible, family-sized, and green.

I also ask you to oppose 102. This amendment would allow the SDCI director to force site plan redesign of any project on a site with a tree.

When the code official first sees project permit submittal, all of the design and engineering need to be complete and ready for review.

Forcing modifications during permitting causes major cascading redesigns, adding unnecessary delays, costs, and risk, ultimately adding up to more scarce and more expensive housing.

Thank you, Jessie.

Number 13. Hi, council.

It's good to see you again so soon.

I'm Jess Yang.

I'm the HTC community organizer and social worker and valid homeowner.

You know the drill.

I'm here to thank you for creating a consent package that prioritizes housing density by incentivizing middle and affordable housing all throughout the city.

Thank you for your hard work through this long process, and thank you for taking the time to listen to the broad consensus of your community.

Seattle needs space to grow.

In that vein, I want to speak out against Amendment 102. While I love our trees and believe they make Seattle unique and beautiful, I believe 102 is deceptive in claiming to preserve our tree canopy.

This understudied amendment would likely have deleterious effects on dense housing production, especially affordable housing development.

It provides a tool for those opposed to affordable housing in their neighborhoods to stall projects by submitting alternate site plans that save even a single additional tree, even if those alternate plans wouldn't actually pencil out for development.

Compare these single trees to the entire forest that need to be clear cut for sprawling single family development at the urban border.

More trees.

Amendment 91 is a stronger, better studied policy alternative that makes good on the promise that trees and density can coexist.

Thanks again for adopting a pro-housing consent agenda.

Please continue.

Thank you.

Number 14.

Hi, everyone.

Council members, I'm here to ask you to please vote yes on amendments 93 and 102, which are the only amendments that provide meaningful tree protection.

Please reject all other tree amendments which either contain loopholes or cement in existing loopholes in our tree code.

Under Amendment 102, three glaring loopholes in our tree code are closed.

Housing is prioritized because Amendment 102 does not reduce the number or size of housing units.

Amendment 102 only protects trees two feet in diameter or greater.

If a developer cannot fit their housing while keeping a tree, the tree may be removed.

It's also a national standard.

DC, New York, Atlanta, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Portland all have agencies that request design changes for tree protection as part of their permitting process.

There's no added cost to building housing.

In 2022, the Seattle Hearing Examiner dismissed MBAC's claim that tree retention raises costs, finding no evidence of delays or increased costs.

Seattle's rate of tree removals has more than doubled in the past year from 150 to 350 per month.

Please vote for 93 and 102.

Thank you.

Speaker number 15. That's my lucky number.

Was that 14?

Oh, 15. Are we on 15?

We're on 15.

Okay, awesome.

That is my favorite number.

Hey there, Susan Fedor, District 1. I'm here to ask you to please support amendments 93 and 102 in the name of climate equity and future sustainability.

So last Friday I was here and I got cut off speaking about severe drought conditions in our city and across the state over the past few years.

One characteristic of the urban forest I have not heard any mention of is transpiration.

Our trees actually release moisture back into the atmosphere on an integral part of the rain cycle.

Fewer trees disrupt the rain cycle.

You heard here about carbon capture, cleaner air, cooler temperatures.

With regard to stormwater mitigation, this is extremely important given the city's close proximity to Puget Sound and the increase in pollutants in our waterways.

Last Friday, another orca calf died.

The southern resident killer whales are a keystone species for our region.

To lose them would lead to ecosystem degradation and collapse.

And while I appreciate the urbanist intent of reducing sprawl, it has been proven in other cities that you can reduce tree canopy while managing growth in density.

Ignoring environmental impacts of the accelerated tree loss risks disrupting the ecological balance that sustains us all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Speaker number 16.

Hi.

Laurent Berman, been a resident of Queen Anne now for 20 years.

I want to strongly support both amendments 93 and 102 for many of the reasons you've heard.

And I appreciate that we've heard the counterpoint from developers who are financially motivated and youth whose ambition for affordable housing I share, but whose naivete about What developers will do and their motivations are concerning.

So I urge you to vote yes on those two amendments.

They're the last few vestiges that we have to protect the tree canopy.

I made a long list of incentives for developers.

The last is Amendment 74, which I encourage you to oppose.

It allows for four-story, 40-foot houses throughout all of NR.

Can't tell if that is an oversight or intentional loophole, but I encourage you to revisit that as part of the consent package.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Speaker number 17, followed by 18, 19, 20. We have no 20. There's no 20.

Hi.

Good afternoon, council members.

Sorry, thanks.

My name is Jessica Dixon.

As a design professional and a 40-year resident of Seattle, I'm frankly appalled at the accelerated loss of our urban canopy, which in so many cases is unnecessary.

This site is in my neighborhood.

The Dayton Cedars currently form a majestic cedars ring, a 5,000-square-foot lot with a small house.

The trees are beloved in all the neighborhood, and they are literally on the very edge of the site, but the builder did not even consider retaining them in their plans for four new market-rate houses with four parking stalls.

So neighbors worked with an architect to assess were there any options to build the same number of units and spare the trees, and there is.

I have a picture right here.

The builder rejected any alternate site plans.

Again, it is unbelievable in our city, our progressive city, that we do not even ask builders to develop site plans that consider existing trees, where, and moving forward with this comp plan, is the consideration our environment, our neighborhoods, or sustainable design.

Thank you, speaker number 18.

Hi, my name is Jackie, and I'm here to speak up and to speak out against 74. I'm against 74. I am pro 93, 102, and I'm very excited about the 112 from Hollingsburg.

Thank you very much.

112 gives height bonus for real density if you maintain a 20-foot setback, and I also appreciate 113 from Rivera.

Thank you.

113, I just want to make sure I get it right, only gives setback reductions for actual density.

So that huge house that we saw that could have been 7,000 square feet, as large as the mayor's house, which is 7070, would no longer be available.

Thank you as an option for developers.

Thanks.

I don't want you to come up here and say, in my square feet of my house, which is fine.

Next.

I just got off a plane two hours ago, but I guess I'm back to give comment again.

So thank you for hearing me out.

I'm here to voice my concern around Amendment 111 to reduce the size of the Capitol Hill or Brynn Center.

Given the negative impact this has on our ability to add density in an important area of our city, along with the extremely last minute nature of the amendment, I urge voting against it.

But since I have time, I've already voiced my support for all the amendments in this plan that make it bolder, and none of my positions there have changed.

But I will mention more generally that density doesn't have to mean bigger roads, more traffic, and reduced tree cover.

By investing in transit, we can have vibrant, dense neighborhoods without noisy, unhealthy arterials.

I also want to mention that density supports trees by reducing sprawl and preserving our forests.

And in that vein, I'd like you to vote yes on Amendment 84, which will help us preserve trees by reducing areas allocated to parking, yes on 91 and 94, and no on 102, which just adds even more red tape to housing construction.

I think there are better ways we can preserve trees without reducing our ability to build.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And we'll move back online.

And for the record, I meant no disrespect, Jackie.

I was just giving you a joke.

All right, Miss Ruby Holland, followed by Hans.

My name is Ruby Holland.

Mayor Harrell's new $80 million reparations slash anti-displacement package in name only is not an anti-displacement plan that will prevent existing legacy Black and working class homeowners from getting displaced.

So based on that, this comp plan must be rejected in its entirety.

Absent that, I beg you to vote yes on amendments 111 and 114 and on the resolution requiring a real anti-displacement plan for former redline communities.

Amendments 111, 114 and the resolution will stop Harold's seedy land grabs and attempt to gain lots to house his recruited oligarchs.

So please vote yes on amendments 111, 114, and the resolution submitted by Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next we have Hans, followed by Matthew.

You're not present, but we'll say your name, Matthew.

Letcher.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I want to talk to Amendments 91 and 102. I think Amendment 91 is a very well-designed incentive package that will keep a lot of Tier 2 trees while still promoting additional housing.

That's the exact type of legislative structure we should be pursuing here.

Amendment 102, however, would not achieve the Council's goals of adding both housing and tree canopy.

Instead, it's just going to make sites with Tier 2 trees functionally infeasible to work on.

I'm a residential architect and builder here in Seattle, and I can tell you that discretionary site plan reviews are slow, expensive, and unpredictable.

As planners charge $470 an hour for reviews of their sites, they can delay projects or request as many reviews as they want.

And this sort of uncertainty is going to discourage people from even trying.

So in practice, Amendment 102 is just going to stop housing on those sites.

Amendment 91 provides flexibility and incentives without punishing projects.

I encourage you to support 91 and oppose 102. Thank you.

Thank you, Hans.

Matthew, you're not present.

We'll keep calling your name.

Aidan Thornsberry, followed by Joanna Cullen.

Aidan.

Aidan, please press star six.

Aidan Thornsberry, there we go.

Yeah, sorry.

I'd like to...

I appreciate all the amendments in the chair's package that moved the city in a positive direction, including allowing more livable floor-to-ceiling heights for housing, stacked flat bonuses, and no longer applying MHA for ADUs.

I also would like to say I oppose Amendment 102 and 93. 102 would add in...

Arbitrary discretionary review process by the SDCI director.

If the SDCI director determines that a site plan is feasible, it may not actually be feasible, even if it has the same amount of units and unit size, causing excessive delays and uncertainty for development.

93 would also have unreasonably large planting Tree planting requirements that could also make it difficult to build housing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Aiden.

Next we have Joanna Cullen followed by Robert Stevens.

Hi, Joanna Cullen, resident of the Central District.

Vote yes on amendments 111, 114, and on the resolution mandating anti-displacement strategies in redline neighborhoods.

As we increase density, we must do so in a way that promotes equitable distribution rather than concentrating upzoning in historically marginalized areas.

For instance, density increases could also be directed towards historically wealthy areas with large lots of 5,000 square feet or more.

Continually concentrating growth in already disrupted and up-zoned communities deepens the fractures in those neighborhoods' social and economic fabric.

This disruption erodes in social safety and security.

I urge you to vote yes on amendments 111, 114 and pass the resolution

Thank you, Joanne.

Next we have Robert Stevens, produced by Star 6. Star 6.

Hello.

My name is Robert Stevens, Jr., legacy homeowner of the Central Earth since 1959. I'm calling in to support Item 111 and 1114 and the Resolution presented by Council Paul Intherworth.

Since 1993, I've been working in Honest to save our coastal heritage and landage boundaries of the central area.

The co-chair of neighborhood plan, the holding on to the central area design and view guidelines for 20 years until Council voted on them.

And of course, the Garfield Superblock.

is one of the strategies that I've been trying to work with the community to protect the...

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert.

Next, we have Katie Kurtz, followed by Sousa Bull Grant.

Hi, this is Katie Kurtz.

I'm a resident of Wallingford.

And I'm talking against, I'm a no on Amendment 34. The developer, Thomas James, tore down an older single-family home right next to ours to build a bigger one with way less permeable area, and our basement started flooding immediately after living here for seven years with a dry basement.

I called and emailed the developer with no success, ignored, and told that it wasn't their fault.

So I called the city, and the city inspector I talked to said that they couldn't do anything because just two days earlier, the building had passed final inspection.

So that was like a real kick.

To me, I asked that if it does pass, at least make it easier for us neighbors to protect our rights and maybe knock on neighbors' doors before approving inspections like that because it feels like the developers are prioritized.

We moved to Wallingford as renters eight years ago and ended up buying a house with another couple.

And now we live in a single-family home with four adults, one kid, and two dogs.

So I'm not opposed to density.

And I'm a yes for middle housing and incentivizing owners to create dense solutions.

I also don't want our walkability to be commercialized.

Right now, we walk through...

Thank you, Katie.

Next, we have Suzable, followed by David, you're not present, or Laurent Berman, just giving you a call.

Hello.

This is Suzanne Grant, actually.

I hope you've all seen the well-written editorial in the Seattle Times today.

about the study by ASAT in June regarding the inability to increase Seattle's canopy coverage to 30% by relying solely on street trees.

Please revise Amendment 91. Either amend the green factor requirement from 0.6 to 2.0 to ensure there is an incentive to retain trees or remove the green factor option entirely.

Regarding Amendment 74, Avoid the loophole on adding fourth floors, retaining the new 32-foot height limit or including the three-floor limit within the NR Zone.

And approve these three amendments.

93, that identified the space needed to plant trees and retain them to maturity.

102, that returns the requirement for smart site designs before removing irreplaceable Tier 2 exceptional trees.

And 110, that requires neighborhood notice and engagement where some zones are being considered or proposed.

I'm just back from visiting the giant sequoias in California.

The rest of the world knows we need trees.

You should too.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Next, we have some speakers that are not present.

We'll come back to you.

Kevin Orme and Bernice Maslin.

Kevin, star six.

We have eight more speakers.

Hi, my name is Kevin Orm, and I just wanted to first support what Lois Martin and Ebony already stated.

I'd like to reiterate support exactly for what Suzanne just talked about and what Chris Collins and Jessica mentioned about the 7-6 and 8-8 and cedar trees.

It's unconscionable that they're even being considered to be cut down.

I'd also like to support yes to 93, yes to 102, and yes to 110 for the exact same reasons that Suzanne just outlined.

I'd also like to ask you to remove the green factor requirements or up it to 2.0 in Amendment 91. I'd just finally like to remind you, if you haven't been noticing the emails that I've sent over the past several weeks talking about all the different benefits that trees can provide to all the city council members as well as their staff, remember that when you cut a big 100-year-old tree down like before in Dayton right now, it takes decades to replace those.

A construction project can be completed in a matter of months.

Please consider what you're doing here and do the right thing and protect our trees.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin.

Next we have Bernice, followed by Rick Kay.

Hi, I'm Bernice Masson.

I live in District 5. I'm another person calling to encourage you to support Amendment 93 and Amendment 102. An important thing about 93 Is that without that change, 95% of every lot can be paid.

And I see this in new development.

I look at it and there's not a single tree on the lot, you know, where maybe there were two, three before.

And it makes me very, very sad.

Let's join the other cities, Washington, D.C., L.A., Atlanta.

Portland has good things, too.

So please vote in favor of 93 and 102. There's not added cost really in 102. And I'd just like to see my city have lots of housing and also trees, please.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Bernice.

Next we have Rick Kaye, the speaker number 23.

Comprehensive plans of other cities and of Seattle's past have included an engagement element.

Do you have any questions at this point or should I continue?

Yeah, I guess not, because this process is for monologues, not engagement.

People can be the city's best asset, but the best is getting cut off and cast off.

The comments section of the EIS, for example, reworded people's comments such that all the supporting arguments were removed.

None of you will be in office forever.

You do only one thing this term.

Please implement public engagement with systematic accountability built in.

And show that you care about engagement today by refraining from passing last-minute amendments that have huge effect.

These seem an abuse of the amendment process and of everyone who's been involved.

And remember, up-zoning is not growth.

Excessive up-zoning brings higher costs and simply prioritizes displacement over infill.

It's neither scientifically sound nor compassionate.

Thanks.

Thank you, Rick.

Next, we have David Haynes, followed by Joaquin Garrett.

All right, thank you, David Haynes.

Building over four to seven stories provides more housing and less sprawl.

That saves trees.

That said, reject the weaponized tree amendments created by landlords self-dealing on council and Seattle sellouts who don't want people building back better homes that compete with their homes.

Who think your tree is there for them to drive through your neighborhood bothering you?

Instead, stop the drive view, get rid of the asphalt side streets, recycle it and put it in the potholes, then redevelop the whole block without any asphalt roads within the whole block that would address climate change impacts with greenscape rebuilds way more effective than weaponizing a tree to stop robust housing.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Every time you hear one Seattle plan that's And the Racial Equity Toolkit, it's code word for social engineering, a race war against white people, blame for everything, and race-baiting and button-pushing BIPOC community hoodwinked into believing racisms are the answer to a lack of quality home.

Reject all the amendments that push restrictions and low-level maximums.

Reject all the Seattle satellites who would rather weaponize...

Thank you.

Next we have Waikin Garrett, followed by Carlo And just press star six.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for your opportunity.

K.Y.

King Garrett, Third Generation Community Builder, Central District, calling to say I support voting and stopping the comprehensive plan as it exists.

And at the minimum, vote to support amendments 111 and 114. And a resolution to put a real anti-displacement plan in effect as it currently stands.

The comprehensive plan is going to accelerate displacement, nullify a lot of the work that has been done to preserve the historic legacy communities, including the Black community in the Central District.

And we'll really push Seattle more towards a modern-day Jim Crow apartheid.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Carlo followed by Alberto.

Hi, my name is Carlo.

I'm a D5 resident in North Seattle.

I'm asking that you please support Amendment 786 and 91 to eliminate parking mandates and create density with trees.

We must prioritize housing people first as well as the trees in our city above paving more parking lots in our neighborhoods and wasting valuable space for parking.

I therefore ask that you do not support Amendment 93 and 102, which pits housing against trees.

We can have both housing and trees and reduce our dependence on cars.

I ask you also support Amendment 34 to restore neighborhood centers.

Someone who is priced out of Loyal Heights due to increasing housing costs in that area, I would ask that you please support this Amendment 34 to add back the eight neighborhood centers and give us residents access to the places we want to live.

Finally, please support Amendment 89 to build more stacked flats as a means to incentivize more housing accessibility and accessibility for our disabled community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Carlo.

Next we have Alberto Averes followed by Steve Zempke.

So we're on speaker number 27. We have two more speakers left.

Hello.

Thank you.

Chain 5 reported that over a half million acres of Washington forest are in a state of mortality.

That's an area 10 times the size of Seattle.

Keeping people out of the city and pushed into sprawl will cause more forests to be wiped out.

As a global economic powerhouse, our city has a responsibility to the state and the entire Pacific Northwest Forest.

Take bold action for housing density and urban empowerment.

Thank you all and have a good day.

Thank you, Alberto.

Next we have Steve Zemke.

My name is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for TREEPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

We support amendments for incentives for stacked flats and building up and reducing parking spaces to allow more protection of existing trees.

We support Amendment 93 and 102. 102 is our top priority in that it would remove the loophole put in the Tree Protection Ordinance in 2023 at the recommendation of the master builders that allows developers to remove most trees in a lot.

This is the basic tree protection area definition.

In Section 2511070, It currently says that the basic tree protection area cannot be modified during development in NR, LR, MR, commercial, and Seattle mix zones.

Amendment 102 removes this loophole and will allow more trees to be saved while continuing development.

Thank you.

Thank you, and we have some speakers that are not present online, Lian Kitchell and Jennifer Godfrey.

We will move to our in-person speaker that we have signed up.

I don't know what number you are, but I just saw you sign up, and I don't want to disrespect you by not calling your name, but I'm looking at you, and I...

Jen.

Jennifer.

It's Jennifer Godfrey, and she's also signed up remotely.

Oh, that's right there.

Hi, Jennifer.

I'm sorry.

That's you.

Surprise.

So I actually don't have a talk prepared for today because I was working and we got out early and I ran here.

So what I would mainly like to say is since I was here last time speaking about the impact of stormwater runoff on our critically endangered southern resident killer whales, another baby has died.

As you may all have heard, I actually knew on Friday, but I couldn't say.

And I would just encourage everyone to please follow what the scientists from all across the world, NOAA, the recovery plan, they all ask for less polluted runoff.

And that is not just coming from cars.

Trees are our free bioremediators.

They hold water.

They keep it from going down storm drains.

Storm drains often go straight to the sound.

Not everything is treated by West Point, and West Point doesn't pull out all polluted runoff.

So please support big trees as much as you can.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

And if there are no additional speakers who signed up online or in person, we're now going to proceed to items of business.

So the public comment period is closed.

Thank you all who came down here and taking time out of your day.

And then also the people who waited online to sign up to speak.

So really, really, really, really appreciate you all.

Will the clerk please read the item number one into the record?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 1210985 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 amendments.

Awesome.

Okay, team, because we're a team up here.

Before we begin our discussion on the proposed amendments, we will need to place the bill before us.

So I'm going to move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120-985.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved in second to recommend passage of the bill.

We will now begin discussion and vote on the consent package of amendment as follows.

And I'm gonna go ahead and read a couple things first so we're all on the same page.

Central staff will provide a high level overview of the consent package.

Council members can go ahead and ask policy questions or highlight any of the amendments in the consent package.

Council members may also remove an item by request, and this request does not require a second or a reason for the request to be removed So, if an item is removed, we will consider it immediately after the adoption of the package in alphanumerical order.

After central staff's overview of the consent package, I will move the consent package.

After receiving a second, we will vote on the consent package.

Finally, we will consider and vote on amendments removed from the consent package of...

Okay, that's a lot.

I'm sorry.

I confused myself.

One second.

So this is what we're doing.

We have the consent package.

If you all want to remove items, you may do so.

It doesn't need a second.

It doesn't need an explanation.

If you want to give it an explanation, you can.

Those items will be voted on towards the end of the meeting.

So we will vote on those today.

They will not get bumped tomorrow because we have a lot of amendments tomorrow.

They'll get voted on today.

Does everyone understand?

Council Member Rivera, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Just procedurally, at what point do we request to remove something from the consent package?

Yeah, after central staff does their presentation and then, yes.

Thank you.

And Council President Nelson.

I was simply going to make something after their thing, so I'll take down my hand.

No worries.

Is everyone cool?

Everyone interested?

Awesome.

I see thumbs up.

I confused myself.

I'm sorry.

I was reading the script and I knew what it meant, but I should have explained it myself.

Central staff, please introduce yourself and the floor is yours.

Lee Schwitsen, Council Central Staff.

Keitel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

H.B. Harper, Council Central Staff.

All right.

Good afternoon.

We're excited to be here today.

Council Bill 120985, as you know, adopts a new One Seattle Comprehensive Plan for the next 20 years of growth in Seattle and updates the Seattle Municipal Code to reflect the new growth strategy.

The consent package for the Council Bill 120985 would adopt 28 amendments to the bill.

Most of these amendments consist of new policies or amendments to policies on topics of interest to council members.

The package includes amendments from Chair Hollingsworth addressing food access in industrial areas, from Councilmember Strauss proposing parks and community centers and regional and urban centers and recognizing the importance of trees and bees and cultural spaces.

From Councilmember Saka related to improving our transportation system, including potholes, pavement and bridge condition, and transit security.

From Councilmember Rank to build childcare and social housing into our planning for growth.

And the biggest change included in the consent package is the addition of a new public safety element developed by Councilmember Kettle.

And we're happy to answer any questions about any of the amendments in the package.

So now we are gonna pause here to see if any council members have any questions, any questions regarding some of the amendments that have been proposed through that.

And I see Council President Nelson, you are recognized.

Thank you very much for this.

I would like to make a friendly change to Amendment 21 to add my name as a co-sponsor with permission from the primary sponsor.

And the reason is that over the summer, both Councilmember Saka, Solomon and I did submit roughly the same amendment.

Am I doing it in the wrong time?

No, you're fine.

21's yours, Councilmember Saka.

Yeah, and I'm just basically...

Well, I thought that 21, the one that's in here, has Saka and Solomon on here.

Understood.

Go ahead, Lish.

Were you going to explain?

Sorry, you're right.

21 and 22 were very similar.

Amendment 21, which was originally sponsored by the council president, is most of what you see.

It's been slightly tweaked, so you have a version 2 in your package today, and she kindly offered to have council members Sokka and Solomon as the primary sponsors.

And I'm just asking, I've learned now that we can have more than two sponsors that, you know, et cetera, et cetera.

And so I'm just, I've checked in with Council Member Sokka and he says, that's fine.

So I'm just asking for that change to be made.

Awesome.

And that change can be made because we made a verbal and Council Member Sokka, did you have any comment?

No, thank you, Chair.

Totally fine from my perspective.

Awesome.

I'm happy to co-sponsor.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

No worries.

I see Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, if I may, given that tomorrow is such a long voting day, Given that tomorrow is such a long voting day, I wanted to just make general comments, if I may, about the comp plan, but before I get to my, there's a couple ones that I would love to remove for actual vote.

May I?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Speaking now in general, so as not to take the time tomorrow to say this, but this comprehensive plan allows us to be prepared for and responsive to Seattle's projected growth and needs.

Simply, it is how we plan for our city's success.

Colleagues, and to be successful, we need more housing of all types.

That is our shared goal, to work to create and maintain housing for working families struggling to make ends meet, retirees who want age in place, and those who are young and just starting out.

I've always said and have always believed that we can both increase density and protect the natural resources that make Seattle healthy, beautiful, and resilient.

I have offered two tree amendments, as you know, that will allow us to preserve our tree canopy and allow for the creation of more units.

Our housing goals, tree canopy goals, and climate resilient goals can and must coexist.

We cannot wait.

The world is only getting hotter.

And let us remember that while it is critical to get this piece of legislation passed now, it will not remain static.

We will be looking at zoning in early 2026 and we will continue to revise, update and change the comprehensive plan every couple years or so as the city's needs change.

That is how we address opportunities and challenges as they present themselves.

I want to acknowledge how much hard work and long hours have gone into this process.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues and their staffs for the thoughtful amendments and feedback.

And Chair Hollingsworth, you and your team have done an amazing job guiding this process through the Legislative Department.

This was a heavy lift for your office, and I appreciate all of the transparency and communication that your team provided.

And I want to call out our central staffers who have been instrumental to this process and have put in countless hours, over a hundred amendments.

Ketel Freeman, H.B. Harper and Liz Schwitzen, thank you so much.

Thank you in advance to our city clerks, who we cannot do this job without, and also to my own staff for their hard work and dedication in helping me prepare for tomorrow.

Thank you, Chair.

And I do have a couple of removals, but if someone else is going to speak, I'm happy to wait.

Yeah, let's hold that.

Let's see if there's any questions regarding any policy amendments, and then we'll go to the second piece.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

If there's any other questions, I'm going to look right or left online.

All right.

I don't see any.

And so now council members, this is the time if you want to remove an item from the consent package.

And remember you don't need a second.

You can just ask for it to be removed and we will vote on it individually after this process.

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I would respectfully request that we remove Amendment 59 and 71 for discussion and individual vote.

Wait a minute.

Those are for our next bill.

Not the Congress of Plan bill.

Okay.

Thank you, Lish.

You just gave us a sneak preview.

You're okay.

We're almost there.

Does everybody know those are coming?

Okay, awesome.

So just to clarify, there are no items that any council member want to be removed from the comprehensive plan consent package.

Okay.

We will now consider the consent package of amendments.

Nothing has been removed.

So it's been moved.

Excuse me.

One second.

Oh, give me one second.

I apologize.

Okay.

So we're going to now consider the consent package of amendments.

No items have been removed and we, um, I'm going to move to adopt this as a consent package.

Is there a sec?

Oh, sorry.

I see council member Saka.

Thank you, madam chair.

Just point of, Clarification, if I may.

I'm not sure the appropriate time, but I too have a handful of amendments from our colleagues that I would love the opportunity to co-sponsor.

And so not sure when the best opportunity, we've already done one, but to state those.

Yeah, absolutely.

Are they within the current council bill that we are addressing?

Are they in the second one?

Is that 1-2-0-9-9-9-3?

No.

No, this one's 1-2-0-9-8-5.

Okay, yes.

Yes.

Okay, if you can hold that and wait for the second one so we can talk about the first.

Okay, these are for 1-2-0-9-8-5.

I think that is the first.

Okay, that is correct.

Yes, this is the time to do that.

Thank you.

You're good.

You're good.

Go right ahead.

So thank you.

Thank you again, Chair.

There are three amendments.

I would love, again, the opportunity to co-sponsor if the original sponsors are amenable.

Amendment number five, Councilmember Strauss pertaining to grocery stores and food deserts.

Another champion on this council of food access and addressing our food deserts.

You, Madam Chair, with amendment number 27 to provide policy direction regarding food access.

Your amendment number nine chair for policy related to freight movement.

If you are so amenable, my colleagues would love the opportunity to co-sponsor those.

Yes, please.

Awesome.

So just a clarification, Councilmember Strauss' amendment, number five, I believe, the chair's amendment, my amendment, number nine, and number...

27. 27. Yes, for the record.

Yes.

Awesome.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

I see Councilmember Juarez, you are recognized.

Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to allow us to weigh in.

I didn't know we had this opportunity, so I'm glad that you brought this up, Madam Chair.

I, too, would like to, with your permission, join in your amendment or Councilmember Strauss's number five on the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to Support Grocery Stores and Food Deserts.

which has been a mandate that I've been doing since we passed the sugar tax.

So that would be number five.

And then also number 27, which I believe, Madam Chair, you presented the comprehensive plan to provide policy direction regarding food access, along with Council Member Saka.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

Strauss says yes.

Strauss says yes.

Thank you.

I say yes.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

I see Council President Nelson.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to touch off a whole co-sponsor thing.

It was more because I had the same amendment in there before, but I would have to also chime in on the food desert if there is room on the list for another co-sponsor, because that is also something that I'm very concerned about from an economic development perspective as well.

Awesome.

Council Member Strauss, you're recognized?

Yes.

Thank you.

That is a yes.

We all love food.

How about, let's just all sponsor it.

Let's just, I'm just playing.

It could be chair.

I mean, it could be.

I'm just playing.

No, it's a great, it's a phenomenal amendment.

We all love food and it's, it's, it's all needed.

So it's great.

Okay.

So are there any last comments regarding the council bill 120985 on the comprehensive plan?

The consent package that people want to address right now.

These are, if you want to sponsor a certain bill by a council member, if you have any comments that you would like to say.

Council member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

I just wanted to note, I'm not going to jump in the co-sponsoring piece, but I think this is...

The appropriate time to speak to the comprehensive plan somewhat to what Councilmember Rivera was saying avoiding tomorrow, which is maybe more problematic from a scheduling perspective.

I just wanted to A, thank yourself and your team for collaborating with my team and along with the other colleagues here, plus everybody who's come from public comment to include maybe in the neighborhood or maybe due to a focus area.

We have a wide breadth of those.

I really appreciate the input, which has been quite expansive.

On the comm plan itself, I wanted to note, you know, this would be guiding my decisions, is I do believe in the Alt-5 approach.

I've learned to say approach because I've been pointing out to me again with all the feedback that there must be a technical plan out there that I must be violating some piece of.

So I say the Alt-5 approach to include the transit-oriented development The middle housing and the centres, the regional, the urban and the neighbourhood.

And as I've been often saying, and this was going to come up, neighbourhood villages, which is kind of like a small version of the neighbourhood centre, that we'll be looking to do through zoning, and we've already been working with OPCD on.

And I think it's really important to have this flexibility to really accomplish our goals in terms of densification, but do it in a smart way that balances all the things that need to be balanced.

I also wanted to note that it's really important as we go through this process to In my mind, really build up the very types of housing.

As one thing I've said many times, and from the Queen Anne perspective, everybody thought Queen Anne was a single family home and only, but as we've learned over the last decade, the slopes are LR1 and some areas are LR2.

And so now we have the tall, skinny townhomes as far as the eye can see.

And that really helps, but that's all there is.

And we have to have like a mix of a varied set of housing.

I think that's really important to have a dynamic housing environment where people can come in, move up the different pieces of the housing sector, and then they reach a certain age, maybe they need to go downsize and go back the other way.

But having that flexibility and what's important there is to create varied types of housing.

We need to avoid having one type of housing being produced as we've seen quite a bit over the last decade plus.

And so that is really something that I think that we should be looking to do.

Somewhat will be coming through phase two with the zoning, but there's elements where we can do through bonuses and those kinds of pieces and what we're doing right now to really achieve that.

And a lot of this is in middle housing.

I won't go too much further in this because this is the com plan vote.

But I think that's super important.

I also wanted to speak to social housing.

I have been clear in my support and conversations with different people on my support for social housing.

Noted I have concerns about the governance structure, partly because of the KCRHA experience and also the funding.

But I think I do support the idea of adding that to the mix.

And what we should be doing now is looking how we can set up different programs for success as opposed to failure.

And that was the idea of setting up social housing for success was the genesis behind my amendment.

And really looking to promote that, to create that option, again, to create the very types of housing pieces that we can have in order to get to the place where we really address the housing needs that we have in our city.

And I also wanted to note two other areas really quickly, Chair.

One is my support to addu's and daddu's, which is quite interesting given Queen Anne's history with addu daddu's.

But I do believe they've made a comeback, partly because of the anti-displacement aspect of addu's and daddu's and what that does, but also gaining density within our neighborhoods already.

You know, it's a way to, as I often say with my team and others, a way to square the circle.

Way to get densification, but also keeping that neighborhood maybe look and feel.

And important with the anti-displacement.

And so I think it's really important for us to be promoting that.

And of course trees.

Now we've got a lot of amendments on trees.

As many know, I've spoken before the Urban Forestry Commission.

We have a great example with McGraw Square where we had densification also keeping trees.

So I know it can be done as we look for opportunities.

That's one reason behind my side yard setback and, you know, looking at the others.

So there's a big mix of tree amendments, and I recognize there's different opinions on that.

But I do believe in the trees, particularly the evergreens.

People have heard me say that many, many times.

But the discussion also shows that trees are something.

I know the tree ordinance was passed, but this is really an open topic.

Not to create challenges for our central staff, but the tree ordinance may be something in the future because clearly the comprehensive plan shows that we may need to take another look at it again.

And then I won't speak to the Queen Anne Boulevard Park.

That's really a HB 1110. But there are aspects of that too in this related to the centers.

We really need to build up our amenities.

We really need to build up those opportunities for our city, for places to come, because the Queen Anne Boulevard Park is not just for Queen Anne or the District 7. It's for the city.

People come from all around, and it's a place where You can feel, you can have that opportunity to, here in the city, to see the various vistas and do it in such a way where you're going maybe through a tree canopy in one section or you come in an area where it's open, like with Wilcox Wall.

And I wanted to highlight that because this is really only step one of a multi-step process that I want to work with the Queen Anne Boulevard Park.

One is to set this part here to keep it, because the park itself is the street, the sidewalk's the immediate area.

And to keep that kind of place so when people are enjoying it as they're walking through, like I said, the tree canopies.

But it's also the first step.

The next step is working with SDOT and parks in terms of maybe putting down bike lane markers to encourage biking and walking, to encourage community utilization of the Queen Anne Boulevard Park.

Shared streets, like I mentioned, Wilcox Wall, 8th Avenue West, that area could be Perfect area, you know, that we could really gain that extra amenity for our city and including the neighborhood.

Bry Cracky Park, that area as well.

There's opportunities with the Queen Anne Boulevard Park and this is really just the kickoff for me in my sense in terms of what we're trying to do.

And part of it is to, you know, get that baseline done and this is what we're doing with our amendments for the Com Plan as it relates to the Queen Anne Boulevard Park.

Noting that there's parts that are in this bill, but also in the second bill related to HB 1110. And I just wanted to take the opportunity to speak to these pieces so that people know the baseline from which my votes come from and the like.

So thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak to it.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council President Nelson, if that is a new hand, I'm going to...

Old hand.

Old hand.

Okay.

Awesome.

Council Member Rink, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for having some of my amendments included in this consent package while also touching on them.

So reflected in this is Chair's package to the comprehensive plan.

There are three amendments submitted by my office.

The first would incorporate childcare into the comp plan, which was glaringly absent from the plan.

And we know that childcare and affordable childcare options continue to be a desperate need across the city.

Adding its inclusion, we're really focusing on and moving towards a place where we're planning for more childcare across the city.

Access to quality childcare is essential for a thriving city, and Seattle needs to do more to improve that access.

The Second Amendment included would incorporate additional anti-displacement considerations to promote collaboration in our efforts to make Seattle more affordable.

This amendment specifically cites community-led affordable housing as a way of achieving this.

And third in this package would incorporate social housing into the comprehensive plan, which voters of Seattle have multiple times now affirmed at the ballot box as a tool we should prioritize to address our growing housing crisis.

So thank you again, Chair, for the inclusion of these amendments, and thank you colleagues for your consideration of them.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Are there any other comments?

Looking left and right, I see no.

Okay.

So thank you all.

Really appreciate us getting to this point.

And I'm gonna move to adopt the consent package, Council Bill 120985 with all the additional co-sponsors as is.

I will pause to see if there's a second.

Awesome.

It's been moved in second to adopt the consent package, Council Bill 120985. In addition to all of the co-sponsors, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member DeVetta.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Awesome.

Y'all did it.

Great job.

Now, item number two into the, will the clerk please read item number two into the agenda?

Hold on, we're at ease real quick.

One second, thank you.

I'm actually gonna ask for a five-minute recess, Council, so I can figure out our next steps.

So just bear with us.

We're gonna ask for a recess for five minutes.

I can ask, awesome, great, thank you.

Oh, there we go.

All right, awesome.

We have returned.

We are back from, I guess it's called recess.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Council Member Sacca?

Here.

Council Member Strauss?

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Chair Hollingsworth?

Here.

Eight.

Present.

Awesome.

So resuming, so Council Bill 120985 and the select committee will continue discussion on this bill at tomorrow's 9.30 a.m.

meeting and the bill will be postponed until then so we can talk about the more amendments for that bill.

Okay, so if there's no objection, council bill 120985 will be postponed to the September 18th select committee on the comprehensive plan meeting.

Hearing no objection, the bill will be postponed until tomorrow's meeting.

Now we are going to read item number two into the record.

Thank you.

Agenda item two, council vote 120993 relating to land use and zoning implementing a major update of neighborhood residential zones and modifying development standards and other zones to comply with various state laws.

For briefing, discussion and possible amendments.

Central staff, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Thank you.

H.P.

Harper, Central Staff.

Council Bill 120993 amends Seattle Municipal Code to update zoning in neighborhood residential areas consistent with House Bill 1110 and other state-required regulatory changes.

And before you as well is a substitute, which includes several changes related to recent legislation that has passed through this body, including Ordinance 127228, which amended the process for review of light rail transit facilities and essential public facilities, as well as 127285 related to requirements for solid waste.

Finally, the substitute bill restores a bonus for development on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations in neighborhood residential zones, as that was inadvertently omitted from Council Bill 120993, but which is legally required.

So that's the nature of the substitute before you, and otherwise it is exactly what you saw previously.

Awesome, thank you.

Thank you for that presentation.

And in high level overview, I'm going to pause here to see if there are council members that have questions about some of the amendments in front of us, some policy questions, or if a council member wants to remove any items.

So first we'll do questions and then we'll do removal.

So first, these are just general questions first.

So I think we need action perhaps on the substitute bill first and then we can talk about the consent package.

Thank you.

So I appreciate that.

I'm gonna, I have like a thousand, I'm gonna be honest with you, I have a thousand papers in front of me and so I apologize.

Thank you so much.

I'm gonna go ahead and move Council Bill 120993. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and second that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120993. Now we can talk about it.

I will pause there.

Right, and so I think we need to move substitute Council Bill 120993 and get a second for that.

I'm going to move that the committee recommend substitute to Council Bill 120993. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and second, and now we can have our discussion.

All right.

So the council members have before them a consent package proposed by the chair that consists of 18 amendments.

There are additional individual amendments that the Committee will consider tomorrow.

At a high level, the consent package to Council Bill 120993 provides additional incentives for affordable housing, including expansion of the affordable housing bonus and extending the bonus to social housing, expanding the affordable housing bonus, FAR available through that bonus to low-rise zones.

Making other changes to development standards to facilitate middle housing, including clarifying density allowances, allowing a rounding up for fractional assessments of development allowed on a lot.

Requiring indoor air quality and noise improvements for development in interstates, highways, major trucks, streets, railroads, and rights of ways.

Providing incentives for specific types of, uh, middle housing, including cottage housing, uh, stack flats, and, uh, incentives for development of family-sized housing in your schools, um, and other, um, incentives, uh, to encourage, uh, middle housing, uh, throughout, um, in our zones within the city.

Um, there are multiple sponsors here, um, uh, represented in the chairs package, including council members Rink, Kettle, Nelson, Hollingsworth, Uh, Strauss, um, and Saka, and Councilmember Solomon, too.

Um, and that, at a high level, is a description of the consent package for Council Bill 120993.

Awesome, thank you.

I just told my staff I need page numbers next time because I have them all over and I'm trying to figure out which one is which.

So thank you for that presentation.

Colleagues, now we are going to pause here to see if anyone has any questions about some of the amendments, any policy questions, or if you want to start the ripple effect of adding your name as a co-sponsor to any of the amendments.

When do we remove?

Excuse me.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

When in the preliminaries of voting on the actual package, do we request to remove things?

We're going to do that right after.

So we're doing any questions, policy questions that you have.

And then if you want to co-sponsor anything, and then following that, I will ask if council members have anything they'd like to remove.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Awesome.

All right.

So I'm seeing no questions.

Are there anything that council members want to co-sponsor?

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And first off, I jumped into the co-sponsoring bit earlier, but I also wanted to briefly acknowledge the inherent challenge of updating a 20-year-old plan, one that has profound of such profound significance and importance to the everyday lives of residents in Seattle for generations to come, and especially one as deeply complex and highly technical as this.

But I just want to thank you, Chair, and your office for your strong collaboration end-to-end throughout this process.

From late last year to present day, you have been very collaborative, thoughtful, engaging with me directly in my office and really helped facilitate the legislative sausage making that we're undertaking today.

And so I appreciate your partnership and collaboration.

I also want to Just quickly thank our central staff experts who are the folks on the front line of this work, are represented here at this table, Lish, Ketel, and HB.

Appreciate your engagement and empowerment and insights in helping me and my office bring our many Policy ideas and amendments to life.

It takes a lot of work, but I really do appreciate you all so much and so many central staff were involved in this.

And also Amelia, thank you, our expert clerk.

We can see her expertise live, in person, right now, guiding us through some of the complexities here procedurally.

In any event, you asked about Co-sponsorship opportunities, I also have three for this bill.

And if the amendment authors are amenable, would love to co-sponsor.

So the first one is council president's amendment number 65, allowing stores to be located anywhere in neighborhood residential.

And the next two are actually yours again, Madam Chair.

I feel very flattered.

You had some terrific ideas.

But the first one is Amendment 68 that would waive the development standards for internal conversions, which seeks to help homeowners remain in place.

I, too, is background.

I, too, that is a priority for me in my office.

And that was on my punch list of comp plan amendment items.

We heard that there are others further along in the development process in terms of grabbing the pen.

So we'd love the opportunity to co-sponsor that.

And then also Amendment 75, Chair, to require indoor air quality and noise improvements for development near interstates, highways, and major truck streets.

Awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

It's a yes from me and Council President for Amendment No. 65?

Yes.

Awesome.

So two yeses for that.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

I see Councilmember Juarez.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also have three.

And again, I apologize.

I'm trying to catch up here after being gone for a bit.

I wanted to ask Councilmember Rink if she would entertain me joining her in Amendment No. 59. And Council of Honor Chair Hollingsworth, your number 75 and 78.

All right, it's a yes for me for amendment number 75, 78. Council Member Rink?

Absolutely, yes.

Awesome.

So that is a yes from Council Member Rink for number 59. For Council Member Juarez.

That's my lucky number.

It's the year I was born.

That's good to know.

Awesome.

All right, so now I will pause here to see if there's any other council members that want to be sponsors on any of the bills.

Council President Nelson.

I believe I lost my chance on asking to be a co-sponsor on 19, so we'll just forget about that one.

But I am just noticing I would like, if there's room, to be a co-sponsor for number 59. Thank you very much.

Awesome.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Awesome.

59 for co-sponsor for Council President Nelson.

All right.

Are there any more colleagues of people that would like to co-sponsor anything?

Is that an old hand, Council President Nelson?

Yeah.

All right, no worries.

It's an old hand in more than one way.

No worries at all.

So now we're going to ask if there's anything that people, items that you want to remove.

Yes.

Okay, I'll give you a pause here.

I see Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to remove 59 and 71 for discussion.

Thank you.

Okay, so for the record, amendment number 59 and amendment number 71 have been removed for discussion and the, I think how we can- I have my hand up, that's a new one.

Okay, that's a new one.

Council President Nelson.

I move to remove Amendment 74 from the consent package and I'm withdrawing it from consideration, but I will be submitting an amendment to the docketing resolution tomorrow to ask OPCD to study some of the impacts that I've become aware of recently of an increase in the residential height limits.

Understood, okay, so we're gonna have- No action today.

Understood, so agenda item number 74 has been removed.

Okay, are there any other items, colleagues?

And just to clarify, we will have discussion about these amendments after we get through the consent package.

So it will be after we move the bill, excluding these items, and then we will talk about these items.

I will then ask the sponsor of those items if they want to address the body before we take a vote on those, okay?

Is everyone clear with that?

Okay, if anyone had a question, you can tell me now.

All right, awesome.

I'll pause here to see if there's any more items people wanna remove from the consent package and I'll pause here.

Okay, we're now gonna consider the consent package of amendments.

Before we do that, can we complete the voting on the substitute bill and then move the consent package?

Oh, understood, got it.

So we've now moved in second the substitute bill and will you please call the roll on the substitute bill and then we will talk about, then we will take the vote on the consent package with the items removed and then we'll go to those items.

I know it's confusing a little bit.

Does everyone understand we're voting on the substitute bill?

Councilmember Rank.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Awesome.

Now we are going to consider the consent package of amendments.

The items, items number 59, Number 71 and 74 have been removed and will be addressed separately.

So I'm gonna move to adopt the consent package, excluding item number 59, 71, and 74. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and second to adopt the consent package, excluding items 59, 71, and 74. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent package to Council Bill 120993?

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivetta.

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Awesome, and now, colleagues, we are going to discuss agenda, or excuse me, council bills.

The amendments of 59, 71, 74 has been removed and there's no action needed there today.

So what I need is that council member, the sponsor, to move their item.

And Council Member Rink, you are recognized to move your amendment number 59.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120993 as presented on amendment 59.

Second.

Second.

Awesome.

It's been moved in second to address amendment number 59. Council member Rink, you are recognized to talk about your amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, this amendment would exempt ADUs from the mandatory housing affordability program, which will result in ADUs that are more affordable for Seattle residents and support their development.

This comprehensive plan represents the largest increase in MHA's geographic coverage thus far with the new centers and transit corridors.

That increase is needed and will help us build more affordable housing.

That being said, putting the cost of MHA on smaller housing projects like middle housing and ADUs create an outsized cost for those who are wishing to build this kind of housing in their backyards.

And ADUs represent one of the most affordable pathways we have for homeownership, and so keeping those costs down is critical.

It's not only for first-time home buyers, but also thinking about those who are aging in place and wanting to keep our elders closed and support more multi-generational living.

As my grandma calls it, she definitely wants her in-law unit should I ever be lucky enough to own a home someday.

So this is the rationale for bringing forward this amendment today, and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Are there any additional comments on the amendment number 59?

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Is it okay if I just have some questions from central staff?

Yeah, absolutely.

And if you could speak into the mic so we can hear you, you're good.

Sorry, I'm just so far from, this thing doesn't move over.

All right.

It's like, I know it's weird.

Okay.

Sorry, everyone.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

On the MHA fees, what are the consequences of excluding the ADUs?

Because as I understand it, obviously we collect the MHA in lieu of fees and we use it to build more affordable housing.

So what are the consequences of Excluding the ADUs, can you tell me where are we currently getting most of our in lieu of fees in terms of MHA and where are these, you know, ADUs being built and how big?

Because I understand the size of ADUs are not as small as some folks think.

MHA currently does not apply in neighborhood residential zones.

It's not proposed to apply in neighborhood residential zones.

It does apply in multifamily zones throughout the city.

So currently in multifamily zones, a development of a townhouse with an accessory dwelling unit is subject to the city's mandatory housing affordability program.

As Council Member Rank points out, next year the city will be expanding multifamily zoning in the neighborhood centers that the council designates through this comp plan process and expanded urban centers and regional centers as well.

Generally speaking, in a market such as this where most of the volume of development that is occurring is in middle housing types like townhouse development and accessory dwelling units built on neighborhood residential property, most of the revenue that the city gets in this is actually, you can look at the most recent Office of Housing MHA report, To sort of verify this, most of the revenue that the city is getting is coming from small-scale development in low-rise multi-family zones.

So not big development.

Most of what you're seeing built today is stuff that was permitted a while ago.

It's actually coming from smaller development in this down real estate cycle.

Thank you, Ketel.

I mean, I'm struggling a little bit with this, colleagues, because obviously, as I said earlier, we use the in lieu of fees to build affordable housing, which is really needed and critical.

And so I feel like we might be leaving money on the table here if we exclude the ADUs from the MHA requirements.

We don't know Ketel or Lish or HB.

We don't know how much money we would be leaving it on the table, but I'm hearing also there's more development of the little housing type with some ADUs.

It's probably mostly edge cases where there is an accessory dwelling unit that is proposed as part of a townhouse development.

So it's probably not the majority of development out there in multi-family zones where folks are building townhouses, for example.

But it is something that occasionally happens where a townhouse can be designated, and it may look functionally just like the townhouse that is twinned with as an accessory dwelling unit.

There are practical problems for the developer in doing that.

Usually, typically, they would have to condominiumize.

to make that accessory dwelling unit available for feasible sale as opposed to through a unit on subdivision.

And so there may be some downsides to that.

But it is, you know, it occasionally happens but is not super frequent, but it is sort of an opportunity that a developer has to avoid MHA fees by, potentially if the amendment passes, to avoid MHA fees by designating a unit that is functionally similar to another as an accessory dwelling unit.

Okay, thank you, Ketel.

Lish, did you have, I saw, is that okay, Chair?

Yeah, so you asked what size ADUs are.

Maximum size for an ADU is 1,000 square feet.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Thank you for allowing me the ability to answer questions because, like I said, it does have Some impact, but I'm hearing Ketel say it's not being, it doesn't sound like it would have a huge impact.

It remains to be seen probably not a huge impact, right?

I mean, I think that a lot of the development standards that some of the development standards that the committee will be considering next year with phase two encourage apartment development, which would definitely be subject to MHA fees.

So for that type of development, there wouldn't be any foregone revenue.

Just there would potentially be foregone revenue for the type of development that does often have accessory or can have accessory units associated with it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

No worries.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council President Nelson.

I support this amendment because we're dealing with the same themes when we're talking about the MFTE program and the money that we're losing out on by not levying a fee or a tax.

In my mind, the housing that we will gain is is more important than the money we're leaving on the table for MHA.

It's my understanding that the smaller the project, the more difficult it is to absorb the costs of MHA because larger buildings spread that cost per foot out across a bigger development.

And so it's less of a barrier or an impediment to build or to have it pencil out.

So I just wanted to explain my thinking on this.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Are there any other comments regarding Amendment No. 59?

Okay.

So I offer the sponsor of the amendment.

Do you have any closing remarks, Council Member Rink?

I don't want to put you on the spot, but...

No, thank you, Chair, and thank you for the discussion and for your questions on the amendment, Council Member Rivera, and thank you, Council Member Juarez and Council President Nelson for your co-sponsorship on this.

I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number 59?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

I'm actually gonna move Council Bill 120993 as presented on amendment number 71. Is there a second?

Second.

Awesome.

It's been moved in second to amend Council Bill 120-993 as presented in Amendment 71. Council Member Rink, as sponsor of this amendment, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I'll be brief.

This amendment clarifies density allowances on all laws to ensure we're in full compliance with state law, especially the requirements of House Bill 1110. We've already passed a similar version of this amendment in the interim legislation unanimously and is, to my understanding, technical and corrective in nature.

And happy to turn it over to central staff to fill in any more of the technical details I may have missed in that.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Central staff, do you have any comments regarding amendment number 71?

I would just briefly say that this is related to lots that have critical areas and ensuring that all lots are allowed to have one unit regardless of critical areas.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I have concerns about this one just because the critical areas And the environmental impacts and of course impacts on critical fish habitat.

And I would prefer to see this in the resolution so that we can have further study on the impacts of this.

So for those reasons, I am going to not vote for this amendment.

And like I said, I don't know if it, I would prefer to see it in the resolution so we can study it, but I don't know what the mechanics of that are and how everyone else feels about it as well.

But I just, I think that given those, we're talking about the critical areas and fish habitat.

I'd love to see more study on this.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there any other comments regarding the amendment number 71?

We're just going to do uncomfortable silence for a little bit.

I'm just playing.

No, Council President Nelson.

When I hear critical areas, I get nervous.

So I'll be abstaining just because I feel like I have to take a closer look at this one.

Understood.

Are there any other Councilmember Kettle?

Can you speak more to the critical areas, please?

Because this is for a short critical area.

Okay, go ahead.

Essentially, folks who wish to develop on lots that contain critical areas go through an alternative density calculation as compared to a lot that wouldn't have a critical area, and that is not proposing to be changed here.

But there's a floor that allows for at least the development of one unit on a lot, even if, for instance, the density calculation that they go through would result in less than one unit.

And so this amendment revised the order of language, didn't change any of the substance, but rather put the language related to being allowed to have one unit on every lot under and sort of beneath and after the critical area discussion of how you calculate density so that it is clear that it's related to that and that lots that are not encumbered by critical areas are where we start doing the calculations related to four units or six units and all that.

Does that help?

Maybe it would help to just look at the amendment.

Yeah, can you?

Yeah, so we're going to pause, not pause here, but we're going to share the screen so we can see it.

Thank you.

Perfect.

So amendment 71 takes this sentence that is currently under 2344060C.

And moves it to the end of the section two pages later, three pages later, here under C4C.

Same sentence, just clarifying that it's specifically related to critical areas.

Can you show again where it came from?

You still have the floor, Councilmember Kettle.

Well, I'm looking for the critical area piece to this in terms of the language.

So again, that's three pages later.

Section C4, let me scroll up, talks about lots containing any riparian corridors, wetlands and their buffers, submerged lands and areas within the shoreline setback, and designated non-disturbance areas, and steep slopes, which are primarily critical areas or areas within our shoreline.

And so the language has moved to this Section C4 related to development on loss with critical areas.

How does this compare with the other amendment that we had on ECAs that was withdrawn?

I'm probably conflating two right now.

Do you remember the substance of that amendment?

Yeah, I think the substance of that amendment was to make it such that portions of a lot that were in a critical area could be used in determining the maximum amount of development allowed on a lot.

So let's say that there was a 5,000-square-foot lot and half of it, 2,500 square feet, was in an environmentally critical area.

That portion of the lot in an environmentally critical area could be used in determining the maximum number of units on the lot But it didn't allow development on the portion of the lot that was in a critical area.

So that allowed recovery of full development capacity on a lot that a portion of which might have been in a critical area.

This specifies that for lots, potentially even very small lots that are in critical areas, one could still realize one's investment-backed expectation and build at least one unit on that lot.

Thank you, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

We have Councilmember Strauss followed by Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair Lish Kettle, HB.

Just clarifying here, any development, so beyond what we are studying, this parcel rounding conversation, beyond that, When parcels are developed that are in environmentally critical areas, is it true that they have to go through a checklist and a process that determines what is and is not allowed to be billed based upon the type, size, coverage of that ECA on that parcel?

Correct.

Yeah.

So said another way, no matter what happens to zoning on parcels that include an ECA.

If development occurs on that parcel that has an ECA, there will be a separate and robust process to determine what is appropriate to meet the needs of that environmentally critical area.

This language does not impact our critical area regulations or shoreline regulations, so those continue to apply.

So our environment continues to be protected.

is my statement, not a question.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I read this to mean, regardless of the calculations, even if the calculations result in, you probably could only build not one full unit, one full unit would be allowed.

Is that not correct?

That's correct, yeah.

I think sort of the, Something that may be worth exploring here a little bit more is potentially what this means for lots, very small lots that previously might not have been considered a legal building site within the City of Seattle because it talks about lots in existence on the effective date of the ordinance.

So there's probably some subset of very small lots that are wholly or partially within environmentally critical areas that would now become redevelopable if this amendment were to pass.

And thank you, Ketel.

And that's my concern, colleagues.

And so putting it in the resolution would mean we would study it further to see the impacts, but it is allowing the one unit regardless, I think, has an impact.

And so this is my concern.

I do want to point out that the bill would still, if this amendment does not pass, the bill would still say that at least one dwelling unit is allowed on all lots in existence of the effective date of this ordinance.

It just would not have that language under the environmentally critical area section of this subsection.

May I?

So the way I read this section, having this sentence at the beginning gave this a different meaning than the way it got added to the end because I think

Yeah, according to legal review, it has the same meaning.

My understanding from the law department was that this was a change in order only and it did not change the meaning of the regulation.

So why do we change the order?

That was the request of the office.

Yes, thank you.

As a refresher, this was introduced as an amendment when we passed the interim legislation and had a discussion at that point on this.

That's when this body approved the policy component of this.

Our amendment today to move it to this section is just to provide reader clarity.

That's why I explained this as a technical correction.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I actually, I find it's, Well, all due respect, I find it's a little more confusing this way.

So I'm not really sure what we gain by rewording it.

So thank you, Chair.

No worries at all.

Is there any last comments from central staff or colleagues on amendment number 71?

Sorry.

No, no, you're worried.

No, no, no, you're good.

Okay, so there's no other additional comments.

Will the clerk, I think, let me stop.

Council Member Rink, is there anything you want to, on closing for your amendment number 71?

Nothing to add, Jara, thank you.

Awesome, all right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number 71?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member DiVetta.

No.

Council Member Saka.

Abstain.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed, and two abstentions.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended with our additions of re-adding amendment number 59 and 71?

At this point, we just have confirmation that number 74, I believe, is being withdrawn.

Yes, and I'm asking that we be considered for later.

There's some technical changes that I do want to examine, so it's not gone.

It's just not happening today.

Awesome.

So just to clarify, Amendment No. 74 has been withdrawn from the consent package and will be revisited tomorrow for our next meeting.

Is everyone clear on that?

Yes, awesome.

Okay, so Council Bill 120993 has been amended and our select committee will continue discussion on this bill at tomorrow's 9.30 a.m.

meeting and the bill will be postponed Until then, and if there's no objection, Council Bill 120933 will be postponed to the September 18th Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan.

Hearing no objection, Council Bill 120993 is postponed for tomorrow's meeting.

Council President, you're recognized.

When are people going to make their value statements about the exercise that we've just been through?

Yeah, great question.

Now is the best time because we are reaching to the end of our meeting because we move through that pretty fast.

And so now is a good time for council members if you want to address what we have, the exercise that we had just done before us with the consent package or anything else that you want to say for closing.

And I'm assuming, Council President, that was you saying you want to say something?

Council President, you're recognized?

Sure.

I mean, really, this has been a really very, very long, arduous process that started with to say nothing, and I'm preaching to the choir here.

I thank my colleagues and I thank the public for your engagement throughout this whole thing.

It's been a difficult rollout and frankly, very complex decision-making process.

But we are in a housing crisis, affordability crisis.

I believe that my colleagues are in the same position that I am, that we have got to plan for the growth that we have now and the future growth and do so carefully And, you know, I've heard a lot about people saying, well, you know, this doesn't really make for affordable housing.

We need more affordable housing in the city.

And so this doesn't really cut it because these are going to be market rate housing, et cetera.

And I understand that.

I understand that.

We need more housing.

Supply, I'm not a complete supply sider, but as we go through the years, the housing that we do have becomes naturally affordable.

New housing comes online.

There are more choices and more More options for more income levels.

And so that is what I'm looking at this.

When we talk about we need more housing, this is not the magic bullet, but it does provide capacity for more housing that could end up helping a variety of income levels.

So I'm just simply saying that that is my North Star.

That's what's guiding my work today.

And I do have to say that I recognize I'm not undermining the The concern that people have about how this will make changes to places that they have lived in for years or perhaps generations.

And so frankly, I just want to say that this is an important process.

We're a year late in doing this.

We're going to get in big trouble with the Growth Management Board if we don't do something soon.

And so I am just really glad that we've gone through this together and I look forward to the next steps.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Are there any more additional comments?

I will pause here.

Awesome, okay.

Real quick, before we come to a close, I wanna take a moment to thank everyone for your incredible work.

Tomorrow's gonna be a really heavy lift in a day, and so I recognize that.

I just want to just state that I know since January, we've been deep in the process and it's been a very, very long journey.

So I just want to thank everyone for their hard work, but we haven't finished just yet.

So I know we're just happy just to be here at this moment.

But I've had thoughtful conversations with each council member and their teams to better understand your values and priorities.

To bring this process forward, we have spent time incorporating feedback, what we've heard from neighbors, public hearings, emails, and meetings.

As the chair of the committee, I led with a clear set of values.

I've expressed how we strive for a city that's welcoming and inclusive, affordable, accessible, livable, and safe.

I've worked to make sure that our city brings growth to people without pushing long-term residents out.

I've heard from black residents, I've heard from LGBTQIA residents, I've heard from communities, I've heard from Hispanic communities, I've heard from All communities of color and under-resourced households.

I've also supported expanding and colleagues have also supported expanding affordable housing options to allow families to stay together.

We've emphasized accessibility design so people of all ages and abilities can live comfortably And we have encouraged walkability, climate conscious neighborhoods with parks, transit and places for people to gather.

So we're pushing for, we also are pushing for prioritizing safety through well-lit streets, active public spaces and planning that reflects the voices of our communities that we have heard.

Bringing those values, we've advanced a package of proposals that make these goals real in people's lives.

That includes policies to support young families and aging residents through childcare access, family housing bonuses.

We've also supported incentives for diverse housing types like stacked flats, cottage homes, Unit conversions, which are incredibly important.

We've prioritized environmental health by promoting sustainable tree management, protecting local species and reducing pollution in all neighborhoods.

We also worked really hard to expand ADA accessible units, encourage those in shared green spaces and balconies.

That is important for mental health as we continue to become more dense in our cities, balconies, balconies, balconies, so people can get outside, feel the fresh air, and see the beautiful nature that we've had.

We've pushed for the expansion of affordable housing and including social housing as well.

I also want to say, and I want to publicly apologize to Councilmember Rivera about not including one of your amendments in the package.

That was an oversight.

I apologize.

We had our discussion and I wanted to make sure everyone felt like they had something connected into the package.

So just wanted to publicly state that to you.

We have also been operating within clear requirements.

I want to talk about the How we came to this conclusion, our understanding of the packages and the individual amendments and the resolution, because this is really important.

We also have been operating with clear requirements by state law.

So we put together a chair's package Number one, we put together individual amendments that are not included in the chair's package.

There are reasons for someone asked for the amendment to be discussed more openly.

I wasn't sure how others on council would feel about it after having different values and talking to people, or we also have any and all Boundaries of neighborhood centers or regional centers or any type of boundary changes that were changed are individually vote.

For the resolution, we placed some items in the resolution because I wasn't comfortable potentially moving forward with them now because of potential impacts regarding environmental scope, understanding legal analysis.

are still in the resolution does not mean that they can't be voted on individual votes, but we have those in a resolution from my understanding of working with law and also people's comfortability on taking on really, really big subjects right now as well.

I'm looking forward to continuing this work together and how we shape more of an inclusive and abundant housing in Seattle as well.

And with that, we're looking forward to tomorrow's meeting.

And that meeting will be at 9.30.

Tomorrow, we will vote on the comprehensive plan and permanent legislation on House Bill 1110 with the individual amendments.

And I think we have over 45 amendments, if I can count right, maybe, maybe less, 46, something like that.

We have 45 plus amendments.

The meeting will start at 930. We did our public comment today, so we're gonna jump right into the meeting tomorrow because it's a lot.

And I want to also make sure that people know that we will be taking a recess from 1 to 2 p.m.

So meeting starts at 9.30, we will have a recess from 1 to 2 p.m., and then we'll resume our meeting to make sure that we are continuing the process.

Are there any questions regarding next steps in our tomorrow meeting?

It's an easy crowd.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, everyone.

With that, we have no other items on the agenda for today.

Do my colleagues have any more items of business?

Pause.

None.

This concludes our September 17th meeting of the Select Committee of the Comprehensive Plan.

It is my favorite time of the day.

It is 420. The next select committee is Thursday, September 18th at 9.30.

There's no further business.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.