Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Session I 9/12/25

Good morning, everyone.

The September 12th meeting of the Select Comprehensive Plan will come to order.

It is 9.35 a.m.

My name is Joy Hollingsworth.

I am the chair of the committee.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Juarez.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Councilmember Diabeta.

Present.

Councilmember Sacca.

Here.

Councilmember Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Salomon.

Present.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Here.

Nine present.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

We're now going to consider the agenda.

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

Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.

Welcome to session one of this public hearing on both the one comprehensive plan and the permanent House Bill legislation of House Bill 1110. I want to thank everyone for your attendance and engagement today.

I know we have a ton of callers online, so I just want to thank you all for showing up today for public comment, as well as our staff, our team, and our IT team as well.

The public hearing is specifically for us to hear from community feedback about the amendments that we as council members have generated since the last public hearing.

We heard your feedback then and hope some of these amendments reflect your feedback.

And we look forward to hearing from you from your reactions towards specific amendments.

And I know that there will be some people that have different Opinions and comments and just asking everyone just really nicely that we continue to be respectful and we look at each other's humanity.

Today will be broken into two sessions.

Session one begins at 9.30 a.m.

and it is reserved for remote public comment.

Session two is gonna begin at 3 p.m.

and it will be reserved for in-person public commenters only and any remaining remote speakers if we do not move through all the speakers this morning.

The deadlines for as follows.

The registration opened up early at 8.30 a.m.

and it will close at 10 a.m.

for online.

In person, registration's at City Hall.

It's gonna start at 6.30 and we're gonna close the registration at, excuse me, it's gonna start at 2.30.

And it's going to close at 6.30.

That's four hours rolling time.

If you get here between that time, you're able to give your public comment to sign up and we will continue to listen to everyone.

Our goal is to get through all remote speakers during this morning session.

We're gonna have recess at 12.30, depending on the number of registered guests.

And then if we don't get through all those registered guests, you will be...

You will be able to have your comments for the afternoon session.

You don't need to re-sign up.

We'll be calling on you in the afternoon session.

Members of the public who would like to provide public comments during either session one or two must register before the deadlines.

So thank you again.

We have found this way to be one of the best ways for us to get as much public comment As possible for us to stay engaged and listening to you all.

And so it's going to be a full day of listening to our community and we can't wait.

So items of business.

Will the clerk please read items number one and two into the record?

Agenda items one and two.

Council Bill 120985 relating to land use and zoning repealing and replacing the Seattle Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the major update with new goals, policies and elements and a new future land use map.

Council Bill 120993 relating to land use and zoning implementing a major update of neighborhood residential zones and modifying development standards in other zones to comply with various state laws for briefing and public hearing.

Awesome, thank you.

Today we're gonna start today with a short presentation on how the chair's package will be structured as well as an overview of the voting process.

We have the phenomenal Lish Whitson here for briefing and talking about the process.

Please introduce yourself and you can just jump right into the presentation.

Thank you, Lish.

Good morning, Lischwitz and Council Central Staff.

I'm going to keep this as brief as possible so that you can get to the meat of today's meeting, but want to make sure that we're all on the same page about how things will proceed next week.

So you have three days of meetings scheduled.

Afternoon is September 17th.

Will be a more administrative day, maybe.

We will be discussing a consent package of amendments that are intended to be voted on collectively.

You'll have the opportunity to pull any amendments from that consent package that you want to be considered individually.

But the consent packages are being developed by the chair as what she is thinking have the most support across the council.

Again, there will be an opportunity to pull items from the consent packages for individual vote if you would like to either speak to them individually, speak to the amendment individually, or vote on it individually.

And that will not require a second.

Any council member can just say, I would like this amendment to be pulled, and it will be pulled and be considered the next day.

There is a substitute bill for the permanent House Bill 1110 legislation.

Primarily, that is just updating the bill to reflect land use legislation that's been adopted this summer and makes a few minor corrections also to the bill.

So they'll be Voted on first, then the consent packages will be voted on on Wednesday afternoon, and that'll provide the basis for actions on Thursday.

Thursday, we'll first vote on items that have been pulled from the consent package for individual votes, vote on other amendments to each bill, and then vote on the bills themselves and hopefully have Committee recommendation for each bill.

Both days we'll start with the comprehensive plan bill, go through all the actions related to that, and then move on to the Permanent House Bill 1110 legislation.

In addition, the Chair is preparing a resolution that will be introduced on Tuesday.

That will identify future actions that the Council is requesting the Executive to undertake, mainly items that the Council is asking come back for Council consideration in 2026. There is time reserved Friday afternoon, so if we don't get through all three pieces of the legislation on Thursday, we'll be back here Friday afternoon for final votes and then wrap up any of the committee's work.

Friday afternoon right now is the last time the select committee on the conference plan is scheduled to meet, so we are close to the finish line.

Happy to answer any questions.

Awesome.

Thank you, Lish, for that timeline and structure and just kind of the next process.

I'm going to pause here to see if any council members have any questions about the process and the timeline and how we're moving forward.

I'll look on the screen.

I'll give you all a quick second.

Okay.

It looks like that was the best presentation because there's no questions.

So, oh, council president.

You're all good.

Council president, you are recognized.

So could you remind me when the changes to neighborhood center boundaries will be addressed and when potential additions to the list of neighborhood centers will be addressed?

What is the timeline for some of those things?

I do not think any of those items have been included in the consent package.

So if council members are proposing those items for an individual vote, they'll be considered on Thursday.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm looking to see other, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Lish, can you just clarify

They're not in the consent package, so they would automatically go for a vote, or are you saying then we have to move to...

So each council member will move their amendments on Thursday if they haven't been adopted as part of the consent package.

Some council members have already indicated they want to withdraw some amendments, and that's always an option.

Oh, I see.

And when will we know which are withdrawn?

So our intent is to publish agendas 48 hours in advance.

So please let me know as soon as possible if you do want to withdraw an amendment, and we haven't heard from you already on that.

I've sent to each council member the list of amendments and the status that we believe What we believe the status of each of their amendments is.

So please let me know by the end of the day if we've gotten anything wrong.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Lish.

Any other questions?

Last questions for Lish before we move on to our public hearing?

Thank you, Lish.

Thank you to the team for all your hard work.

So really appreciate you all.

We're gonna go ahead and move on.

And the public hearing for council bills 120985 and 120933 is now open.

An important note as we get started, when you come on for public comment, please state your name and which council bill you're gonna be addressing before you deliver your remarks.

That's helps us.

As we're navigating and keeping track of comments, we will be discussing two bills today for your clarification.

This will help inform our amendments as well.

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

So far, excuse me, so far we have 112.

112. Awesome.

Thank you all.

So I know that we posted, I know we had gotten feedback, hey, we wish we had more time than one minute, but I know we have to get through everyone and we also don't know how many people are gonna sign up this afternoon.

So everyone's gonna get one minute and really appreciate your engagement during this process.

And so will you please read also the instructions for public comment period?

The public hearing period for session one will be moderated in the following manner.

The remote public commentaries will be called on to speak in the order registered.

If you have not registered to speak virtually, we would like to please register before 10 a.m.

at the council's website.

Registration for this session will end at 10. The council will recess after the registered remote speakers have spoken.

If council's not able to call in all speakers by 12.30, those remaining speakers will be called on during the 3 p.m.

session.

We'll now begin by calling on registered speakers.

Once I call your remote speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone, and an automated prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue.

That is their turn to speak, and then the speaker must press star six to begin speaking.

Please state your name and which council bill you're addressing before you deliver your remarks.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

And just a reminder, we have 12 minutes before we close public comment, sign up for this first session.

So 12 minutes.

If you're listening, please sign up.

Throughout the public comment period, I will be reminding us how many speakers we have left, where we are, just to make sure, because I know that there are a number of people that are not present because you're towards the end.

I will constantly be reminding us what speaker number that we're at.

So if you're listening on the phone, you know to jump on.

And if there are people that are not present, as we...

We will do, we will call your name at the end if we see that your president will fit you in there.

We're gonna do a lot of reminders just to make sure that we can get through everyone and everyone has a chance to speak.

Okay, let's get this started.

I'll read the first three names.

We have Kate Rubin, followed by Nora Sandler, followed by Nathan Winch.

You all are up.

Kate Rubin is first.

And you're gonna press star six to unmute yourself.

And then you can go right into your public comment.

Good morning, Kate.

And go ahead and press star six.

Kate, we see you're online.

Go ahead and unmute yourself.

Just star six.

We see you on the screen, Kate.

We're gonna go ahead.

We'll come back to you, Kate.

Hi.

Okay, we see Zach Howell.

We're gonna go ahead and- Can you hear me?

Yes, we'll go to Zach Howell, and then we see Kate Rubin.

Oh, is that- Zach Howell.

No, just please, Zach, if you can just please hold for a second.

The next speaker is- Nora Sandler, followed by Nathan Winch.

Thank you.

Hi, Nora.

Good morning.

If you press star six, you can go ahead and start your public comment.

Thank you so much.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

My name is Nora Sandler.

I live in District 3.

And today I'm feeling really hopeful because the Adelites have come to City Hall over and over saying we need more housing.

And many of the amendments that were filed showed that most of the city council heard us.

And if you pass the strongest of these amendments and reject the harmful ones, we'll have a great comprehensive plan which will put Seattle on track to be a city where people from all walks of life can afford to live and want to live.

So I'm asking you to say yes to Council President Nelson's Amendments 60 and 63 and Council Member Kettle's Amendments 61 so we can have more affordable and social housing.

Yes to Amendments 89 and 91 for more stacked flats and more trees.

And yes to Councilmember Rink's Amendment 34 to create eight new neighborhood centers.

And to her Amendment 7 and 84 to eliminate parking mandates.

Let's go to Seattle with vibrant neighborhoods, more trees and less parking, and plenty of housing for everyone.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Nora.

Next, Kate Rubin, if you can hear us, go ahead and press star six.

Followed by, we'll have Nathan Winch.

Hi, Kate.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the co-executive director of the Seattle Insurance Co-Chair of the Seattle Renters Commission and a renter in District 2. My roommate and I are both nonprofit workers and neither of us could afford a median one-bedroom apartment alone.

We were so lucky to find a rental we can afford together near a park and frequent public transit.

It shouldn't take luck for renters to have housing that's affordable and desirable.

Seattle renters are struggling and the comprehensive plan must support communities where everyone can thrive.

The renters commission voted to support amendment 34 adding eight neighborhood centers and to encourage permanently affordable social housing in all neighborhoods.

Amendments 17 and 61 do this by adding social housing to the plan and creating bonuses for it.

Segregating renters on polluted arterials and blocking them from areas of low displacement and high opportunity would continue to perpetuate Seattle's racist history of exclusionary zoning.

These choices will shape the city for decades.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

Good morning, Nathan.

You're up, followed by Ryan Talen and then Anne Tyson.

Good morning, council members, and thank you for your continued leadership throughout this process.

I know it hasn't been easy.

My name is Nathan Winch.

I'm here on behalf of AIA Seattle as the organization's advocacy manager.

AIA Seattle represents over 2,800 architects, planners, and designers committed to building a more sustainable and equitable livable city.

I won't get into specific amendments, but generally we support amendments that expand options, remove unnecessary barriers, and make building more predictable and cost effective.

We strongly support restoring and retaining all previously studied neighborhood centers.

And we also support eliminating amenity and parking requirements, as many neighboring jurisdictions have already done.

These updates are critical to meeting Seattle's urgent housing needs and ensuring our city remains an inclusive and thriving place for everyone.

Thank you, Nathan.

We have Ryan Talen, followed by Anne Tyson, and then Dylan.

And so we're on speaker number five.

And when you jump on, Ryan, you're going to just press star six.

Good morning.

My name is Ryan Talon.

I'm a registered nurse at Harborview, a member of a queer community, and a Capitol Hill resident.

Seattle's affordability, homelessness, and cost of living crises demand bold action from our comprehensive plan.

We must commit to adding more housing supply citywide to lower costs for everyone.

I urge the council to pass key amendments that make that possible.

Please support Amendment 34 to bring back equitable neighborhood centers, adopt Amendments 60 and 63 for vital affordable housing density bonuses, Eliminate costly parking mandates near transit with Amendment 86, and finally pass Amendment 89 and 91 to allow more stacked flats on all residential lots, boosting homes while retaining our tree canopy.

These are practical, necessary steps towards more affordable and just Seattle.

Please be courageous and pass these amendments to ensure everyone can have a home in our beautiful city.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Ryan.

Next we have Anne Tyson, followed by Dylan, and then Michaela.

Daffron.

So we're on Ann Tyson.

Star 6 when you jump on.

Good morning.

I'm District 4 resident Ann Tyson.

Please vote yes on amendments 39, 40, 41, 81, 93, and 102. Amendments 39, 40, and 41 reduce the boundaries of neighborhood centers.

HB 1110 legislation already significantly increases density.

Amendments 93 and 102 protect trees vital to the health and well-being of Seattle residents.

For the no's, 76, 7, 84, 34, and 63. Please vote no on Amendment 76. Bus stops change and must not be defined as major transit or used to determine land use up zones.

Only fixed rail transport and other permanent infrastructure should be defined as major transit.

Vote no on Amendment 77 and 84. Parking requirements are necessary for workers, small businesses, childcare centers, and seniors.

Vote no on Amendment 34. There's been no vetting or public comment on these.

And vote no on Amendment 63, allowing stores anywhere in neighborhood residential areas would displace residences.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have Dylan followed by Michaela and then Audrey.

Hello, council members.

My name is Dylan Glasecki.

I'm an architect and urban designer and a member of the Seattle Planning Commission.

The views I'm sharing today are my own.

The intent of a neighborhood center is to encourage housing on underdeveloped residential lots adjacent to a commercial core, not within the commercial core itself, in order to avoid displacement of the existing small businesses in third places that define that neighborhood.

If neighborhood center boundaries are reduced to limit development opportunities to only the commercial core and a few adjacent parcels, then development pressure is focused on that commercial core and the existing small businesses and third places that are the heart of the neighborhood are more likely to be displaced.

Proposed boundary reductions of 40 to 70 percent across five neighborhood centers would result in small business displacement.

Additionally, this boundary reductions would eliminate 10,000 potential housing units, assuming LR3 five-story residential zoning is lost.

Add more neighborhood centers.

Maintain neighborhood center boundaries.

Do not reduce Allow housing to be developed around these neighborhoods commercial cores to enable small businesses and third places that are the hearts of our communities to stay put and continue to thrive.

Thank you very much.

Awesome.

Thank you, Dylan.

We have Michaela Daffern next, followed by Audrey Nutt, and then Bill Scott.

Hello, Council Members.

My name is Michaela Daffern, and I am here today on behalf of the Seattle Planning Commission, speaking about both bills.

The Planning Commission would like to acknowledge the years-long process of broad community outreach that informed the plan's development.

City staff sought input from a broad cross-section of city residents with intentional focus on communities who are often left out of the planning process.

Participants in open houses across the city, community-based organization workshops, and those who use the online engagement hub urge the city to adopt bold policies to increase housing affordability, reduce displacement risk, and address climate change.

The Commission's concerned that some of the amendments developed at this late stage in the process prioritize more recent and narrow feedback without regard to the full range of input received throughout plan development.

Please ensure that the conclusion of this process upholds the principles of transparency and equity that have defined the One Seattle plan process in the beginning.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michaela.

Next we have Audrey, followed by Bill Scott, and then Raymond Yu.

Good morning, Audrey.

We see you off mute.

If you go ahead and start talking, we can see if we can hear you.

Now you just remuted yourself.

Go ahead and press star six.

There you go.

Can you hear us, Audrey?

Can you hear me?

Now we can.

You're all good.

This is Audrey.

Hi, Audrey.

Go ahead and start with your comment.

Excellent.

The bills and proposed amendments that are before the council today may eventually alleviate our housing demands in the city.

I think it's just not what people are intending.

The city's comprehensive plan and these proposed amendments are going well beyond what our state has mandated for increased density.

There are multiple aspects of these bills and proposed amendments that will promote density sprawl throughout neighborhoods.

The knock-on effect will be a destruction of the beauty of our tree canopy, gardens, vegetation, open spaces, and quaint single-family homes, as well as creating unfathomable vehicle congestion throughout residential neighborhoods.

We've already seen a dramatic rise in the price of Seattle's family starter homes as they are being leveled for development.

The plan only incentivizes further destruction of our starter home stock, replacing them with far more expensive properties in areas with no amenities and no transportation.

And no transportation in any site.

The goal will be no one will really want to live in Seattle and will solve our demands by making this an unlivable city.

Please vote no on Amendment 7, 17, 34, 63, 64, 72, 76, 84, 86, and all other amendments.

Thank you, Audrey.

Next, we have Bill Scott, followed by Raymond Yu, and then Charlotte Stark.

Bill, go ahead and press star six.

We're going to go to the next one, Bill.

We're going to go to Raymond Yu, followed by Charlotte Stark.

We'll come back to you, Bill, once we see you off mute.

Hi, Raymond.

Go ahead and press star six.

Hello, members of the City Council.

My name is Raymond Yu, and I'm a renter in Seattle District 7. Housing affordability is a defining issue of this decade.

It's crucial that we think long term and act now to ensure that current and future generations can afford to live in the city, too.

To make housing affordable, we need to make supply abundant.

We need to ensure that all neighborhoods do their fair share in becoming denser, including the wealthy ones.

We must restore the size and number of neighborhood centers and up-zoned areas around transit stops in the plan.

These reduce car dependence and allow more people to use alternatives for daily needs.

We should also incentivize and prioritize housing designs like stacked flats.

They are better for space efficiency, seniors, and those with limited mobility.

Lastly, let's not be conservative with reducing setbacks at the expense of density.

One tree can't offset the carbon emissions from a car used for daily commutes.

However, these trees should be replaced or moved elsewhere if they impede the construction of denser housing.

Let's not benefit narrow groups at the expense of the city's long-term needs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Raymond.

Bill, we'll see.

Are you available?

Star six, can you hear us?

Star six.

Okay, we'll come back to you, Bill.

Charlotte Stark, followed by Jessie Clausen.

Good morning, Charlotte.

Just press star six to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good morning.

Hello?

Yes, good morning.

We can hear you, Charlotte.

Good morning, I'm sorry.

Good morning, you're good.

I'm Alki resident and president of Alki Community Council of 400 Neighbors and a former journalist who spent my life advocating for the public's right to know.

Alki, amid other neighborhoods, is just blindsided because we had no notice of massive residential and commercial rezoning of 95 acres proposed in Amendment 34 by Councilmember Rankin.

And because of that, I urge you to withdraw Alki or vote no.

Last year, West Seattle Open House had Morgan Admiral Fauntleroy in the plan amid the 30 that were officially designated neighborhood centers, and they had nearly a year of engagement, public announcements, workshops, 60-day comment periods, publicity, and more.

In total, we're talking about 623 acres across eight Seattle neighborhoods affecting tens of thousands of residents and businesses, impacting in a sudden rezoning Proposal most don't even know about.

Seattle does need housing solutions, but rezoning without transparency or public notice, silencing tens of thousands.

Thank you, Charlotte.

Next we have Jesse Clausen followed by Lynn Drake.

Jesse Clausen, Lynn Drake.

Go ahead and press star six.

Hi, everybody.

It's Jesse Clausen from McCullough Hill.

I'm talking today about the permanent legislation and in support of Amendment 65 related to corner stores.

We support that amendment with one suggested change.

We'd like to amend the amendment to exclude kitchen and back of house from the gross floor area calculation for restaurants.

2,500 square feet is not enough space to run a viable restaurant.

Excluding that kitchen and back of house space gives you just enough space to make a tiny little restaurant that can work in neighborhood residential zones.

That's all I've got.

Thank you for working on this very complicated piece of legislation.

You're doing great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jessie.

Bill, if you press star six, we still see you're on.

We'll keep pinging you until you can come off mute.

Next, we have Lynn Drake, followed by Rebecca Baer and Matt Hutchins.

Good morning, Lynn.

Good morning.

Hi, my name is Lynn Drake.

I'm a homeowner living in Elk High.

I'm also a member of the West Seattle Urbanism Group, where we promote housing of all types.

And favor walking, biking, and transit.

I'm in favor of Alki becoming a neighborhood center.

It's a perfect location so we can support better transit, pedestrian spaces, and support for our businesses here.

I attended the meeting that Councilmember Rank organized at the Log House Museum in Alki.

Quoting Tom Fukulora from the Seattle Bike Blog, Quote, many continue to get priced out of housing entirely, pushing them into a deadly life, trying to survive on the street.

For a city as great as Seattle, filling in to meet this challenge over the past two decades is our biggest shame.

Let's support all 30 neighborhood centers so we can provide housing needs.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for your time.

No word.

Thank you, Lynn.

Just so we're going to pause right here.

It's 10.06.

So the public comment sign up is closed.

We have on here about 107, 119 callers and we're at number 15. Okay.

So we're at caller 15. We have 119 people to get through.

Okay.

And Rebecca Berry, you are up.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Rebecca Baer.

I am the president and CEO of the Seattle Parks Foundation.

Seattle Parks Foundation represents over 125 community-based parks and public space groups located in every district in Seattle.

Today I want to express support for Amendments 26, 28, 29, 30, 93, 94, 102, 104, and 106. We agree we need housing, but this should happen in conjunction with the improvement to the quality of life of our residents.

A stronger plan would ensure we make mobility and green infrastructure the backbone of our growth.

Pair sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit with parks and green canopy, tree canopy.

Build on our park legacy and build on our identity as an Emerald City.

Invest in that infrastructure up front and tie them to new parks, improve sidewalks and transit, and upgrades to rezoned areas.

We also need to engage our neighborhoods as partners so we keep the cultural relevance of our community.

Grow the tree canopy and don't shrink it.

I hope you'll consider these recommendations and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, Rebecca.

Before you go, Matt, one second.

Bill, Scott, we see that you're up.

Are you able to press star six?

Star six to get off mute.

We'll give you a quick second.

Okay, we'll keep coming back to you, Bill.

Good morning, Matt.

Follow, one second, Matt.

Followed by Matt, we have Kasima Lee and then Lois Martin.

Good morning, Matt.

Good morning, council members.

I'm here today on behalf of the Seattle Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission urges you to adopt the One Seattle Plan in its boldest form.

We support amendments that incentivize more types of housing in more of the city, such as stacked flats bonuses, an additional density for affordable housing, accessible units, and ADUs.

We support eliminating minimum parking requirements.

We support expanding neighborhood centers.

The Commission does not support amendments that create new bureaucratic hurdles to housing, such as historic district design standards, or giving an SDCI code official subjective authority to force a project back to the drawing board if any tree is affected by development.

Seattle is facing an ongoing housing affordability crisis, and the one-sealed plan that you pass should remove barriers and provide incentives The production of a variety of housing types for all affordability levels across the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

We have Kasima Lee followed by Lois Martin and then Rick Kay.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Kasima Lee.

I'm 28. I'm single.

And three months ago, I bought my first house in beautiful Licton Springs.

I love my new neighborhood.

Every morning, I wake up to the sound of finches, robins, and chickadees.

I spend my weeknights working on my garden, and I'm really close to the E-line, which gets me to my job in downtown in 20 minutes.

I'm really glad to live in a neighborhood center, and I can imagine setting a family in my new home.

But the truth is, I'm only able to afford a house in Seattle because of density in my neighborhood, from duplexes to sixplexes and apartments.

Because of that, I support the retention and expansion of neighborhood centers and incentives for diverse housing types.

It's these factors that have allowed me to attain my dream of homeownership, and I believe keeping Councilmember Rinks Amendment 34 will pave the way for so many others like me to see their homeownership dreams come true.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Kasima.

Next, we have Lois Martin followed by Rick Kaye and then Evan Sexton.

Lois, Ms. Martin, go ahead and press star six.

Good morning, council members.

Along with other community members, I reviewed the proposed amendments with an eye toward equity, livability, and environmental justice.

I urge you to support amendments 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 31, 75, 81, 93, 102, and 110. These amendments make development better by ensuring new housing contributes to healthier, more livable neighborhoods.

They represent the kind of balance we need, growth that doesn't come at the cost of community stability, displacement, or environmental health.

Earlier this morning, I sent an email that includes amendments we believe should be modified or opposed.

along with the reasons why.

It also includes an ask not to carve up the Central District by placing huge pieces into other areas.

You must center all community needs in your decision making to ensure good intentions don't cause irreversible harm, especially to the descendants of the enslaved, communities of color, and working class families.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Rick Kaye, followed by Evan Sexton, and then David Folis.

Rick Kaye, caller number 19, you are up.

Wake up.

Project 2025 is here.

Council members Rink, Nelson, and Kettle have proposed amendments which are pro-billionaire and anti-transit.

Excessive up-zoning benefits private equity billionaires over the rest of us.

Up-zoning is not gross.

Upzoning discourages modest growth and discourages maintenance as we await the whims of distant billionaires.

Don't be fooled.

They aren't aiming for lowering rents.

They are aiming for increasing rents, choosing locations that displace instead of infill.

Development far from transit draws development dollars away from transit, harming transit use.

As Senator Merkley said, the corporate takeover of housing is driving up rents and home prices.

It isn't progressive.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth, for your proposals that prioritize people more than corporations.

Thank you, Rick.

Next, we have Evan Sexton, followed by David Folis.

Hello.

Thank you, council members, for your work on the comprehensive plan.

My name is Evan Sexton, and I've lived in Bryant for 20 years.

Throughout this process, Bryant neighbors have made themselves clear the neighborhood center must make sense for Bryant.

The proposal put forward by the Mayor's Office and the Office of Planning and Community Development does just that, placing future apartments adjacent to existing ones.

The amendment to adjust the borders of the Bryant Neighborhood Center, Amendment 39, would instead remove existing apartment buildings and middle housing from the neighborhood center.

To compensate, the amendment would allow development on sites like the Ronald McDonald House.

While Bryant neighbors don't agree on everything when it comes to the comprehensive plan, I've heard broad agreement from neighbors on both sides of the issue.

This proposal doesn't make sense.

Please reject Amendment 39 and adopt the map currently included in the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Evan.

Next we have David Folis followed by Giselle Forrest.

I'm sorry if I butchered your name.

I apologize.

So David, you're up.

Go ahead and press star six and you can start.

We see you're off mute, David.

Go ahead and try to talk and we can see if we can hear you.

Now you're back on mute.

It's okay.

Go ahead, press star six again and then start talking.

Now you're off mute.

David, can you hear us?

Your phone might be on mute, David.

We see you.

Okay, we'll come back to you, David.

Sorry about that.

I'm here.

I'm here.

You're good.

You're good.

You're good.

We ain't gonna leave you here.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize.

Council members, my name is David Falls.

I'm asking you to support Amendment 35 Version 1 to Council Bill 120985. I'm a 20-year resident of Fauntleroy.

Amendment 35 optimizes our neighborhood center to allow for sensible growth while respecting our small-scale and critical environmental habitat.

This amendment is the result of careful consideration between neighborhood residents, community groups, and city representatives.

The original boundary ignored three realities.

Seattle Public School property ownership, the 1.7 million ferry vehicles our small neighborhood already absorbs each year, and the ecological health of Fauntleroy Creek, one of the two remaining salmon-bearing streams in West Seattle.

The city has authorized 27 million in culver construction to restore fish passage upstream, yet the larger boundary would undermine that investment.

Streets included in the original boundary, Fauntleroy Southwest and 47th Southwest are narrow, dead-end access routes for more than 1,500 residents.

They are not wide corridors suited for more density.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

My parents never owned a home, and they still struggle with housing.

And that has shaped me deeply.

When my spouse and I moved to this area, we worked hard to build stability.

But this year, when we tried to buy a home in Seattle, it was out of the question.

We faced a choice between overpaying for rent or leaving the area altogether.

That changed a few months ago when we found a home through How to Tap our Community.

Soon, we'll be first-time homeowners in Seattle.

For the first time in years, we had a sense of hope.

But opportunities like ours don't come often.

I urge you to expand this comprehensive plan and adopt amendments 34, 60, 86, 89, and 91. Build more multi-plex housing for middle-income families, create walkable neighborhood centers, remove parking mandates, and increase affordable housing incentives.

This isn't just about housing, it's about building a stronger, more stable future for working class people in Seattle.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Giselle.

We're at speaker number 23, Tristan, followed by Ebony, that's speaker number 24, and then Corey, speaker number 25. Tristan, you're going to go ahead and press star six to get off mute, and then you can begin your public comment.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Tristan Cycle, and I'm going to speak on the Comprehensive Plan.

I've rented for 12 years, always paid on time, always been a good tenant, yet rents kept climbing while quality declined.

Despite working full-time as a nonprofit director and investing in my community, homeownership in Seattle has felt impossible.

My spouse and I even considered leaving behind our friends and chosen family just to find something affordable elsewhere.

That changed when we found affordable housing.

We're now becoming first-time homeowners.

But our story shouldn't be the exception.

Housing is a human right.

I urge you to strengthen this plan by supporting the amendments that make stacked flats legal on more lots, boost affordable housing bonuses, remove parking mandates, and build blockable neighborhood centers near schools, transit, and small businesses.

This plan can give more families what we finally found, hope, stability, and pride in calling Seattle home.

Thank you all for your time.

Thank you, Tristan.

Next we have Ebony Arunga, Corey Miller, followed by Michael Ruby.

Good morning, Ebony.

Ebony Arunga, Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Ebony Arunga, and I'm speaking on behalf of Black Legacy homeowners, families who survived redlining and gentrification in Seattle.

We review the amendments through the lens of equity, anti-displacement, and environmental justice.

Too many of these proposals raise land values, increase taxes, and shift burdens onto our families, while developers reap the benefits.

We urge you to vote no on the harmful amendments that accelerate displacement, erase our cultural legacy, weaken tree canopy protections, and reduce livability.

In particular, expanding neighborhood centers that cut the Central District into Capitol Hill and First Hill and other areas is an act of erasure.

Our cultural institutions, from Langston Hughes Performing Arts Institute to Northwest African American Museum, are the backbone of the Central District and must remain recognized as such.

At the same time, we support amendments 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 31, 75, 81, 93, 102, and 110 because they strengthen the key.

Thank you, Ebony.

Next, we have Corey Miller followed by Michael Ruby and then Caroline Ullman.

Go ahead and press star six, Corey.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, sure can.

You're good.

Hi, my name is Corey.

I'm a state worker with the employee, the Attorney General's Office.

I live in Capitol Hill.

And one thing that I want to speak on especially is Amendment 17. This city is getting harder and harder to afford as a renter.

I think one of the problems that there is certainly not enough apartment housing.

I've heard people talk about the need to preserve starter homes, the need to preserve our tree canopy.

And reading from, you know, obviously people reading from a script, using words like, you know, equity and environmental justice.

A lot of people have mentioned that so far, but I and a lot of other people that I know are having a harder and harder and harder time affording this place because we can't have new housing.

I do not have the income, nor do I ever anticipate having the income to be able to afford a home at sea level prices.

I will remain a renter and please I encourage you to support Amendment 17. We need more social housing.

Thank you, Cory.

Next we have Michael Ruby, followed by Caroline Ullman.

Hi, my name is Mike Ruby.

I live in Wallingford.

I am commenting on CB 129.93.

I am calling out two amendments to support that contribute to retaining more trees and one which I feel is quite harmful and would enable environmentally dangerous development.

I urge you to reject Amendment Number 72 by Councilmember Rankin.

It includes environmentally sensitive areas in lot coverage and FAR calculations that are currently excluded.

This change would encourage more dense development next to urban streams and wetlands and protected steep slopes.

We have all worked so hard to bring back our urban streams and wetlands so they can provide important ecosystem services.

And to protect from catastrophic slope failure.

This is not the time to be encouraging new, denser development on their margins.

I commend to you two amendments by CM Rivera.

Number 93, which provides greater rewards for protecting and planting larger trees during construction, and number 104, which provides...

Thank you, Michael.

Next we have Caroline Ullman.

Go ahead and press star six.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Caroline Ullman, and I have lived in Maple Leaf since 1998. I live in the proposed neighborhood center area, specifically along the heavily used and pedestrian-friendly 12th Avenue Northeast Greenway.

I'm one of the 1,734 residents who signed a petition opposing the location of a neighborhood center designation.

Former Councilmember Kathy Moore understood our concerns.

Before she resigned, she was working to amend the boundaries to protect the Greenway and preserve the nearly 100 Tier 2 trees that are growing in the proposed area.

Please honor Councilmember Moore's extensive work with our community, amend the boundaries, protect the Greenway, preserve our mature trees.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, Caroline.

Thank you, Caroline.

Next, I'm just going to say your last name because I can't pronounce your first name.

Alvarez.

Then we have Bradley followed by Randy.

Go ahead and press star six.

Hello.

Hi.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Morning.

You're all good.

Good morning.

Go ahead.

I come from number six.

Hello, council members.

My name is Io Alvarez, and I'm here today on behalf of the Seattle Planning Commission speaking on false bills.

Planning Commission supports a robust network of neighborhood centers in the One Seattle Plan.

Neighborhood centers are critical to achieving our vision of a Seattle where all residents live in great neighborhoods, neighborhoods that are accessible and connected to the rest of the city and the region, regardless of our incomes or the types of housing we call home.

Implementing them successfully is crucial to addressing the Seattle history of exclusionary zoning Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Liza Rankin.

Good morning.

Can you hear me okay?

Liza Rankin.

Loud and clear.

Thank you.

Liza Rankin.

Okay, great.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Brad Corey.

I'm a resident of District 3 and I'm a business owner, an architect and developer of Infield Housing.

I'm here to speak.

Council Bill 120993. I want to please encourage you to adopt policies that will create an equitable and positive future for all of Seattle's residents by allowing for the increased production of housing at all income and affordability levels.

This will help us increase equitable access to parks and schools, which are mostly located in our neighborhood residential zones.

Please eliminate all parking requirements.

Allow higher density limits to encourage stacked flats, Expand the definition of major transit to include Seattle's frequent transit definition.

Rely on lot coverage and do not apply amenity area requirement to the NR zones.

Please exempt accessory dwelling units from being counted towards determining density and from counting towards parking and FAR requirements.

Please maintain simplicity in the code.

Do not create a series of special requirements for specific locations.

Thank you, Bradley.

On deck, we have Randy and Marcia, but we're going to go back to Bill Scott.

Bill Scott, can you hear us?

You're going to go ahead and press star six to unmute yourself.

There we go.

Hey, Bill.

Yes, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Go right ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you, Bill.

Fabulous.

I'm going to save you all the weepy rationale and just give you the numbers.

So you can check off the right boxes on your list, okay?

So I'd like you to vote yes on Amendment 39, 40, 41, 81, 93, and 102, okay?

So that's yes on 39, 40, 41, 81, 93, 102, and no on 76, 7, 84, 34, and 63. Okie doke.

Hello?

We're right here.

You still have 30 seconds left, Bill.

No, I'm wrapped up.

Thanks so much.

Thanks for your good work.

Take care.

Thank you, Bill.

I like Bill.

Thank you, Bill.

All right, next we have Randy Banneker.

Sir Hollingworth, members of the council, Randy Banneker here on behalf of the Seattle King County Realtors, speaking to Council Bill 120993. We ask that you adopt the pro-housing amendments, which will unlock market rate, middle income housing affordability that our city is so desperately needing.

Specifically, amendment-wise, we ask that you adopt Councilmember Salka's Amendment 77 that would place cottage housing on equal footing with stacked flats.

Cottages are an important housing type for young families to purchase and begin building home equity.

And again, thank you for your hard work on the comprehensive planning process.

Awesome.

Thank you, Randy.

Bill just gave us our daily Washington State keynote numbers for everyone.

Just playing.

All right.

Marcia Rooten, you are next.

Followed by Ann Tyson.

That's a duplicate.

My apologies.

Pamela is next.

Caller number 33. Followed by Greg.

Caller number 34. So we are on caller number 31.

Hi, this is Marsha.

Am I reaching you?

Yes, we can hear you, Marsha.

Okay, great.

Hi, my name is Marsha Rutan from District 5, and I urge you to confirm amendments 93 and 102. When my daughter, Lisa, returned to Seattle after several years in San Francisco, she said how calming it was here, and when I asked her why, she said trees.

We know heat-related deaths rise due to lack of shade as climate change escalates,

We know trees sink carbon, give us clean air, and we know trees add beauty and grace to our neighborhoods.

But the current plan assumes new housing requires permission to level most trees on private property.

However, urban planners and architects have provided effective plans, which include plenty of trees.

While more housing is clearly needed, we must not sacrifice the beauty, shade, clean air, and calm Our trees provide for the sake of easier development.

Tree stripping leaves an unhealthy and ugly legacy for future generations.

I urge you to vote yes on amendments 93 and 102.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Pamela followed by Greg Smith.

This is just a reminder when you hear the ding, you still have 10 seconds left in your public comment.

So when you hear the bell, that is just the 10 second reminder that you, you know, reminder during your public comment.

Pamela, you are up.

Good morning.

You're unmuted.

Pamela, we can, if you go ahead and talk, maybe your phone is muted, but we see- Oh, okay.

There you go.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on amendments 34, 39, 76, and 86. I oppose amendment 34. Residents in these proposed neighborhood centers have not had time to engage with council.

Please use concurrent rezones in the One Seattle plan before adding neighborhood centers.

I support amendment 39. Over 300 neighbors in the Bryant area signed a petition in favor of this amendment, including me as a 30-year resident.

Our neighborhood welcomes increasing housing density and would love to actually have the criteria to meet a neighborhood center, but we don't.

We don't currently have the services for walkability, and our zoning doesn't allow for more retail services at this time.

The boundary adjustment addresses this.

I oppose 76. Which eliminates frequent transit service for the entirety of the bill and has not been properly vetted.

I oppose Amendment 86. The council expressed to our neighborhoods that the only part of the one Seattle plan that's currently being decided on are the neighborhood centers.

This amendment goes beyond that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pamela.

Next we have Greg Smith, followed by Audrey Nutt.

Audrey, you're not present, but just going to call your name out.

And then James Gant.

Greg Smith.

Greg, go ahead and press .

Can you hear me?

Now we can.

Go ahead, Greg.

This is Greg Smith.

I live on Capitol Hill.

I love living here.

Our grocery store is two blocks away.

Our pharmacy is three blocks away.

My favorite coffee shop is a block away.

Shops and restaurants everywhere.

It's really a wonderful way to live.

And I would like a lot more people to get to live this way.

And that's why I ask you to vote for all the amendments to add more neighborhood centers and to increase the size of other neighborhood centers.

These would be amendments 34, 33, and version C is of 43, 46, 47, 48, and 49. And I ask you to vote against the amendments that shrink the size of proposed centers.

These would be to please vote against Amendment 39, 40, 41, 38, 35, 36, 38. Let's create an even better Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Greg.

Audrey Nutt, you already went, so I apologize.

That's a duplicate.

James Gant followed by Jean Trent.

James Gant, you are up.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for your time, energy and dedication to our city.

I'm a 100% disabled combat veteran who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My wife and I love Seattle, where we plan to live out our years.

I support amendments 39, 40, 41, 81, 93, and 102. Please vote yes on these.

They are practical, community-minded policies that strengthen neighborhood planning, historic protections, tree retention, which are all essential for our city's livability.

I do not support amendments 734, 63, 76, and 84. Please vote no on these.

They remove critical parking requirements, push unvetted density, and risk displacing residents without sufficient community input or infrastructure planning.

Thank you again for your service to Seattle and for considering the voices of neighbors like me who care deeply about the future of our community.

Oh, that was nice.

Thank you, James.

You're off mute, Council Member Juarez.

I just realized that.

I'm sorry.

It's okay.

Jean, you are next.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you.

Hello.

Oh, great.

I'm Jean Trent.

I'm a 50-year resident of Seattle.

I used to own home.

I'm an apartment dweller now.

I join others who want to guide the city's growth.

More like cities like New York, Boston, Tacoma, and Portland, who all added protections to maintain livability in their cities.

We're not Southern California, a natural desert.

We are of the temperate rainforest.

We're the Emerald City.

That's why people love it here.

We understand that growth is inevitable, that haphazard growth does not help young people stay here and maintain a future.

Haphazard building right now is not providing anything affordable.

I believe it's a false choice to say that livability and affordability are exclusive.

We must be realistic.

Other cities have done this.

Please vote for 93 and 102 to close loopholes and protect planting areas and trees.

Thank you, Jean.

Check-in.

This is speaker number 38. So we're at 38. We have Delia, Nisan, and Amy.

And I butchered your name and I apologize.

Delia, you are up.

Go ahead and press star six, star six.

We see you off mute.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Delia Scholes.

I live in District 2 in Seattle.

I thank the committee for their continued commitment to this really complex issue and for continuing to hear our voices.

During this process, I, like a previous speaker, have been impressed that building density while conserving the urban canopy has been successfully accomplished by other cities nearby and around the world.

And fortunately, I think there are a lot of amendments now proposed that make Seattle able to avoid clear-cutting of our city with the rationale that it's the only way to provide our much needed, urgent, affordable housing.

So I urge the committee to especially protect trees on private property, to vote yes on amendments 93 and on amendment 102, to also vote yes on amendments 92 and 94 and amendment 77, and to vote no on amendments

Thank you.

Thank you, Delia.

Next we have Nissan, followed by Amy Storm.

Nissan.

Nissan.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Press.

Oh, you're good.

Yeah, good.

Okay.

Dear Committee Chair, Hollingsworth, and Councilmembers, my name is Nissan Harrell.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Council Bill 120985, including its proposed amendments related to the creation of a Broadview Neighborhood Center.

I represent Error Living, the owner of Ida Culver House Broadview.

A retirement community that provides independent assisted living and memory care options in the North Seattle's Broadview neighborhood.

We have been operating in this neighborhood for 35 years and hope to continue to do so for another 35 years and beyond.

I speak today in strong support of the inclusion of Broadview neighborhood center in the Seattle in the one Seattle plan as proposed in the newest map for amendment 34 and the inclusion of our entire campus, which is such a neighborhood in such a neighborhood center.

The creation of a Broadview Neighborhood Center will expand our seniors' residents' ability to live in a complete and thriving neighborhood while expanding the housing opportunities both in the neighborhood generally and specifically online at Culver House Campus.

We have submitted a written comment in support of our comments today.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in favor of the One Seattle Plan and for your efforts to build a bright future in our city.

Thank you, Nissan.

Next, we have Amy Storm, followed by Alberto Alvarez.

Amy, I'm Council Member Star6.

That's my new name.

Star6.

Amy Storm, I am a West Seattle resident and have been for the past 14 years.

I love my neighborhood, but I also know that it could be better.

When my neighbors move out and their houses are bought by developers who tear them down, right now they get rebuilt into a three-story single-family box, which doesn't create more housing, it just creates more expensive housing.

We have a handful of eateries within walking distance, but no accessible grocery store or indoor community spaces.

I want to live in a walkable neighborhood with community amenities, and to that end, I support Amendment 17, Amendment 34, Amendment 60, 61, 63, and 66, Amendment 78, Amendment 84, Amendment 89, and Amendment 91. Additionally, consider adding an amendment to encourage new construction to be painted in fun colors.

Winter here is depressing enough.

We don't need more gray and beige boxes, please.

Thank you so much for your time.

I am done.

Have a good day.

I like her, too.

Council Member Juarez, you're off mute.

Oh, my God.

I'm sorry.

I keep having these boomer moments.

I apologize.

I got two screens going.

Sorry.

It's okay.

Go ahead.

We're going to go ahead.

Okay, awesome.

She's on mute again.

Thank you.

Alberto, you are up.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Council Member Rankin.

Thank you for your bold leadership and empathy for the working class.

It is our responsibility to welcome new families, elders on fixed income, and young working people by adding the eight new neighborhood centers.

As our population surpassed 800,000, it was reported that less people are owning cars.

Eliminating parking mandates and building vertically are the best ways to protect tree canopy and provide homes for working people.

I fully support expanding every proposed neighborhood center across the city.

Vote for new families.

Vote for elders on fixed income.

Vote for young workers.

And vote for Dion Foster.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alberto.

Next we have Catherine Bailey, followed by Elena and then Damian.

And so that's caller number 43. Caller 43. Go ahead and press star six.

Can you hear me?

Sure can.

Loud and clear.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

This is Catherine Bailey, a resident of Fort Morris for the last 30 years, born and raised in Seattle.

I'm calling in support of Amendment 35 for Council Bill 120985. The community supports the residential neighbourhood centre for Fauntmore but requests a reduction of approximately five acres of that neighbourhood centre.

We have a very fragile Fauntleroy Creek and watershed area that needs to be protected and want to make sure that the area that's currently undergoing a massive culvert reconstruction is maintained and that salmon can flow through that creek again and protected.

We also are subject to the 1.7 to 2 million cars traffic coming from the ferry dock and want to Protect some of the areas that slow to.

Thank you, Catherine.

Next we have Elena, followed by Damien.

Go ahead and speak.

Elena, good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Alana, I'm sorry.

Good morning.

We could hear you.

Your phone might be on mute.

You're off mute to us on the Zoom piece, but your phone might be on mute.

Okay, how about now?

Now we can hear you.

Awesome.

Great.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Ilana, and I'm a new homeowner in the Bryant-Norvenna neighborhood.

While I support efforts to address Seattle's housing crisis, I strongly oppose amendments 33 and 34 designating South Wedgwood as a neighborhood center and uploading 35th Avenue near Bryant Elementary and Assumption School.

These areas simply aren't equipped for that level of density.

Traffic is already a major issue, especially near schools, which increased congestion will only raise safety risks for children.

Environmentally, we risk losing old-growth trees, wetlands, and bald eagle habitats, ecosystems that make this area unique.

Furthermore, current proposal does not adequately address parking needs or public transit challenges.

Parking is already very difficult, and public transit is not nearly frequent or reliable enough in this neighborhood to support greater density.

These amendments would exponentially exacerbate current problems.

Please vote yes on amendments 39, 40, 41, 81, 93, and 102, and please vote on amendments 33, 34, 7, 76, 84, and 86. A better alternative would be to focus development on Sandpoint Way.

Please listen to residents who live in these.

I'm still hearing the prayers.

Thank you, Lana.

Damien, you're off mute, but it's your turn right now, so you're good.

All right.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council.

I'm a Seattle resident in District 6, and I urge the Council to pass a bold comp plan that supports building more housing, especially affordable housing, throughout the city.

In particular, I urge the Council to pass amendments that expand the affordable housing density bonus citywide, that increase the bonus for stacked flats and pass amendments that use the land use code to help incentivize the stacked flats.

And to expand and create more neighborhood centers, this helps create more walkable and climate friendly communities in every neighborhood.

I also urge passing amendments that get us the most accessible housing, which is sorely lacking throughout the city.

The Cop Plan is a unique opportunity to go big and create a greener, more affordable Seattle that works for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you, Damien.

Next, we have Neil Buchanan, followed by Mary Peterson, and then Mike Gain.

We're on caller number 46. Caller number 46, Neil Buchanan.

Good morning.

Star six.

This is Neil Buchanan, and I have a comment regarding mental housing.

The RCW regarding mental housing states that a city is subject of requirements of section 1A and B of the section must allow at least six of the nine types of middle housing to achieve the unit density required.

Under the definition of middle housing, it lists those nine types of units, but it also includes the definition, middle housing means buildings that are compatible in scale, form, and character with single family homes.

My contention is that when the city selected the type of units to be allowed, for instance, townhouses, it is not a generic term.

It is defined by the RCW, and part of that definition is the compatibility component.

The city needs to specifically address compatibility, also use it as a guide for evaluating amendments.

For instance, if an amendment allows a 4241-backed unit building with nine units in it in mental housing, this seems too incompatible with single-family homes per the RCW definition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Neil.

We have Mary Peterson followed by Mike Gane.

We're on call number 47. Good morning, Mary.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the comp plan.

I live in District 6 over in Northwest Ballard and I'm an old person.

I'm a senior citizen and I am for all the amendments that increase housing, that staffed housing, I'm for all the amendments that reduce restrictions so that more housing can be built.

Growth is inevitable, and we can fight it, but it's still inevitable, and I think that the city and the city planners are knowledgeable and have the expertise to permit and work these amendments in a way that's not going to just decimate The canopy throughout the city.

So please, please about the amendment that will increase housing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mary.

Next we have Mike Gain followed by Beatrice and then Judy.

Good morning, Mike.

Go ahead and press star six to unmute yourself.

We see you on mute, but if you go ahead, press star six.

Star six.

We'll come back to you, Mike.

We're gonna go ahead and go to Beatrice.

Grand Rising.

Hi, Beatrice.

Go ahead and press star six, Beatrice, if you can hear us.

Okay.

Star six.

There we go.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great.

Well, thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

I am a 40-plus year homeowner in Alki, where my late husband and I raised our family.

We both retired from city employment after 25 years.

We pay our taxes vote in every election, including our city council and District 1 council member.

I expect my elected leaders to consider and represent their constituents and do not believe that that has been done in this case.

I'm calling to request Respectfully, that in Amendment 34 that Alki as a neighborhood center be removed from consideration until we are afforded the same public education and comment opportunities as other neighborhood council, neighborhood city, neighborhood center, excuse me, residents have received.

I would say that existing zoning in Alki is high.

We already have increased traffic, reduced parking, and a strain on the infrastructure, as well as increased safety concerns.

I request that we have the opportunity.

Thank you, Beatrice.

Next we have Judy.

Oh, we have Mike.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I apologize.

That was bad.

Mike, will we see you off mute?

Can you hear us?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

We sure can.

Go ahead, Mike.

All right.

Well, I'm Mike Gain, a lifelong West Seattle and Alki resident.

I'm a realtor, developer, and I'm addressing CB120985 and 120993. I urge you to vote no on the proposed neighborhood center on Alki or simply remove it from the comprehensive plan.

What we don't need is outsiders, excuse me, who really don't know our community telling us what we want or need without any of our input.

Calling rezoned areas a neighborhood center is very misleading.

Many think it is just a community center building.

I found the Complete Communities Coalition statements and claims to only be half-truths.

Their proposal will not increase density, but it will and it will not add affordable housing.

It will actually take away affordable housing.

Their proposal will remove affordable single-family residences, duplexes, triplexes that are currently rented below what they will have to charge and rent.

for their proposed buildings and flats.

On Alki, we already have a very popular and desirable walkable neighborhood and community with a very...

Thank you, Mike.

Next we have Judy.

Hello.

Hi, Judy.

Good morning.

Yes, just nine years ago, the council unanimously approved two historic districts.

Now, The council would like or at least proposed amendments would change it dramatically.

So I'm asking you to vote yes on amendment number 40. Yes on amendment 81 which will help and then on trees 91 yes, 93 yes, 102 yes and I'd like you to vote against stealth amendments 55, 56, 57 and 58. Also N59.

And to vote no on amendment 72 version one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Judy.

Next we have Zach Howell followed by Susan McNally and then Mark.

And Zach is speaker number 52. Good morning, Zach.

Star six.

Hello.

I'm very happy to say that last month I bought a house, even if it did cost almost a million dollars.

It's in Green Lake.

Or is it Aurora?

My friends have said, oh lovely, until I say the second part, which gives off more car repair and prostitute vibes.

I'm looking forward to the new neighborhood centers here, to the amendments 48 and 49 version C from Councilmember Strauss, and to the restaurants and apartments that may come to this neighborhood.

I hope West Green Lake becomes a place people will actively travel to, not just travel through.

On that day, I'll probably be able to say, I live in West Green Lake, and people will say, oh, very nice.

I support all the new neighborhood centers, including the eight more proposed by RINK, as every neighborhood deserves an ooh lovely little commercial district.

Please increase housing for all, rather than listening to the entrenched and change resistant long term owners so that our city can continue to be more affordable with both apartments and small stacked flats

Thank you, Zach.

Next we have Susan followed by Mark.

Go ahead and press star six.

Go ahead and press star six.

Susan, we see you online.

Awesome.

Yes.

Yes.

Hi.

My name is Susan McNally and I'm calling in about amendment 34. That regards Crown Hill.

I've lived in this area for 33 years as a renter and at age of 62 was finally able to afford a house here.

And now this amendment appears that would forever alter everything that I love.

The calm, the green space, the tree canopy, the small Seattle neighborhood feel, which is why I purchased a home here.

But beyond my personal objectives, this feels utterly random in Crown Hill.

It's not on the way to anything.

There is no infrastructure.

There is no rapid transit.

There is not a lot of parking.

People who come here would need to have cars.

And as for the community outreach that you speak of, I only found out about this by looking at a telephone pole in my neighborhood.

Please vote no on 34th.

Thank you, Susan.

Next we have Mark followed by Catherine and then Ethan.

So we're on speaker number 54. Mark followed by Catherine, 55, and then Ethan McHugh, number 56. Good morning, Mark.

Good morning and good morning, council members.

My name is Mark Homan, a homeowner in wonderful Seattle, and I'm addressing the comprehensive plan bill.

I support Denser Development Seattle to accommodate new housing, and I support the comprehensive plan.

But my support is based on it having a thoughtful process that allows for engagement from a wide variety of perspectives.

Unfortunately, there are amendments that look to circumvent this basic community supported process and robust planning.

Amendment 34 is one of these amendments.

It rejects the multi-year planning and feedback cycle that has supported the comprehensive plan, as you've heard from other speakers today.

It's a broken political process that allows for this.

If the amendment has merit, Bring it out of the shadows and expose it to a full and robust evaluation.

Please reject this last minute edition of Amendment 34, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mark.

Next, we have Catherine followed by Ethan and then Deborah Hendrickson.

And so Catherine, caller 55, good morning.

Go ahead and press star six.

Hi, my name is Kathryn Bragdon, and I'm addressing Amendment 34. Good morning, council members, and thank you for your service.

I'm also testifying on behalf of my husband, Ted Lockery, who is teaching and unable to attend.

I urge you to reject Amendment 34, which would rezone South Wallingford for buildings up to eight stories tall.

My concerns are with the process and the substance of this proposal.

This neighborhood was added on August 4th, Bypassing the 10 months of public review, introducing such a drastic change when families are away or focused on the start of school effectively shut many residents out.

This entire process undermines public trust.

South Wallingford and the city in general have recently been rezoned to accommodate additional growth, adding even more height on narrow one lane residential streets is excessive and entirely out of scale.

Growth is welcomed when it's transparent, well-planned, and sustainable.

Amendment 34 fails on all accounts.

Please reject it.

And thank you so much for the opportunity.

Thank you, Catherine.

Next we have Ethan McHugh followed by Deborah Hendrickson.

Ethan McHugh.

You're going to go ahead and press star six.

It's star seven, my bad.

My name is Ethan McHugh and I'm a district sub-president.

Everyone mentioning trees, in my opinion, they're just not arguing in good faith.

They don't care to suggest solutions to house the 15,000 homeless in the county or address the fact that the average home price is well out of reach of the median Seattleite, probably because they already own theirs, or that we're potentially 250,000 housing units short of what we need as a city.

How we grow matters, but we must grow.

I want to say thank you to the council members who have pushed for going beyond what the mayor proposed.

Bob Kettle, thank you for trying your best to educate your constituents.

I read that.

Does not go unnoticed.

I hope you'll support all amendments that push the comp plan further, especially from Rink and Nelson.

I would push this council to also focus on outcomes.

When this is a conversation about zoning, the outcomes of how many houses actually get built relative to our shortage need to be our metric.

If it's too low, our problems as a city will only worsen.

This has to be the start of our reckoning with our sad past, not the end.

Also in reference to Crown Hill, I've walked there from Belltown.

It's totally walkable.

You can get there.

So, you know.

Anyway, that's my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ethan.

Next, we have Deborah Hendrickson, followed by Daniel Nye and Ruth Hooper.

My name is Deborah Hendrickson, and I am a West Seattle resident with a home in the Alki area.

I'm also a co-founder of the Harbor Alki Neighbors Group, which includes about 170 local residents here.

I'm here today to ask that you do not include Alki as a Neighborhood Center in your vote on the One Seattle Plan.

Alki was added at the last minute in July without any opportunity for local public information or dialogue.

This is in contrast to extensive communication that occurred in nearly all other communities in the plan.

We need time to understand all the implications for including Alki as a Neighborhood Center.

This is not only in the best interest of Alki, it's also in the best interest of the One Seattle Plan.

I ask you to please uphold your commitment to represent and serve all the people of Seattle, including Alki.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Deborah.

Next we have Daniel Nye, followed by Ruth Hooper.

Daniel Nye, Ruth Hooper.

Good morning, council members.

This is Dan Nye.

I'm a 37-year resident of West Seattle and the executive director of Schmitz Park Restore.

We're supported by over 250 neighbors and friends of Schmitz Preserve Park, and we're dedicated to the protection and reconnection of the park to its neighborhood and its community.

Our goals include protecting the forest in Schmitz Park by helping the neighborhoods surrounding the park create a patchwork quilt of healthy gardens, indigenous plantings around the park.

We've become concerned because the sudden rezoning proposal to add Alki to the comprehensive plan would allow further removal of trees, plants, and other indigenous species from the neighborhoods surrounding the park.

So we need lots of time to work with that and tell you what our plans are.

Please do not include Alki as a neighborhood center in the One Seattle plan in your September 2025 vote.

We'll be sending in our written comments.

We appreciate your attention to this important

Thank you, Daniel.

Next, we have Ruth Hooper, followed by Peter Rees, and then Dean Hawas.

So we have Ruth Hooper.

Hi, Ruth.

Can you hear us?

You're off mute.

Your phone might be on mute, but you are off mute to us.

Just checking in, Ruth.

Your phone might be on mute, but you're off mute to us.

We will come back to you, so we're not going to leave you on the public comment.

Here I am.

Here I am.

There you is.

Hello.

Hi, Ruth.

Hello.

Hi, I'm Ruth Hopper in Rainier Valley in the 37th District.

I urge you to vote yes on amendments 93 and 102 to CB 120993. We can have housing and trees.

In fact, we must have both housing and trees.

The City of Seattle and King County did a study in which they found that trees can make a difference of 20 degrees during a heat wave.

20 degrees in a heat wave is the difference between life and death.

Officeholders tend to think that the public doesn't prioritize global warming.

In fact, years of surveys conducted by Yale show that the large majority of people all over the U.S. are concerned about climate change.

And we want you to take it seriously.

And that means that trees must be a high priority in Seattle, along with housing.

Please vote for amendments 93 and 102. Thank you.

Thank you, Ruth.

Next we have Peter Rees, followed by Dean.

And just a time check, we are at speaker number 61 with Peter, and we have 119 total signed up.

So Peter, you are up.

Go ahead and press star six.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Peter Rees, long time District 3 resident.

And I would like to raise a point that's been sadly missing from much of this discussion.

When we have greater density in our city, we also need to provide greater access to the places and experiences that make Seattle a special place to live.

Councilmember Kettle's Amendment 97 that retains current setbacks along Queen Anne Boulevard is a step in the right direction, but it is far too small a step to be expanded to preserve all of the Olmstead Legacy Boulevards.

Magnolia, Ravenna, Hunter, Mount Baker, Interlaken, Montlake, Chiste, and Lake Washington Boulevard, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

These are all important parts of Seattle's green legacy, and they provide a distributed resource of trees and open space for all.

I strongly urge you to include these places in an improved Amendment 97. New otherwise would be both short-sighted and deeply inactive.

I would also note that there are undeveloped Olmstead Boulevards in Ballard, Duwamish, Rainier Beach, Whittier Heights, And if any of you would like to get behind a project to bring those to life, you can sign me up to help.

Thank you, Peter.

Next we have Dean, followed by Steven Johnson and then Tim DeMarco.

So Dean, star six, and you're good to go.

Hello.

Thank you.

My name is Dean Hallworth.

I've been a resident of the Bryant neighborhood for 25 years, and along with many of my neighbors, I urge approval of Amendment 39. Contrary to the Seattle comprehensive plan, Bryant does not have a vibrant commercial district.

It is home to just two retail businesses.

Furthermore, Bryant is by no stretch of the imagination a transit hub of its two bus lines, One runs just hourly on weekdays and not at all on weekends.

Amendment 39 addresses these shortfalls by focusing growth along the two arterials that effectively define our neighborhood.

These arterials are best equipped to deliver on the Comprehensive Plan's promise of increased density.

In short, Amendment 39 plays the Bryant's strength And avoid exacerbating its weaknesses.

Thank you for your concern.

Thank you, Dean.

Next we have Steven Johnson, followed by Tim.

Caller number 63. Speaker number 63. Hi, Steven.

Go ahead and press star six.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Good morning, counsel.

This is Steven Johnson.

District 4, and I urge all council members to oppose Amendment 34. To be clear, this Amendment 34 has been sprung upon our representative and the community in total.

It has been proposed on the community from someone who does not live in the area, is not familiar with the area or the community, and it has been proposed with no studies on the impact of schools or other schools.

Or other infrastructure.

Most in the residences, most of the residences in the proposed areas have not been informed of any change.

No communications from the council or the mayor.

No community town halls or emails.

No responses from any council member to emails and phone calls that have been made to them.

All of this suggests a some tactic.

A tramponian tactic, if I dare say.

An effort to shove an unwanted community down the floats of the community.

Let us not take a sledgehammer to this community.

Do not push out the current residences, the working families, the elderly.

Embrace this community.

Thank you, Stephen.

Next we have Tim followed by Natalie and then Sean.

So we're on speaker number 64. Tim, Natalie, speaker 65, and Sean, speaker 66. Good morning, Tim.

Tim DeMarco, Good morning.

This is Tim DeMarco.

I'm a 30-year Alki resident.

I'm calling today about Amendment Number 34. I'm asking that you please do not include the Alki Neighborhood Center in the One Seattle Plan.

Alki was added at the last minute in July, just a couple of weeks ago, leaving only weeks before today's public hearing.

This is an unrealistic and unjust process Giving our community no real chance for information, outreach, or dialogue.

Other communities were given more than a year of extensive public education and engagement opportunities in well-advertised public presentations, workshops, a 60-day public feedback opportunity, and broad outreach through print, radio, online advertising, as well as documented in your website.

We need transparency and clear unbiased first rate communication.

We ask that you please remove Alki at the designated neighborhood center from the One Seattle plan until our community is provided with the education and dialogue.

Thank you, Tim.

Next we have Natalie followed by Sean and then Julia Chase.

So we're on speaker number 65. Natalie, go ahead and press star six, followed by Sean Holland.

You are on deck.

And Julia Chase.

Hi, Natalie.

You're gonna go ahead and press star six to unmute yourself.

We'll give you a quick second.

Star six, Natalie, to unmute yourself.

So you can go ahead and give public comment.

If not, we will come back to you while you are Doing that, Sean Holland, you're going to go ahead and press star six, unmute yourself.

We see you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Sean Holland.

I'm speaking in support of Amendment 39 to mend the boundary of Bryant Neighborhood Center.

Bryant faces upzoning totally out of scale with the two retail businesses we have, a grocery store and a restaurant.

50-wide, the neighborhood centers average nearly two dozen retail businesses serving local foot traffic.

Bryant's new residents won't have those local businesses.

Under the plan, 25 single-family homes zoned NR3 would be changed to MR1, six-story multifamily.

How many single-family homes zoned NR3 would be upzoned to MR1 and the other 29 centers?

Zero.

Bryant has the fewest retail businesses of all 30 neighborhood centers.

It has the second-highest number of MR1 upzones.

24 centers, many with well-developed retail districts, have zero upzones to MR1.

The current plan for Bryant is a total mismatch with the services available.

Passing Amendment 39 would lead nine properties being upzone to MR1 within a new boundary.

The third greatest number of MR1 upzones of all the neighborhood centers at the level of development would better match the businesses in transit we have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sean.

Natalie, star six to unmute yourself.

We'll keep holding and coming back to you.

We'll keep moving forward, but we'll keep coming back to you until you get that star six.

We're going to go ahead and move on to Julia Chase.

Julia Chase, Darren Jacobson, you are next too as well.

Hi, Julia.

Go ahead and press star six.

Hello, can you hear me?

We sure can.

Good morning.

Hello.

Yes.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Julia Chase from District 1. I urge you to vote yes on amendments 93 and 102 to protect our valuable tree canopy.

145 years ago in Seattle, in 1879, the last original tree in Seattle was logged.

26 years later, in 1905, Women planted 2,000 trees to replace those lost in the Seattle Fire.

In that era, planting trees reflected power, authority, and resources.

Progress continued.

A hundred years after that final logging, 40% of Seattle had become reshaded by our urban forest.

In fact, in 1982, Seattle was officially nicknamed the Emerald City, highlighting our trees.

Sadly, in the last 35 years, our tree canopy has shrunk from that 40% to only 28%.

Picture this.

In 19 years, we have lost 255 acres of tree canopy, an area the size of Green Lake.

I urge you to vote yes.

Thank you, Julia.

Natalie, press star six if you can.

Star six.

We have...

Darren Jacobson, star six, and then followed by Eileen Fortgang.

Good morning, Darren.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Darren Jacobson.

I live in district four, which includes the Bryant neighborhood where I've been raising my 12 year old son.

In the nearly 25 years of living in Bryant, I've experienced firsthand how the area's current growth has increased traffic and sound pollution, decreased available parking, Reduced significant green spaces and trees and has made it more dangerous to raise families with small children.

In addition to my observations, these following objective issues still exist that support voting yes on Amendment 39. The first is that Seattle Bryant neighborhood does have the fewest number of retail businesses of all 30 proposed neighborhood centers, with only two.

The intersection at 40th Northeast and Northeast 55th Does not have a large commercial district.

There are only three.

The fire station, a senior center, and an office building, and none will have retail space.

There's no major transit stop in the neighborhood center.

I ask you please to vote yes on 39, no on 7, no on 34, no on 76, and no on 84.

Thank you, Darren.

Next, we have Aline Fortgang, followed by Fritz Wallet.

Natalie, if you are on, once we see you come off mute, we'll go ahead and go to you.

It's star six.

Aline, you are on.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

Yes, loud and clear.

Hello.

Good morning.

Wonderful.

Good morning.

My name is Aline Fortgang, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Humane Voters of Washington.

And we're urging you to vote yes on Amendment 93 and 102, because if you don't, 95% of a lot can be paved over.

Mature trees are not only beautiful, but we desperately need them, not the dinky ones that developers plant that sometimes make it and sometimes don't.

Mature trees fight pollution, which is one of the leading threats to our southern resident orcas.

Trees provide habitat and protection for land animals as well.

As for humans, Peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that trees reduce stress levels and improve both physical and mental health.

For example, studies have shown that babies have higher birth rates when a pregnant mother lives within 100 meters of a tree.

So please, use your power to make our living more livable, healthy for humans and animals alike by protecting our mature trees.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elaine.

Next we have Fritz followed by Gary.

Caller number 70 with Fritz and then 71 with Gary.

Hi, Fritz.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, loud and clear.

Good morning.

Great.

My name's Fritz Wallach.

I'm a retired Assistant City Attorney from the Seattle City Office and I'm a homeowner in the Ravenna area and I'm the proud owner of two heritage trees in the front yard And they are 70, 80, 90 years old.

They're lovely trees.

They provide a lot of coolness, provide habitat for animals.

On a hot day, as we've had lately, it's such a difference to be able to step out with those trees and enjoy the outside.

So I'm very much a supporter of proposed Amendment 93 and proposed Amendment 102, particularly 102, which takes away a lot of the discretion that developers have now to take down trees and however they feel to To to cite their tree, their plots in any way they want.

That has to be, they have to lose that discretion.

You have to tighten things up, save these trees, make for a better city.

And let's move ahead, get that done, and we'll be a lot happier.

Thank you.

Thank you, Fritz.

Next we have Natalie, we still see you.

If you press star six, you can come off mute.

We will find you.

We will continue to engage to make sure you get to speak for public comment.

Gary Magnuson is next.

Caller 71. Paulina Lopez and then Trish Shanley, you are on deck.

Gary, star six to go ahead and speak.

Caller 71, Gary.

Star six.

Okay, stay there.

We'll come back to you.

Paulina.

Oh, you're off mute.

Okay.

Oh, one second, Paula.

Gary.

Oh, I hit star six three times.

Can you hear me?

Yes, you're all good.

We can hear you.

Go ahead, Gary.

Sorry.

I just, I kind of want to comment overall.

First, they call the plan the Seattle one plan.

I didn't learn about this until the meeting before.

It should have said something about housing or zoning.

Also, we only get one minute, and maybe you should do this.

It's such a dramatic change.

You should do this over three or four days or even a week.

I'm a Carina Inn resident.

My home, I saved and bought it quite a few years ago.

I live in an apartment on Capitol Hill.

Now my home, the whole block is three-story building, small homes, and now my home can be Five stories with no parking, and I could lose sunshine in my small backyard.

I just, I've given 20,000 to Plymouth Housing.

I gave 10 to Bellwether Housing to help support, but I believe in more housing.

But I still think we just haven't done a very good job of advertising this for the average person.

A hundred amendments.

Thank you, Gary.

Next, we have Paulina Lopez, followed by Trish Shanley.

Paulina Lopez, we see you off mute.

Good morning.

Good morning, dear council members.

My name is Paulina Lopez.

I'm here on behalf of the Duwamish River Community Coalition, and I'm also a South Park community member for District 1. For over 20 years, we have worked alongside with our neighbors to clean up and to protect one of the most polluted areas in the Pacific Northwest.

The Duwamish Valley faces some of the worst environmental health disparities in the country from toxic air, bringing 13 years of life shorter expectancy with wealthier neighborhoods.

Climate change already displaced families and gentrification continues to push our long-time residents.

We urge it to support comprehensive plan amendments that prioritize equitable housing, urban greening, public health, and anti-displacement efforts, especially those directly invested in the Duwamish Valley to keep our family here.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Because despite the stated outreach by the city at our annual party in the park last weekend, I had a rezone information table and I talked to about 60 residences and most had not even heard of the Seattle rezone.

I support the One Seattle Plan and its goal of cluster density and centers to create car-free walkable communities that support businesses.

However, I do not support Amendment 5676 And all amendments that create development sprawl, like frequent transit zoning, where there's not enough businesses to support walkable communities.

And I do not support Amendment 7, 84, and 86, and the Council's plan to repeal parking.

The average car ownership in Seattle is 1.3 cars per household.

And it's great if some can live without a car at this time in their life that don't put a tax on families with children, elderly, low-income, disabled, and all those who need a car for daily living.

I urge the Council not to create parking scarcity and two classes of citizens.

Thank you, Trish.

Next, we have Gary Lee followed by Mark Fultz.

Gary, go ahead and press start.

Oh, you're off mute.

Good morning.

Dear City Council, I'm expressing the support of nearly 800 people who live, shop, work, and or own businesses in the CID, Pioneer Square, and Belltown for Amendment 21, Version 2. Thank you.

Council Members Nelson, Solomon, and Saka for your proposed amendments regarding this important issue.

Also, I am expressing my support for Amendment 20, Version 1, relating to the support of cultural housing for seniors.

I look forward to these amendments being adopted with the One Seattle Plan and to the upcoming corresponding zoning regulations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gary.

Next, we have Mark Foltz, followed by Denise DeClue.

Before you start, Mark, one second.

Natalie, if you can hear us, you press star six.

Natalie Reber, star six to unmute yourself.

Okay, we're gonna move on.

We'll keep calling back to you, Natalie.

Mark Foltz, star six to unmute yourself.

And then Denise DeClue, you are up on deck.

Mark Fultz, star six.

Speaker number 75. All right, we'll come back to you, Mark.

We're gonna go to Denise DeClue.

We'll come back, Mark.

Denise DeClue, you're gonna press star six.

We see you off mute.

Good morning.

You went back on mute, so you were unmute.

There we go.

What about?

Yep.

There we go.

Okay.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My name is Denise DeClew.

I am calling in as a resident of the Loyola Heights neighborhood that's possibly going to be upzone to a neighborhood center.

I asked you to vote no on the amendment or remove the Loyola Heights neighborhood, which was recently added in early August as a neighborhood center.

As it was not fully vetted nor was there enough public notice.

Also, it was just proposed by someone who didn't live in or represent the community.

Unfortunately, our community is not even aware that significant changes to zoning are up to vote.

Little Heights is mostly single family homes, few businesses and no jobs.

No current infrastructure for that many cars.

There's no public transport to support that amount of people.

Currently, when my daughter has to ride the bus, 45 going out of Ballard towards 15th Avenue.

The most people that she encounters during commute time is 10. Please consider the gridlock that it would create on our tiny one-way residential streets and they'll

Thank you, Denise.

Mark, star six, Mark Foltz, speaker number 75, star six.

Can you hear us?

All right, we'll come back to you, Mark.

We're gonna go to Rita Hayes, followed by Ruby Holland.

Rita, go ahead and press star six.

Hello, can you hear me?

Sure can, good morning.

Rita Hayes Hi.

My name is Rita Hayes.

I'm a lifelong Seattle resident and I've lived in Wedgwood since 1984.

Today I'm asking the City Council to take my thoughts into account when you're casting your votes on the amendments to the One Seattle Plan and your version of HB 1110. I completely support all of Councilmember Rivera's amendments, so I ask you to vote yes on amendments 39, 40, 41, 81, 93, and 102. I also ask you to vote yes on Mr. Saka's amendment 110. I'm completely opposed to Councilmember Rank's Amendment 34 for many reasons, but most especially because of the lack of notice and because the residents in those eight neighborhoods have not been given comparable time to publicly comment.

I ask you to vote no on 34. I also ask that there are no votes on Amendment 7, 84, 85, and 86. Wedgwood Streets will not be able to handle all of the overflow on-street communities.

And please vote no on amendments 74, 78, and 91, which will boost the building heights in our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rita.

Next we have, before we go to Ms. Holland, one second, I'm going to call on Mark and Natalie.

Mark Fultz and Natalie, go ahead and press star six if you can.

All right, well, we see Ms. Ruby Holland, you are, it's your turn.

Good morning.

Ruby Holland, please reject this cop plan because it doesn't have a strong anti-displacement plan for formerly redlined communities.

Preserving our homes, trees, and green spaces in D3 for legacy Black homeowners, the working class, and the rich oligarchs that Harold recruited Can be accomplished with HB 1110. I can't imagine not seeing birds because we have no trees to house them.

I can't imagine not having green spaces that support our mental health.

I can't imagine a concrete jungle that is prone to flooding when it rains because there is no ground to absorb the rain.

In short, we won't allow you to cram so much growth into the CD That you create a flood-prone concrete jungle and heat island.

The black community that Seattle has traditionally treated poorly is going to be respected, and you'll respect our new wealthier, whiter neighbors.

Thank you, Ms. Ruby.

Next we have Lucas, caller number 80, plus Robin, caller number 81. Lucas, good morning.

Good morning.

Hello, counsel.

My name is Lucas De Herrera.

I'm a UW grad, former land use planner in Seattle, and I currently work at Blueprint, a leading local middle housing company.

Please do not pass amendments that increase requirements on housing that haven't been vetted with professionals that have developed in Seattle.

I see a lot of well-intentioned amendments that increase regulation but lack analysis and their impact to housing.

The draft legislation is written Liza Rankin.

Has been vetted for over two years by a lot of stakeholders and is actually drawn on a variety of lot sizes and development and development types or in a housing crisis.

Liza Rankin.

Not a tree crisis, not a design crisis, not an amenity crisis.

Liza Rankin.

Or in a housing crisis.

So please don't pass any changes to the tree ordinance amendments.

Now is too important of an issue.

We're just two years into the new code.

Wise words once said to me, you can't manage what you haven't measured.

This applies here poignantly.

We can plant trees to meet the moment.

We cannot plant new houses.

Please allow 120 days effective date for this new legislation so SDCI and the design community can properly prepare.

Thank you.

Next we have Robin Swartz followed by Heidi.

So we're on speaker number 81 followed by 82. Hi, Robin.

Good morning.

81. Robin, can you hear us?

And this is just a quick check-in with Natalie and Mark, star six.

It's on your phone, the little star button and then the number six to unmute yourself.

We'll pause right here because we have three callers that we need to get off of star six real quick.

Can you hear us?

We see that you're present.

You're going to press start.

You almost did it, Robin.

We saw you come off, and then it went on.

Take your time.

You're all good.

Hi.

Sorry about that.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Robin Schwartz.

I was born and raised in Seattle, and I've lived in the Duwamish Valley for the past 18 years.

I support the letter submitted by the Duwamish River Community Coalition as it reflects the values of my community, which has historically been underserved and neglected by policymakers And most highly impacted by pollution from industry and other sources.

I am most concerned with affordable housing development and I urge the council to vote yes on amendments 17, 19, 33, 63, 64, 85, and 90. South Park has been deeply affected by gentrification and my neighbors, both current and displaced, deserve safe, healthy, and affordable housing, especially now as community experiences new investment and resources.

Low income, BIPOC, and immigrant and refugee community members have spent decades organizing and advocating to make South Park more livable.

With these actions for affordable housing, we have a chance to ensure that our neighbors can thrive in place here in the Duwamish Valley, where they have been investing their precious time, money, and resources to improve our city and build a life for their families.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robin.

Next we have Heidi.

Good morning, Heidi.

Star six.

Star six.

Heidi Sigelbaum, Good morning.

Thank you, Council.

My name is Heidi Sigelbaum, and I have lived with my husband in Seattle in District 6 for over 30 years.

We are apartment dwellers and love nature.

Please vote for Amendments 93 and 102, which are smart, health protective, and exhibit caring for your children and ours.

Humans are an integral part of the environment.

We are not separate from it.

Human survival, quite literally, depends on the health of trees, plants, and animals.

Hard impervious services like the 95% parcel coverage option on the table causes flooding or super energetic highways that deliver toxic chemicals, oils, and tire wear particles that kill fish, orcas, and make us sick.

Trees are not just some nice-to-have amenity but represent our savings account for ourselves, our future, and our children's future in Seattle that will be increasingly hot, polluted, smoky, and with less water.

Seedlings and tree plantings are welcome, but they are no replacement for mature trees, particularly conifers.

That's like saying we're going to replace a university.

Thank you, Heidi, Natalie, and Mark Star6.

You can come off mute any time and we'll recognize you to be able to speak for public comment.

We're going to keep rolling through.

Next, we have Melissa Bell.

Melissa Bell, Star6.

Good morning.

Hello.

My name is Melissa Bell, and I'm asking for you to withdraw Amendment 34. I live with my family in District 4, as well as having a business here for the past 23 years.

I just heard about this amendment a few weeks ago.

I urge you to withdraw Amendment 34 because the timeline for review has been far too short, leaving our neighborhood without a fair chance to engage in this decision.

On my block of five houses, one is a triplex, two others are duplexes, and many houses in this area are multifamily homes.

Amendment 34 could trigger large-scale luxury development in an area that lacks infrastructure and public transit to support it.

City sewage already overflows into homes, very narrow streets, few parks, And Gasworks has been closed more often lately for private events.

It also erases the natural beauty, charm, and diversity that makes the neighborhood unique and livable.

Please reject

Thank you, Melissa.

Next we have Judy Lightfoot and Zach.

One second, Judy.

Let me call out the other names.

I apologize.

One second, Judy.

Hold on.

Zach, caller number 86, and then Kate, caller number 87. So 86 and 87, you're not present, but I wanted to make sure that you all are called.

So Zach, Jeffrey, and then Kate Childson.

Judy, go right ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning, council members, and thank you for your work.

I'm Judy Lightfoot.

I live in District 4. I don't want the shortages of affordable housing in Seattle to be aggravated instead of eased by city council decisions.

I bought my home facing Cowan Park 54 years ago, lived here ever since, and I've loved my Seattle neighborhood the whole time.

I've never believed that the passage of time would or should leave my neighborhood unchanged.

Trying to keep it the same instead of helping to accommodate population increases, new kinds of jobs, more contemporary housing, An evolving understanding of what is right and just is simply benighted.

What I mean about injustice is the redlining in the neighborhood has made our neighborhood predominantly white today and for as long as I've lived here for causes I and most of my neighbors had no idea about.

That's a great reason to oppose the amendments that I oppose, which I'm going to tell you about in a minute, and to welcome changes that open our area to less restricted uses.

So I ask you to vote no on amendments 40 and 81.

I ask you to vote yes on Amendments 34, 17, 61, 66, and 78. Thanks again.

Awesome.

Thank you, Judy.

Next we have, and just a reminder, Natalie and Mark, star six, star six.

Stephanie, star six, and then followed by...

Oh, I apologize.

Zach Jeffrey and Kate Childson, you all are on deck.

You're not present, but...

If Zach is here, and then Kate Chalson.

Once we hit the end of all the speakers, I'm going to go back and call out all the people that are not present and give you all some time to try to sign on if you would like.

So Stephanie, you are up, followed by Hendrick DeCock.

Hello, Council Members.

My name is Stephanie Velasco.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Council Bill 120985. I'm a homeowner in Squire Park in District 3 with my husband and two young kids, ages 4 and 2. We love living in a neighborhood where we don't need a car, where we can walk with our kids to daycare, the grocery store, and the playground.

And because we walk everywhere, we know a lot of the people who live and work in our neighborhood, if not by name, at least by face.

My family is able to live in our chosen neighborhood because we have the financial means to do so, but many, many other families are unable to live in their neighborhoods of choice because it's simply unaffordable for them.

We need more neighborhoods like mine throughout Seattle, more places where families can live and thrive, where they can afford to set down roots and get to know their neighbors.

I urge you to adopt amendments that will expand neighborhood centers, both in area and by number.

Please also adopt amendments that will expand affordable housing bonuses, expand flat bonuses, and change or remove parking requirements citywide.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Next, we have Zach.

Caller number 86, Zach.

Kate Childson, you're 87. We have Zach Jeffy.

No, not present.

Okay.

We're going to go Hendrick DeCock and then Richard Ellison.

Hi Hendrick.

Hi, I'm a homeowner in District 3 and I've been so for the last decade.

Thank you to the council for being here and listening, especially thank you to Chair Hollingsworth.

I'm calling in to support amendments that increase density in general and want to specifically call in to support amendments 34, 60, 63, 86, 89 and 91. I do also want to say I've been hearing many concerns for trees today, but notably only for trees in the city.

At the end of the day, if people cannot move to the city, they'll move to the suburbs.

And building new excerpts clear cuts far more trees, while also forcing people into car dependent lifestyles that are both more carbon intensive and inaccessible for people like me who cannot drive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Hendrick.

Next, we have Richard, speaker number 90, followed by Shannon Carman, speaker number 91. Morning, Richard.

Good morning.

My name is Richard Ellison.

I'm a resident of District 4 and have lived in Seattle since 1981. In this holy war for housing, in Greenwood right now, four giant wet red cedars on the sides of the lot are going to be cut for three townhouses.

A certified architect shows the trees could be saved by just moving the buildings over a little bit.

But in this holy war for housing, the tree code allows for full removal at the whim of the developer.

You'd think it was written by Trump's works, each with a diameter of 55 inches, 46 inches, 46 inches, 41 inch diameter giant trees.

Tear them all down.

In the mitigation for climate housing, Rivera's Amendments 93 and 102 are the only amendments that can stop the clear cuts on private property, but still allow for full build-out of what one wants to build.

But in the Shadow of Water Housing Amendments, proposed number 99, 103, and 104, in full or double seats, the big four seaters could still be cut down.

So, support Rivera's Amendments 93 and 102. You get housing as much as you want.

Thank you, Richard.

Next, we have Shannon Carman.

Shannon Carman, followed by Douglas Smith.

Douglas Smith.

Good morning, Shannon.

Hi, my name is Shannon Carman.

I'm interested in the comprehensive plan.

I have lived and rented in Capitol Hill for about six years, and I am calling to strongly urge the Council to pass amendments 93 and 102, which will pose loopholes in our current tree ordinance, and will bring Seattle in line with the tree protection standards we have in other cities like Portland.

50% of Seattle's trees are on private property and we're going to need these if we're going to prevent the spread of urban heat islands, which make the city less livable for everybody and especially dangerous for vulnerable populations during heat events.

However, I know that protecting trees does not have to and should not come at the cost of affordable housing, so please support amendments for social housing and strengthen incentives for stack flats, which are a great option for increasing accessible housing density in residential areas.

Thank you for your consideration.

Awesome.

Thank you, Shannon.

And just a check in here.

We are on speaker 92. We are on speaker 92 and we have 119 people signed up.

So 92, but there's a lot of people that are not present that are, you know, 92 or higher.

So this is a reminder that please, if you are 92 and higher, we are on callers 92 and higher.

Please make sure that you call in so we can have you signed up or so we can call on your name for public comment.

So that is, we're on speaker number 92, Douglas Smith.

You are not present.

We're gonna move on to the next person, but I will come back and call all the people that are not present so we can make sure that we get you all available for public comment.

Next person I see signed up, so we're on caller number 93. That is Irene Wall.

We are on number 93, Irene Wall.

And before you start, Irene, we still have Zach Jeffrey, or Jeff, Zach, number 86. We have Kate Childson, number 87. You are not present, but if you call in and you turn up present, I'll make sure that you all get called.

Irene, good morning.

Good morning.

Hi, I'm a lifelong Seattle resident.

The comp plan grossly overstates the need for new housing, aiming at 300,000 units with no justification for these numbers when the Office of Financial Management says growth is slowing.

SDCI reports that over 65,000 housing units have been built or are in the pipeline since 2019, leaving less than 50,000 remaining to meet Seattle's target till 2044. The neighborhood center rezoning is not needed.

Let the middle housing density changes play out and revise the criteria to produce the intended housing, not just more monotonous and still expensive, tall, narrow townhomes.

Reject Amendment 76. Don't conflate so-called frequent transit for major transit as defined in HB 1110. If we really want to be a city that models sustainability, We must focus on preservation of existing housing.

New housing will always be more costly.

Trees should have equal priority to density on individual losses.

Thank you, Irene.

Next, we have Shirley followed by Mary Flanagan.

So, Shirley, caller number 94.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Shirley and I'm a climate scientist living in a diverse majority renter neighborhood in Lake City where I've watched families who have rented here for their entire kids' lives get priced out.

I want these families to be able to stay here, so please support affordable and social housing especially for families by passing Amendment 17-6178.

As a climate scientist, I also know the best way Seattle can slow climate change is to build walkable neighborhoods and reduce car dependency.

So I support Amendment 34 to add back eight neighborhood centers, 84 to remove off-street parking requirements, and 66 to legalize corner stores on all lots.

Because I also have really bad needs, I also support Amendment 89 for more stacked flats.

And because I love trees, please pass Amendment 91 to expand the stacked flat bonus for preserved trees.

With all that said, however, whatever you do, do not pass Amendment 102, which would send housing costs through the roof, displacing people out of Seattle and destroying our climate goals.

Thanks.

Thank you, Shirley.

Next we have caller number 95, that's Mary, followed by number 96, Amy Scott.

Mary Flanagan.

Press star six and you're good to go.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Good morning.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Good morning.

Yes.

Good morning.

Now you went back on mute, Mary.

Go ahead.

There you go.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Mariel and I'm from Maple Leaf.

We have a petition to reduce the Maple Leaf Neighborhood Center and there are 1,734 signers as of today.

Nearly every day more signers are signing on to a very loud chorus.

The problem is no one's listening.

We are looking to amend our neighborhood center footprint as in the proposed amendments to many other neighborhood centers.

Council Member Moore was listening and working on this with us, but since she left, we can't even get a meeting to express our concerns.

Our very loud chorus is being completely ignored.

I think we deserve some representation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Next we have Amy Scott, followed by Tessa Code.

Amy Scott, you're gonna go ahead and press star six, followed by Tessa Code.

Star six, Amy.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, now we can hear you.

Good morning.

Sorry about that.

I'm Amy Scott and I'm commenting on the comprehensive plan.

The city must strengthen the comprehensive plan by choosing alternative five because our housing crisis affects everyone.

Committing to this option is the best way to address housing insecurity, address housing affordability, and alleviate traffic by establishing vibrant neighborhood centers.

Our city is landlocked, so we can only add capacity by building higher and denser housing.

We must increase the bonus for stacked flats and allow it to be used across the city.

We must grow and expand neighborhood centers and urban centers.

We can't use the tree canopy as an excuse to continue housing inequality.

As a Seattle native, I'm distressed to see talented young colleagues and artists move away because they can't afford to rent or buy here.

As a lifelong resident, I appreciate that the Council is considering the visionary action we need to become a city that works for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you, Amy.

Next, we have Tessa Code.

Good morning.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, you're all good.

Hi, can you hear me?

Perfect.

Hi, my name is Tessa Code.

I'm in District 1, and I'm calling to oppose the addition of Alki in Amendment 34. I really appreciate the amount of effort that the Council has put into increasing housing.

I fully support that, but I just wish that the amendment regarding Alki was given the same amount of thought, care, and attention that the other ones were.

Alki didn't get a chance to provide adequate comments to this planned change.

There are many reasons why I feel like this should be reconsidered, With the overarching reason being that Alki is already suffering from problems of congestion, a lack of parking, crime, and with minimal oversight or enforcement, our neighborhood is already picking up the slack for the city.

We pick up trash in the mornings.

We clean up the beaches.

We put out fires that have been smoldering all night.

Parking has been a nightmare.

Parking has been removed this summer with no alternatives.

So to think about adding more people to this neighborhood without currently fixing the issues that we already have just feels Insensitive and quite silly.

Thank you for listening.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Tessa.

Natalie and Mark, star six, if you can hear us.

Natalie and Mark, star six.

We're going to keep moving.

Next, we have caller number 98, Fian Zhu.

Number 98. We're on caller 98. And if you are not present, I'm going to come back and say your name again so we can make sure we get you.

Caller 98. And then caller 100, Brel.

I see Brel on there.

Hello, my name is Brel.

I am the Director of Homeownership for Helms Bay Community Land Trust and live in District 1. My comments today, however, are my own.

I want to encourage the Council to adopt Amendment 17 to include those additional bonuses, so thank you so much for the consideration of social housing as we so desperately need it.

And I encourage the council to consider the benefits of rental or group equity housing cooperatives.

I also want to shout out and encourage the adoption of amendments 6, 7, and 8, eliminating the parking requirements and adding to maximum parking limits.

It is far and away the need for us to decrease the amount of parking in space.

I also want to encourage State Council to adopt the ADU support.

Thank you, Bro.

Hi, this is 86.

Sorry, 98.

You're okay.

You're good.

You're perfect.

Go right ahead.

Hi.

Hi.

Good morning, Kelso members.

My name is Tiyun Zhou.

I'm a researcher living in Byron's neighborhood.

I strongly urge you to approve Amendment 39. The existing neighborhood center plan for Byron proposed adding hundreds of residents to an area with virtually no shops and a minimum transit.

This plan's old data reveals a fundamental flaw.

It would obtain 73 properties for every one retail business in Byron.

Compared to the 6 to 1 ratio in Wedgwood and Ravana, this is 10 times over.

This is not a walkable community.

It's a car-dependent island that will create catastrophic parking and safety crisis.

Amendment 39 is a sensible correction.

It does not stop growth.

It responsibly scales development to our actual infrastructure and wisely directs new housing towards existing high-frequency Please support the sustainable growth that enhances our community instead of overwhelming it.

Vote yes on Amendment 39.

Thank you.

Next we have James Wu, followed by Suzy Whitehead.

James Wu.

Good morning.

James Wu.

Good morning.

Thank you, counsel.

Good morning.

I am a district-wide resident and I'm a scientist.

I am alarmed by the accelerating pace of climate change.

And in Seattle, this is caused by our cars.

We need to cut emissions, and to do that, we need hundreds of thousands of new walkable housing, near jobs, near stores, near transit, and near parks.

Please adopt amendments 17, 34, 60, 61, 66, 79, and 84 and 91 to lower the cost of new housing and make room for trees, not cars and not parking.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

Good morning.

I am just calling to urge you to vote yes on amendments 93 and 102. I think that the purpose of this, in my opinion, is to protect the trees that we have in this city and are losing every single day.

I've written an email to that effect.

But also to pause, I don't know if you can pause, on 34 and 33, I was astounded to see the timeline on these eight new neighborhood centers proposed between the public proposal and the vote five weeks between that leaves no time to examine or public comment or review, which I think we are legally supposed to be I also doubt that the new development that keeps occurring is actually going to be affordable or appropriate for the people who need it.

I agree we may need it, but I'm not sure if what's being done is actually going to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Susie.

And I'm going to pause here because we do have a number of people that are not present.

We are on speaker 103. So if you have a number higher than 103, If you have a speaker higher than 103, a number higher than 103, please jump online so we can go ahead and give you a call your name for public comment.

So we are on speaker 103. I also want to pause here and give Natalie one second.

Ansel, give me one second.

I'm going to read out some instructions.

I appreciate you.

Thank you.

Natalie and Mark, star six.

I know you've been on for a minute, but if we can get you off of mute, we can get you Available for public comment, star six.

So you all are being in the queue.

I will, towards the end, go through all of the non-present speakers or speakers that might have trouble technology-wise, and I will consistently call your name to make sure that you can give public comment.

I also want IT to recognize Patrick Taylor.

They are present.

They are present.

They weren't present before, but if we could get Patrick Taylor up on the queue to make sure that we get them going.

Ainsill, good morning.

You're up.

Thank you very much for being tech support for all of us, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you to Council Member Rink for your amendment.

There's a lot of reason why you're Winning your primary and a landslide this last month.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for all your amendments.

And Councilmember Juarez, welcome back to Council.

Thanks for being my Maple Leaf Councilmember.

Really excited about the growth of the neighborhood center there.

I support Amendment 34. I support all of Dan Strauss's amendments.

I support all of Councilmember Rink's amendments, all of Councilmember Nelson's amendments.

I'm here today because Teachers, firefighters, civil servants deserve affordable housing in the communities in which they live.

I'm here today because every $100 that rent goes up, homelessness increases by 9%.

You all are here today helping us because the legacy of the leaders before you was to constrain housing construction to limit where people could live and artificially constrain housing.

We need more housing, and you have the tangible power to change our city for the better.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ansel.

Next we have Patrick Taylor.

Patrick Taylor.

Good morning.

Go ahead and press star six.

There you go.

Patrick Taylor.

Hi, my name is Patrick Taylor.

I live with my wife and kids in the North Beacon Hill urban residential, residential urban village in a mixed neighborhood of houses, townhouses and apartments.

I'm here today to speak regarding Council Bill 120985 in favor of more housing of all types for all people in all parts of the city.

Housing costs and homelessness are the top issues facing our city.

You have before you today a chance to help with the situation or sit by and let it get worse.

I urge you to choose to make our city more welcoming and support more homes while protecting the fields and forests around our city.

Typically, I ask you to reject the anti-housing amendments of Councilmember Rivera and others and support pro-housing amendments by Councilmembers such as Rankin and Nelson Including but not limited to Amendment 34, Amendment 1663, Amendment 76, Amendment 86, Amendment 89, and Amendment 91. Thank you for all your time and work on this.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Patrick.

Next, we are on number 106. I see 106, Michael McFadden.

Go ahead and press star six and then Linda Gleason is next.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Good morning.

Hello.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Mike.

I live in the Bryant neighborhood called South Wedgewood and Amendment 34. Please vote no on this amendment.

Attempting to solve the housing affordability problem by hazardly creating unlivable neighborhoods is not the solution.

This amendment was proposed only a month ago and has not been properly advertised or vetted.

My wife and I have lived in the Brighton neighborhood for 40 years and have seen dramatic changes, especially over the past 10 to 15, with building of new single-family homes, townhouses, and apartment buildings.

The influx of new residents has led to major increases in traffic and congestion.

Street parking has also become a serious problem.

Two elementary schools in the area contribute to traffic jams and parking problems throughout most of the year.

The arterial serving this area are now regularly experiencing bumper-to-bumper traffic.

The neighborhood cannot accommodate further major increases in population density than many new apartment buildings.

Please vote no on Amendment 34.

Thank you, Michael.

Next we have Linda Gleason, followed by Harshleen.

Hi, my name is Linda.

Thank you for the chance to speak.

I am a Part of the Loyal Heights neighborhood, I operate an early learning center for 29 years.

I rent and I do not own.

I have served generations of families.

Children are now teachers in my school and high schoolers that went to my school that are also, I have given them their first job.

Loyal Heights is more than a neighborhood.

It's a true community.

Families walk to schools and my center.

Children ride bikes to parks.

Neighborhoods look out for one another.

I was also part of Retreat Seattle in front of our businesses we've built.

Put trees and also trees in our neighborhood.

Amendment 34 allowing six to eight-story buildings at 24th and 80th and throughout this community will threaten all of that.

It risks displacing long-standing small businesses such as myself, raising rents beyond reach, and overburdening the infrastructure we all rely on.

Roads already are congested, limiting utilities and the walkability families count on for safety.

I want to be clear, I'm not against growth.

But also, we never were told about this.

Thank you, Linda.

Next we have Harshleen Tawana and then Sandy Wolf.

So we're on speaker number 109 followed by Sandy Wolf 110. Star six to unmute yourself.

There you go.

Hello.

I wanted to call and urge that you guys pass amendment 93 and 91 Recently, I've been working alongside the Sammamish River and focusing on freshwater habitats and our salmon cycle.

And there has been a lot of the Chemical 6 PPDQ.

And we need our trees and vegetation to soak up these chemicals, which come from impervious surfaces, from like tire dust and whatnot.

And I just think that it's important to prioritize our salmon.

Freshwater streams and habitats.

That's all.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Sandy Wolf.

And I just want to thank the people that have the higher numbers.

You all have been waiting for a long time.

So I want to make sure you all get heard.

Sandy Wolf.

Good morning.

Hi.

Good morning.

Thanks for sticking with us.

My name is Sandy Wolf.

I'm an architect and District 2 resident.

I encourage you to vote no on Amendment 102. While well intentioned, this proposed amendment adds ambiguity and time to the building permit process, which ultimately just adds cost to homeowners without significant tree protection benefit.

New tree legislation passed only two years ago after collaboration between the city residents and developers, and the existing code provides clarity around tree protection measures and balances protecting our tree canopy while allowing for greater density in the city.

Liza Rankin.

Adding new amendments at this point would ignore the collaborative efforts to date.

The choice between housing and trees is a false dichotomy.

Please vote no on Amendment 102. Liza Rankin.

Relatedly, I support Amendment number 84, which removes parking requirements citywide as well as stack flat bonuses.

Both of these would allow space currently required for cars and other amenity areas to be more effectively used for vegetation on private property to offset any loss of trees.

Thank you for your time and effort on the plan.

Thank you, Sandy.

Next we have, now we are on speaker 111 and there's a number of people that are not present.

So I'm gonna take this time to call all the people that are not present to make sure that you all can sign on.

And maybe the people that are listening, if you know some of these people, please tell them to sign on.

So speaker number 86, Zach Jeff.

Speaker number 87, Kate Childson.

Speaker number 99, Lang Reynolds.

Speaker number 103, Mel Miller.

Speaker number 111, that's Hilary Dahl.

Speaker number 113, Jill McGrath.

Speaker number 114, Alexandra Johnson.

Speaker number 117, Marietta Can't pronounce your last name, so I'm just gonna leave it at that.

And then speaker number 119, Kim.

So just a heads up, speaker number 86, Zach.

87, Kate.

99, Lang.

103, Mel.

111, Hillary.

113, Jill.

114, Alexandra.

117, Marietta.

And 119, Kim.

All right, so we are on speaker number 112. Hillary, we don't see you, so we're going to Tom Carlson.

Tom, good afternoon now.

Sorry, go ahead and press star six.

We see you, Tom, but you're on mute.

If you press star six on your phone, star six.

We'll give you a second and we'll keep you there in the queue and we'll keep moving on.

If we could call up IT, IT, if we could call up Robert Ferguson.

Robert Ferguson, go ahead and press star six, star six.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, council members and fellow callers.

Robert Ferguson, My name is Robert Ferguson.

I am a resident of Alki.

I am also commenting on the late edition of Alki through Amendment 34. Robert Ferguson, Many residents only heard about this amendment last week and from the West Seattle blog.

Robert Ferguson, Any good faith effort at community outreach would have included Alki at the beginning of the process, not at the end.

Robert Ferguson, And there would have been a modicum of communication with the West Seattle blog and Alki Community Council.

Alki deserves the same consideration as those communities that were part of the process from the beginning.

Please withdraw Amendment 34 or remove Alki from the amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert.

Next, Sam Calandra.

Sam Calandra.

Tom, Mark, and Natalie, you all are in the queue.

If you press star six, we can go ahead and get you going.

Sam, star six.

Star six.

Hi, my name is Sam Calandra.

I'm speaking in support of amendments 33 and 34. I live and own my home in Loyal Heights.

My house shares a single car, so walkable amenities and public transit nearby are extremely important to my family.

I would love to see 24th Avenue Northwest develop into a more robust business district with more restaurants and businesses with an easy walking distance.

I hope that that growth could then help justify increased investment in Metro Route 40. I rode the 40 to a doctor's appointment just this morning at Swedish Ballard and greater frequency on that line would make it much easier for me to get to Old Ballard as well as to Northgate and the light rail.

Regarding Amendment 33, I grew up in Seattle on Queen Anne in a single family home next to a large apartment building and that did not detract from my childhood at all.

It was a wonderful neighborhood and remains so today.

I went to San Francisco for college and loved it there but could not afford to stay permanently because of the runaway cost of housing.

San Francisco's attempts to preserve neighborhood feel, it preserves architecture but destroys the communities living in them as folks are priced out and forced to leave.

I was lucky that I had a wonderful hometown to move back to.

To avoid the same thing here, we need to build housing.

Thank you, Sam.

Okay, so we're going to go ahead and read the people that are not here again.

Caller number 86, Zach.

Caller number 87, Kate.

Caller number 92, Douglas.

Caller number 99, Lang.

Caller number 103, Mel Miller.

Caller number 111, Hilary Dahl.

We also have number 113, speaker number 113, Jill McGrath.

Speaker number 114, Alexandra Johnson.

Speaker number 117, Marietta.

And speaker number 119, Kim.

Natalie Reber, Mark Fultz, and Tom Carlson.

As well.

And right now it's 12.08.

The session ends at 12.30 before our break.

And so I want to give at least a minute to see if some of those callers are going to be present.

And then also if we can work on the star six with getting people off mute.

So Natalie Reber.

Oh, Tom, I see you off mute.

Don't press it again.

You're off mute.

Thank you.

Okay, my name is Tom Carlson.

I'm a resident of District 2. Recently, I was horrified to see a property owner in my neighborhood remove four mature conifers, iconic dug furs, and cedars on their property to make way for six housing units to occupy the whole property, leaving little or no viable green space.

I was shocked to learn that the city allows private property owners to do this and that it is happening at a breakneck pace in neighborhoods throughout the city.

This is why I implore you to vote yes on amendments 93 and 102. Amendment 93 creates incentives for developers to preserve trees and create space for more.

And Amendment 102 brings Seattle up to other cities' tree protection standards, such as New York, Boston, Portland, creating three glaring, I'm sorry, closing three glaring loopholes in our tree ordinance.

We need trees on private property.

Over 50% of Seattle trees are on private residential land.

Without Amendment 93 and 102, The Comprehensive Plan green lights the removal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tom.

And I'm gonna do, once again, a last call for the people that are not present to see if you can jump online and then the folks that might be having a little technical issues.

So Natalie Reber, caller number 65. Caller number 75, Mark Foltz.

You're gonna go ahead and press star six if you can.

Caller number 86, Zach.

I see that you're present.

If we could bump him up.

Hi, Zach.

Good afternoon.

Star six.

You're gonna go ahead and press star six, Zach.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

All right.

Council member Hollingsworth, thank you so much for this opportunity.

Thank you to Seattle City Council for The opportunity to speak on the Comprehensive Plan Update.

My name is Zach Jaffe.

I am a resident of the Upper Fremont Neighborhood Center, D6.

I work in land use planning and am a student of urban planning at University of Washington.

To start, I would like to just say thank you to Councilmember Strauch for sending out the survey that he did to his constituents, asking for their opinions on the Amendment 2. The D6 Neighborhood Centers.

And on that note, I would like to advocate for Amendment 48 in favor of Version C, which is the largest version of the Upper Fremont Neighborhood Center.

Secondly, I would like to commend Council Member Alexis Mercedes Rank for the bold action she is taking in tackling Seattle's housing crisis.

And would like to voice my support for Amendment 34 as well.

Thank you very much.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Kim.

I see you off mute.

Good morning.

Sorry.

Good afternoon.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

Hello, hello.

My name is Kim Schwarzkopf.

I live in District 1 and I'm a community organizer in the Duwamish River Valley.

And a board member of the Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association, otherwise known as DNDA.

I've lived in an area considered an urban village for over 29 years, and I've seen a lot of change over the years.

There are a lot of things I'm excited about with this plan, but a lot of things that are really concerning.

I just want to say up front, I do want to share my general support for everything that DRCC shared in their letter to the council dated September 9th.

And I also want to share my support for amendments 93 and 102 specifically.

And hope that council members say yes to these amendments.

Seattle's identity has always been rooted in its trees and its waters.

They're our life-saving infrastructure, not just our scenery.

They filter our water and cool our neighborhoods and remind us how deeply we belong to this place.

We should be doing everything that we can to preserve our mature trees, especially in communities pressed up against industrial areas.

I just had a question also about the final EIS.

Isn't it under legal challenge?

Thank you, Kim.

All right, I'm gonna read through the names one last time.

We're gonna do one last call.

So if you know these people, please let them know that we have them signed up for public comment.

Some of them are not present.

Natalie Reber, your caller number, excuse me, your speaker number 65. Then we have Mark Folt, speaker number 75. We also have Kate Chilson, UR87.

Speaker number 92, Douglas Smith.

Speaker number 99, Lang Reynolds.

Lang Reynolds, speaker number 99. Speaker number 103, Mel Miller.

Mel Miller, 103. Speaker number 111, you are Hilary Dahl.

Speaker number 111, Hilary Dahl.

We have speaker number 113, Jill McGrath.

Speaker number 113. Speaker number 114, you're Alexandra Johnson.

Alexandra Johnson, speaker 114. And we also have speaker number 117, Marietta.

Speaker number 117. Councilmember Juarez, you're off mute.

Marietta, speaker number 117. I heard that's a boomer moment from I'm here to advocate for Natalie, okay?

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Speaker number 117, you are Marietta.

Speaker number 117. And if you are Natalie and Mark, you are in the queue.

We see you online.

You have to press star six and we'll give you 30 seconds to try to Toggle your phone before we have to move on and we're going to wait and see if there's any other people that are showing up present online.

I definitely want to appreciate all the people I appreciate.

I'm sorry, I have to get my enunciation correct or my mom will Not like me, appreciate.

Annunciation is key, okay?

But I have to thank the people that waited longer online.

I know it's hard to wait two, three hours on your phone to be able to do public comment.

So we really appreciate it.

And that's appreciated.

And that's why we are waiting to make sure that you have a chance.

And so I see Natalie on star six.

I don't know if there's a council bet going on.

If Natalie, if we can get you on star six.

And then I'm gonna take a quick look to see if anyone that is not present is now present so we can get you online.

I don't see anyone.

All right, I'm gonna call your names one more time, okay?

Just one more time.

Mark Fultz, number 75. We also have Kate Chilson, number 87, speaker number 87. Speaker number 92, Douglas Smith.

Speaker number 99, Lang Reynolds.

Speaker number 103, Mel Miller.

Speaker number 111, Hilary Dahl.

Speaker number 113, Jill McGrath.

Speaker number 114, Alexandra Johnson.

Speaker number 117, Marietta.

And I see Mark Foltz has joined us.

Saved by the bell, Mark.

Good morning.

I'm a homeowner in Wallingford, steps from Gasworks Park.

Wallingford has it all, great parks, I am well connected to the rest of Seattle by transit and biking.

I have lived here for almost 20 years, raised a son here, but am deeply concerned about the increasingly high cost of housing.

I strongly support Amendment 34 that adds a new neighborhood center in Wallingford.

Wallingford would benefit from more neighbors and more opportunities to add services to the area near Gasworks Park.

Most of Wallingford is dominated by single family homes that cost well over $1 million And require a six figure down payment and $6,000 a month mortgage payment.

Wallingford risks becoming a gated community affordable only to our wealthiest residents.

It is already unaffordable to members of my family who want to live here and will be unaffordable for my son and his family when he's ready to move out.

Adding more opportunities for neighbors in a high opportunity area that are not luxury homes would make Wallingford a better neighborhood for Seattle.

Please pass Amendment 34 and add more

Thank you.

Do I see Natalie on star six going once, twice?

No.

Okay.

Come on, Natalie.

All right.

Well, thank you all.

Thank you, everyone.

We really appreciate, we really thank you all for Really thank you all for jumping in and coming to public comment for our morning session.

With that, do my colleagues have any more items of business?

So this is just a reminder, this afternoon session two is gonna begin at three o'clock.

Three o'clock we're gonna begin.

It's gonna be reserved for in-person speakers.

I also wanna thank IT.

IT has been holding it down for us on the back end.

I wanna thank all, everyone up at IT, you all are the best.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Session two began, oh, and our, Thank you, Council Member Kettle, our phenomenal clerk.

Amelia, you're great.

So session two is going to begin at 3 p.m.

Registration, it's important, opens at 2.30.

So 2.30, City Hall registration opens, and it's going to stay open to 6.30.

So it's a rolling type of Sign up.

So you're able to come between 2.30 and 6.30.

You will be able to get to speak for our public comment.

So know that that window is open for you all, and we have great staff to meet you here and to help you navigate City Hall as well.

So looking forward to seeing you.

Remember, 3 o'clock we're starting.

You can sign up between 2.30 and 6.30, and so you can come at any time between those times to sign up for public comment, and that is in person.

Now, if there's no further business, this is going to conclude our first session, and we will resume our second session and start that today at 3 o'clock.

The current time right now is 2.19 p.m.

If there's no further business, this meeting will adjourn.

Have a great lunch.

Thank you.