Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan 5/14/2026

Try again.

Okay, good afternoon, everyone.

The May 14th, 2026 meeting of the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan will come to order.

It's 2.06 PM.

I'm Eddie Lynn, chair of the Select Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Foster.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Here.

Councilmember Saka.

Here.

Chair Lynn.

Here.

Chair, there are

I'd like to note that Councilmember Juarez and Councilmember Strauss are excused from today's meeting we will now consider the agenda if there are no objections the agenda will be adopted Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Welcome to session one of this public hearing on the comprehensive plan, phase two, focusing on centers and corridors.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on the agenda or items within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are opened or signed up today?

We have roughly 18 total, eight remotes and 10 in person.

OK, each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

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

In-person speakers will be called first, after which we will move to remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

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

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

The public comment period is now open, and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

Laura Lowe

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm here today as the Advocacy and Policy Manager for Habitat for Humanity, Seattle King and Kittitas Counties.

Forty and the job, a little nervous.

My name is Laura Lo.

I'm also a renter in Seattle.

Habitat is a proud member of the Complete Communities Coalition, and we strongly support the taller, denser, faster resolution.

At Habitat, we see every day that zoning capacity is not abstract.

It is the difference between a family staying in Seattle or being priced out.

At Olympic Ridge on 14th Avenue, Habitat created 18 permanently affordable home ownership opportunities for first-time buyers earning up to 80% of AMI.

These are teachers, healthcare workers, and community service employees who dreamed of staying in the places where they work and are raising their kids.

This finally was made possible after years of renting and experiencing housing instability.

Without that zoning, those 18 families would not be homeowners in Seattle today.

This was only possible because of the level of density allowed in that neighborhood.

That's why this update matters so much.

Taller, Denser, Faster brings that same opportunity, the opportunity to build more homes, including permanently affordable home ownership to more neighborhoods around the hubs of our city, near transit, jobs, parks, and more.

If a project delivers deeper affordability, greener construction, or other community benefits, the code should make that project easier, not harder to build.

By scanning the scope of the supplemental EIS, the city will understand how height bonuses for affordable, housing will work.

Plus, those benefits should be able to stack with other public interest bonuses.

Please advance taller, denser, faster, boldly, and give Seattle every tool to create more affordable homes in our neighborhoods.

This helps us, Habitat, in our mission to not just build homes, but homeowners.

We appreciate your effort.

This is a step towards achieving our vision, and we can't wait to work with you going forward.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Suzanne Grant, followed by Howard Greenwich, Jessica Dixon, and Ruth Dite.

Hello, thank you for being here today to listen to us, but do you hear us?

I almost didn't bother to come today to talk to you.

Judging from public participation, it kind of appears that many of us may feel that way.

you have received how many?

Thousands of comments from neighborhoods all over the city, pleading for protection of their, no, our trees.

But the mayor holds a secret meeting about the comp plan and only invites the master builders and the developers who stand to make a profit from the most dense housing, housing that we all want if it's affordable and importantly, healthy near trees.

What will you do to stand up pun intended, for keeping trees intact while building housing.

How will you push back on the mayor's one-sided approach?

Some of you are trying, thank you, but you need to try harder.

President Trump's administration is taking away our public lands, cutting our public forests.

The only action I can take against him that can have any real effect is local action.

if you continue down the path that ignores climate change, decreases setbacks, increases the lot coverage to 95%, dooming our local orca with increased stormwater runoff.

I have no say in protecting our environment, our trees, our birds, our insects, and our extremely intelligent orca.

There are so many more holes in the sky where the trees once stood.

Keep Seattle erect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Howard Greenwich.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Howard Greenwich.

I'm the research director for Puget Sound SAGE.

For the last 15 or more years, SAGE has been a leading voice for fighting against displacement of working class and BIPOC communities out of Seattle.

and by displacement, we don't just mean affordable housing, we also mean all the cultural components, small businesses, et cetera, that folks have built over the last 20, 30, 100 years, thinking particularly about the black community.

So that's kind of our, that's been our fight, and our work has been citywide, but mostly focused on Southeast Seattle, so really appreciate you, Councilmember Lin, your leadership and values here representing District 2. I'm here to support the resolution and the mayor's taller, denser, faster concept, but with some caveats.

First, we think adding some additional anti-displacement policy components to it, to the study, what you're asking them to study, will help OPCD show the benefits of increased density.

We'll send you a letter about that soon.

Second, it's been a long time since a mayoral administration has sought to partner with communities at high risk of displacement to craft policy.

So we are really looking forward to working with Mayor Wilson and OPCD leadership for this next round of zoning and planning.

And then the last thing I want to leave you with is an affirmation that centering communities at risk of displacement is not anti-density, it's not anti-growth, it's not a justification either for the status quo.

We believe it will be central to your vision of Seattle as a dense, multi-class, multi-racial city where everyone .

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jessica Dixon, followed by Ruth Deit, Dave Gloger, and Logan Schmidt.

Hello, my name is Jessica Dixon and I'm in District 6 and thanks very much for this today, this opportunity.

Today, the majestic Dayton cedars in Greenwood were cut down.

These 80-year-old healthy red cedars were over four feet in diameter and were the heart of our neighborhood.

They stood at the very edge of the site and an architect showed that all the units of housing, eight units, and the trees could coexist if the developer were to build six parking stops instead of eight.

The limbs were sliced by powerful chainsaws and fed into a series of chippers until they were just piles of sawdust.

And I just brought a picture of what they looked like before.

And as they're in action today, there were 18 tree cutters on site.

They were just piles of sawdust.

Nature's perfect carbon storage, nature's free air conditioner, and stormwater ally was rendered useless.

People filed by to say goodbye.

A mom brought pictures from her daughter who thought that they might help save the tree.

I brought a picture.

and a list was started on a piece of paper and I just wanted to read it to you.

Quote, I wish Seattle City Council passes laws to protect trees by one, requiring alternate site layouts at the beginning of projects with trees, use shared exterior walls in all middle housing, Three, save trees that are greater than 30 inches in diameter.

Four, save trees that are over 50 years old.

Five, use structural pin piles to build over large roots, because there's lots of creative ways to build alongside trees.

And six, have a heart and compassion was on the list.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Two major pieces of state legislation, HB 1110 and 1491, arrived after public input and decisions were made about which plan alternative and growth strategy would be followed.

The level of middle housing now allowed in NR, future transit-oriented up zones, new neighborhood centers were not accounted for when the growth strategy was developed.

So what's our growth strategy now?

can we take a moment to reassess?

Look at the big picture.

It seems we've lost the narrative.

Go back to the numbers.

The city adopted a target of 120,000 new homes over 20 years.

To reach that target, the 2024 draft zoning provided capacity for 330,000 new homes in corridors and centers configuration.

but HB 1491 is telling us we need a stronger corridors approach.

This mandate and additional neighborhood centers are significant enough to call for amendments to the plan map and to consider modifying some of our expanded centers.

We can do this without sacrificing our original housing target and affordability goals.

and as I've said many times, we can't expect to get affordable housing just through upzoning.

Even the Urban Affairs Institute said zoning modifications will increase housing supply by 0.8%.

The American Enterprise Institute says between one and 2.5%.

That's really not there that much.

and I think we're asking too much from upzoning.

I think it's a bit of magical thinking.

I think we need to look harder at social housing.

And so I ask you, I think what's taller faster is a bit naive and we've already upzoned enough.

All right, thank you.

Next up we have Dave Gloger, followed by Logan Schmidt, Caroline Villanova, and Cindy Scheller.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Dave Gloger, and I live in District 5. Last year, Council passed interim legislation for HB 1110 and the first phase of the One Seattle plan.

As we all know, that was with the intent of producing more affordable housing.

But that doesn't seem to be happening.

When I travel around my neighborhood in the city, I am not seeing middle housing being built.

I am seeing lots that have all the trees cut down with four townhouses on them.

And each of these townhouses is selling for more than a million dollars.

That's hardly middle housing.

But what is not apparent is the house that used to be on that property.

More often than not, that it was a modest price starter home, just what a first time home buyer is looking for.

So we're removing actual middle housing for this process of supposedly building affordable housing.

And on the rental side, yesterday I looked online and I found that there are over 13,000 rental units available, 13,000 apartments.

So we have a huge surplus of rental units, and the next phase of the One Seattle plan wants to provide even more areas that allow large apartment buildings.

The tech industry has huge layoffs with more on the way.

Starbucks is leaving town, but the mayor says denser, higher, faster.

I ask why?

The comp plan doesn't really encourage middle housing, and we have a glut of apartments.

Look at the data before you upzone so much that Seattle is not recognizable or livable in the near future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Logan Schmidt with MBACs and the Complete Communities Coalition.

I'm also a D5 resident.

We are in support of this resolution and tolerant answer faster.

As the city and OPCD move ahead with scoping for the next phase of the comprehensive plan, it is imperative that you analyze infrastructure barriers that disproportionately burden middle housing and affordable housing.

Zoning capacity alone does not produce housing.

The supplemental EIS should consider how utility and right-of-way requirements currently make small and middle-scale projects infeasible, including Seattle City light undergrounding thresholds, SDOT street improvement permit timelines, and Seattle Public Utilities water main extension requirements.

We look forward to continued partnership to ensure that the city can both plan for and realize the growth set forth in the comprehensive plan because everyone deserves a place to call home.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next up we have Caroline Villanova followed by Cindy Shetler and Jasmine Smith.

Hello and good afternoon.

Thank you council members for the opportunity to comment.

My name is Caroline Villanova and I am the Director of Government Relations at Seattle Park Foundation.

We are fully supportive of advancing planning to meet the need for additional housing in Seattle.

At the same time, we believe the city must ensure this plan creates a livable and thriving city for all residents, including families, by improving or expanding public space and public amenities, especially green spaces, as part of the rezoning legislation.

As a majority renter city, it is even more important that we have safe outdoor spaces for kids to play and for people to do things like walk their dogs or just get a breath of fresh air.

We must connect density with livability, not as an afterthought or a request from interest groups, but as strong policies with real climate and community resilience outcomes.

Through our coalition engagement, we know that the current approach to density and land use planning has created growing concern that the city's strategy insufficiently addresses green space, livability, neighborhood infrastructure, and equitable community involvement.

We have heard from many of our 140 grassroots community groups throughout the city that this is the case, and we request agency and elected leaders sit down and have direct dialogue with communities that will be impacted by the changes to zoning in their neighborhoods, and we're happy to assist the city in reaching those people.

Thank you for taking the time today to reconsider the profound impact that the comprehensive plan can and will have on shaping Seattle's future.

We believe that we can work together and demonstrate right here in Seattle, livability and growth are not competing priorities.

Thank you for your leadership and your time on the committee today.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sandy Schottler followed by Jasmine Smith and Orly Rose.

one today.

Hi, yeah, I'm Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle.

As Jessica told you, today two healthy native western red cedars growing on the edge of the lot, almost in the public right away actually, were removed for a townhome complex.

Their numbers will be added to the 6,923 trees removed since 2024. Over half were healthy trees removed for construction, 70% had trunks over a foot in diameter.

We will be sending you green factor amendments we've worked on with MBACs and FutureWise.

They are entirely incentive based, so I hope you will consider these and pass them.

but incentives are not enough.

At a certain point, we have to look around at other cities and ask why Seattle's urban forest policies are so different and why we are moving so quickly toward allowing 100% hardscape where humans live.

New York City just released their urban forest plan.

It included over 7,000 individual comments from the community.

It puts all of their trees under one manager, and it does not essentially distinguish in protection between private and public trees.

This is the future that we want to step into.

Please use this once in a decade opportunity to join other progressive cities in preserving and growing our tree canopy.

Thank you.

Not used to this mic.

My name's Jasmine Smith.

I am the Director of Local Advocacy at FutureWise and a resident of Lower Queen Anne and co-chair of the Complete Communities Coalition.

From tiny towns of 800 to cities of 800,000 and anywhere in between, FutureWise believes that the elements of a strong, resilient, community are all the same.

You should have a healthy home where you can afford to live, where you can walk, bike, roll, and ride transit to get to where you need to go and access the local food from local farms and love the stunning lands that we share with wildlife.

which may look different for a city of Seattle's size, but the mission is clear.

The fourth fastest growing city in the country and the one serving as refuge for people escaping climates, both environmental and social, we have to build taller, denser, and faster.

We need to have the fullest picture of the environmental impacts and how we're also able to improve things for the environment by having transit-oriented development and walkable communities.

and do so in a way that's green for our Emerald City and continue to grow that transit-oriented development in a way that we're accommodating both Seattleites from yesteryear that have had to move as well as the ones that live here today and the ones that want to come back and the ones that want to join us and live in this Emerald City.

We want to have enough housing at affordable rates that people can continue to live in their homes, have a roof over their heads, that aren't risking being displaced to different cities, different towns, or to our streets, and the impact that that has.

Thank you for working taller, denser, and faster so that we can have a Washington for all.

Thank you.

Next up we have Aurelie Rose.

Hello, it's nice to see you again today.

Oh, my name is Arlie Rose and I live in the third district.

I've been here multiple times and all the while I've been trying to figure out how to prove to you that we are being spied on because none of this makes a difference if we are ruining our land and spying on the people, right?

So I got a FOIA from the EFF and they determined Conterra Ultra Broadband is indeed spying on us.

Not only that, do they have the equipment here to spy on us.

They spy on multiple of us at once.

And with this equipment, they release plutonium radiation, ionizing radiation.

Do you know what ionizing radiation does?

They learned in the 50s, it controls people.

So I just wanna tell you, the FOIA is out.

I grew up here, I'm native, I'm Salish, and I worked for the Puyallup tribe.

I've been a part of the Muckleshoot.

I grew up here, I love it here, I love this land.

My grandma used to tell me about the Ottawa, who we're a part of too, and how they traveled down to Oklahoma.

I love this land, I really do.

I walk outside and I see the grass and I thank God.

I was in meditation and I swear that Jesus Christ himself told me to come down here and present it to you.

Not that I think you'll care, but for some reason he does.

So I'm presenting it to you.

There's actual evidence out now.

There's an FOIA stating they injected me at 14 years old.

14 year old little girl, they injected me with isotopes.

My time is done.

If you guys don't do something about it, it's your fault.

and that's all I have to say.

I'm sorry I'm mad at you.

Obviously you guys weren't here.

You need to do something about it.

It's been two years I've been coming back here.

I finally got the proof.

I mean, hardcore proof.

Move your asses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's our last in-person speaker.

We will now move on to our remote speakers, starting with Alberto Alvarez.

Thank you.

How can we trust today's public comment?

Council has a legal obligation to uphold the First Amendment and to protect our freedom of speech.

Using no racial slurs or discriminatory language, Howard Gale voiced his opinion.

Council then issued threats to ban him from public comment for merely criticizing arrogant politicians on council.

Civil disobedience and non-violent resistance are fundamental to our freedoms.

Criticizing a politician while not denigrating race, gender, ethnicity is all legally protected in our society.

You should write an apology and council must amend the rules that allow irritable and vindictive members to ban people for statements they don't like.

You may not like it, but that is the harsh truth needed to maintain our personal freedoms and our power to hold government accountable.

Thank you all and have a good day.

Next up, we have Carter Nelson.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair Lynn and members of the committee.

Carter Nelson on behalf of NAOP Washington State, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, representing industry professionals delivering much of the market rate multifamily housing the city needs.

Thank you for your continued leadership and focus on housing.

We're encouraged by the Mayor's Taller, Denser, Faster proposal.

It meets the moment and moves quickly toward a more ambitious vision for growth and density in Seattle.

As phase two work is underway and phase three approaches, we support the joint resolution before you today to help keep that momentum moving.

Looking ahead, we would welcome additional neighborhood centers and a bolder vision for growth to be adequately studied so that in the future, council has a full suite of policy options to address the city's housing affordability challenges.

As Seattle continues to grow, we need to be adding more homes and expanding housing options to better serve current and future residents.

Focusing that growth in denser areas near transit is one of the clearest ways to reduce sprawl, support climate goals and make the city more accessible and connected.

We appreciate the thoughtful approach you've taken throughout this process.

Our members stand ready to stay engaged and support solutions that make it easier to build more housing and make Seattle a more livable and attainable city for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Ruth Williams.

Hello?

Hello.

Hello, good afternoon.

I'm Ruth Williams, speaking as a resident of D5, concerning Resolution 32183. How is this resolution going to limit expense and displacement now?

In what way is it sustainable?

Free removals and excessive payment will exacerbate heat island effects or air quality damage to our riparian management zones and to both fresh and marine receiving water bodies.

The result will be helping to keep Thornton Creek salmon recovery on hold.

Thornton Creek is the largest watershed in Seattle and Shoreline and our resident orcas in continued peril.

Let's not do the same things and expect a different result.

Building bigger will require us to keep handing the winning cards to the ever-hungry construction industry.

Success is going to require a new kind of creativity.

What if we strive to keep more of the cash in the community?

Why don't we have a Seattle City transfer of development rights?

This would allow the owner of one property to sell their development rights to a builder who has the wherewithal to build bigger while putting some dollars in the homeowner's pocket, avoiding displacement, and possibly saving a landscaped yard.

Why aren't we considering the community land trust model where the land is owned by a non-profit and residents pay only for the homes?

Strongtowns.org has a host of resources for increasing density while keeping cash in the community and stopping displacement.

We have a new mayor.

Let's try some new ideas.

I have sent you some links and thank you for your consideration today.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Irene Wall.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

This is Irene Wall, D6.

I urge you to reject Resolution 32203. It is premature to sweep even more of the City's stable neighborhoods into this up-zoning frenzy.

The City's data shows current capacity to add over 163,000 additional residential units for an anticipated growth in population of 228,000, but the One Seattle Plan calls for radically more.

upzones to add 330,000 units.

That's less than one person per unit.

Where do these estimates come from?

The official housing target for Seattle from King County was for 112,000 units between 2019 and 2044 and our growth rate has since slowed.

Concerning upzoning along frequent transit routes, the mapping and language in the director's report is confusing.

we need clear maps that show all areas both inside and outside the centers where lots will be subject to increase in height and density.

The alleged goal is to reduce housing costs, especially for the so-called rent burdened, but there's nothing in this plan that will accomplish the goal.

Merely allowing more opportunities to randomly demolish existing housing, including much of Seattle's remaining rental housing suitable for families, and replace it with more but not affordable and certainly less accessible housing is not the answer.

Per the housing unit growth report I received from OPCD yesterday, between 2016 and 2025, 135,787 housing units have been built, are under construction or have permits.

Has this brought down the cost of housing?

No.

We need a rational plan that focuses on livability, promoting home ownership over rental units.

protecting the environment and incentivizing new housing where current zoning is underutilized.

A one Seattle plan should benefit everyone, not- Thank you, Irene.

Next up, we have Trish Stanley.

Sorry, Shamley.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Trish Shanley and I have three comments about the frequent transit route zoning.

First is OPCD's presentation today does not depict the frequent transit route zoning even on their page 2 growth strategy.

OPCD needs to include frequent transit density along with other upzonings so we can have an accurate picture of the total zoning.

And also OPCD needs to include maps showing what the current frequent transit route zoning is and what the expanded quarter-mile and half-mile frequent transit route zoning would look like and how much that would cover Seattle.

The second is zoning guides development to what we want to see.

So my question is, what does the Mayor and Council want to see?

Do they want to see walkable neighborhoods or do they want to see sprawl along arterials?

Current economic numbers look like Seattle is headed for economic downturn.

So much of this zoning might not get built.

So the city should think carefully about where they want to development the most, arterials or centers.

And my last comment is, no traffic study was done on frequent transit routes impact on our arterial commute times.

Arterials' first priority, I would think, are for moving traffic.

If density along arterials was a good idea, then we would see I-5 lined with apartment buildings and business driveways, garages and parking.

Part of a livable city is functioning arterials that allow reasonable commute time.

The city needs to include the traffic impact analysis of frequent transit routes on arterial flow in part of the new EIS.

In conclusion, I request the students think about what they want it to look like and how they want it to function.

Do they want walkable centers or sprawl and do they want smooth flowing arterials?

Thank you, Trish.

Next up we have Peter Manning.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello.

Hey.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My name is Peter Manning.

I am president of Black Excellence in Cannabis.

I'm calling in because it comes to my knowledge that our mayor, Katie Wilson, has once again done what other mayors have done to the black and brown community, make decisions about our neighborhood without having us at the table.

Now, how can you have a conversation about us without us is the question.

Katie is coming off.

I supported Katie Wilson in the beginning.

I thought Katie Wilson was different, but Katie Wilson is coming off as if she doesn't like black people or brown people.

I have a question for this mayor.

Why is it that you don't include us in decision-making when it pertains to our neighborhoods?

Do you not value us and what we stand for and what we represent?

Are we not Seattleites?

Are we not human beings?

Do we not deserve an opportunity to have a voice about what goes in our neighborhood?

The same gentrification we dealt with in the central district, now you're inflicting the same thing on us in the south end.

And Katie, we are not going to have it.

Thank you very much, City Council.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have David Haynes.

David, please press.

Yep, you got it.

Hi, thank you, David Ains.

The landlords on the council sabotage the integrity of the comprehensive plan, self-dealing with conflicts of interest that have undermined the efforts to alleviate the oppressive supply and demand squeeze and the lack of qualitative housing, of which, because of the restrictions put on the comprehensive plan by the landlords on the council, two of the landlords were literally not even elected by the people.

And yet the ethics board who's been browbeat by certain council members who are more concerned about all of their self-dealing has pretty much capitulated their responsibility and needs to be held accountable for the fact that we need to purge all of the restrictions and the sabotaging weaponizing policies that are purposely kept on and purposely making people live in the worst locations throughout more neighborhoods, acting like you're doing people a favor, forcing them to repeat the history of living in what would be considered a modern third world inner city on the side of the bus parking lot and the train horn honking and screeching its brakes with no noise abatement walls echoing through your cheap, low quality building that's no higher than four to six stories because most of the politically connected nonprofits are unqualified to go any higher than that.

and it also helps the landlords who are self-dealing on the council sell their real estate.

Like if you own a $700,000 second mortgage and you're trying to flip it, all you gotta do is sabotage the comprehensive plan and make sure nobody builds back anything better, that everything's kept under sixth story.

And you all are cheating.

the next 20 years of working class renters and home buyers out of a better choice in home and real equity.

And you're changing the whole thing with racisms and perversions as if that can distract from the fact that you're still backstabbing the integrity of the comprehensive plan.

All those undermining efforts of Bruce Harrell and Jenny Dirk.

Thank you, David.

Next up, we have Ruby Holland.

My name is Ruby Hollins.

We need a strong anti-displacement plan so we can age in place in our homes like we were promised.

Those proposed thus far are grossly inadequate and untrue.

The closed door meeting that was held was unfair and I suspect consisted of ways to scam us out of our lot like Harold did.

Newbies to Seattle want to tear our city up and make it look like New York, which is very dense and very unaffordable.

Please embrace HB 1110 for sustainable, environmental-friendly growth.

Councilmember Lynn, how will you contain the tortings and home invasions that are sure to resume in your district with additional upzoning in order to get us out of our lot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Mike Asai.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Micah Sai, longtime Seattle resident with Emerald City Collective and Shaka's Kids.

I echo Mr. Manning's statement.

You know, when this justification happened in the 90s in the CD, my grandfather came here in the 1950s.

He was a military police army, my grandmother.

My dad came from East Texas.

He came in the early 60s.

Black people could not buy homes except for in the Central District.

They were uprooted and it was taken away.

We see what's going on in the South End with the brand new Rainier Beach and we see things changing.

This is about Black, not African-American.

This is about Black, descendants of slaves.

We were here first.

If there's anything going on with this comprehensive plan, it truly needs to be about black construction workers, black workers, and black.

Black needs to be taken care of first and not left behind.

We're getting mixed up too much with other nationalities and races.

I'm speaking as a black man.

I'm speaking for the black men and women of the city.

We need to have something to ensure that black does not get left behind.

And, you know, I supported Katie as well.

She had the black business, small business round table.

That was two months ago.

There ain't nothing came up about it.

I have a location.

I'm still waiting for funding from the city of Seattle.

The city of Seattle owes me, owes former cannabis owners, and owes the black community in general.

The city needs to take a different approach when it comes to this homelessness.

It's time to ban encampments.

Enough is enough.

It's time for tough love, It's time to quit being weak and it's time to show the world, show the country that we are not going to deal with it.

There's citizens and kids that we need to think about.

It's about black.

Thank you.

Next up we have Patrick Taylor.

My name is Patrick Taylor.

I'm a homeowner in North Deacon Hill neighborhood and work in Madrona.

I'm a designer focused on housing and former forest ecologist.

In calling in to support the mayor's plan to go denser, taller, and faster.

We are in a housing and homelessness crisis, the root of which is not enough housing, not enough kinds of housing, and in not enough places.

More housing means cheaper housing.

The developers who have been unable to raise rent due to the current surplus of apartments, receiving new cottage houses selling for less than existing houses.

The best thing you can do for trees, climate change, and orcas is to build within existing urban areas and not sprawl into our forests and fields.

Please study the widest range of options.

I would also like to make a plea to go faster.

The process is exhausting.

It's gone on for years, and you've heard every version of every opinion in the city.

We've had an election, the city had a choice, and the mayor's message of go big and go fast won.

No one except for OPCD, lobbyists, and a few retired NBs like going to meeting after meeting after meeting.

People want to be with their families, their friends, watching reality TV, anything but being here while waiting to testify at another public meeting.

Now is the time for leaders to lead.

Please pass the final phases of this plan as quickly as possible and before the end of 2027, four years after the process started.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Erin Tulloch.

Aaron, please press star six.

Hello, can you hear me now?

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, good afternoon Chair Lin and members of the Seattle Council.

My name is Aaron Teller and I serve as a legislative aide with FMS Global Strategies and the We Build Back Better Alliance.

I'm here to stand Today, with the concerns raised by our president's CEO, Paulo Filmer Sardinas, regarding transparency, inclusion, and meaningful community participation in the Seattle's comprehensive plan process.

The We Build Back Better Alliance represents more than 110 community-based organizations across Washington State.

These are voices of residents, small businesses, service providers, advocates, and community leaders who understand firsthand how planning decisions affect families, neighborhoods, and future generations.

See, I have a long history of redlining, displacement, and exclusion.

Because of that history, equity must be more than a statement.

It must be reflected in who is invited to the process, whose voices shape the outcomes, and who holds power in decisions that impact historically marginalized communities.

We're not here to have others speak for us.

We are here to speak for ourselves.

Our community deserves a process that is transparent, accountable, and grounded in the most impacted people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Paula Fillmore-Sardinas.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Lynn and members of the committee.

Paula Fillmore-Sardinas, President and CEO of FMS Global Strategies and founder of the WBBA.

I'm calling today to voice my very serious concerns regarding the lack of transparency and inclusion surrounding the Seattle Comprehensive Plan process.

Seattle has a well-documented history of redlining, displacement, and discrimination against Black communities and other residents who have been historically marginalized.

Yet today in 2026, where we're seeing our rights roll back at the state level and the federal level, we continue to witness protections for those most impacted, particularly Black Seattleites being rolled back.

It's unfathomable to me and to my community that as diverse as Seattle proclaims itself to be, individuals in positions of power would be holding closed door meetings, making secret decisions that impact generations and families while denying meaningful access to this process.

Once again, you've made a decision to exclude those whose voices you don't care to hear from the table.

It's clear that the plan does not adequately keep families together, that there's displacement for black communities and those that are underserved.

There aren't adequate renter protections.

You are promoting urban squalls.

Today, we didn't come to ask you politely for inclusion.

Those days are past.

We're here to demand a more transparent and equitable process that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people that are most impacted in the city.

Equity can no longer be a slogan that you whip out every four years when you want to get elected.

It must be reflected in your process, in your participation, and in the power.

We thank you and we look forward to working with the Council.

Thank you.

Chair, that concludes our speakers.

Okay, thank you all.

As there are no additional registered speakers, we'll now proceed to our items of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, resolution 32203, a resolution relating to further advancing the goals of the One Seattle Plan, conference of plan, directing the Office of Planning and Community Development to develop proposed changes to zoning and development standards, potential conference of plan amendments to create more opportunities for housing.

Thank you.

And our representatives from central staff, OPCD, the mayor's office are joining us at the table.

And once ready, can you please introduce yourselves?

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Jeff Wentland.

I'm the land use policy manager at the city's office of planning and community development.

It is on.

Good afternoon, council members.

Michael Hubner, Long Range Planning Manager with the Office of Planning and Community Development.

H.B. Harper, central staff.

I'm Alex Hudson.

I serve as the senior policy advisor on transportation and livability in the mayor's office.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, if you could go ahead and proceed and colleagues, I think it'd be easiest if we hold our questions until the end, questions and comments.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, good afternoon, council members.

We have some slides to give you an overview of this proposed joint resolution, and I'll take you through that.

We'll have comments by multiple members of the panel up here.

I just want to say at the outset, this is a little bit A little bit wonky.

There's a lot of planning terminology in here.

Apologize for that.

We're going to do our best to use ways to make this relatable to people's everyday lives about finding a home that's affordable to them.

So the background here is that last December, you all adopted a new comprehensive plan.

That's the city's overarching plan for growth for a 20-year period.

And there were several themes in the plan, but one of the big themes was to expand housing supply and diversity in all neighborhoods.

And the city's growth strategy, where housing and jobs should go, is one of the main ways that we can implement that plan, and that's largely directed through our zoning regulations.

We're going to talk a lot about that today.

I'm gonna show some maps as we go.

Okay, so we had initially been thinking of four phases to implement the new comp plan with zoning changes.

So four major phases.

was what the planning office was thinking we would do.

You've already made a lot of progress on those.

So back in December, when you adopted the comprehensive plan, you also adopted zoning changes to do phase one, and that was to update zoning for all of the neighborhood residential areas of the city, the former single-family areas.

Now those areas all allow for middle housing, at least four homes on each lot.

That largely followed the state legislation, HB 1110, which requires cities to do that.

So you accomplished that.

The next phase, phase two, you're looking at right now.

That's the centers and corridors legislation, as we call it.

that focuses more zoning changes to allow apartments and condominiums in 30 new neighborhood centers around the city, as well as along transit corridors.

So we're well aware that you're deep into that and working on that as we speak.

Today, we're gonna be talking with you about the plan for the next phases.

So when you finish up phase two, we want to turn the page and work on the next phase.

We were initially thinking that phase three would be a little narrower, that it would focus on the city's densest places, the regional urban centers, which are places like downtown and U District, and a small selection of a few neighborhood centers.

And we were thinking we'd complete that late this year or early next.

We were also thinking that after that, we'd have a whole nother phase, phase four, focused on transit-oriented development and station areas.

That phase would have implemented the state's TOD bill, HB 1491, as a later step that is due for cities at the end of 2029. We were thinking we might have gotten it done around the middle of 2028. So this was the plan before, and what we want to talk to you today about is how we want to update this plan for the next phases and go taller, denser, faster, and really expand opportunities for housing even more.

And to introduce you to that refresh, I'll turn it over to Alex from the Mayor's Office to give you a little bit of an overview of the intent for the refreshed approach.

Yes, thank you.

In April, the mayor introduced the intention to combine phases three and four into a single scope of work, the taller, denser, faster phase, which would align with the mayor's vision of accomplishing a couple of things.

One, increasing the availability of abundant and affordable housing.

We know that Seattleites are facing and trying to survive in a severe housing affordability crisis.

And by addressing the constraints around supply quickly, we can begin to bend the trend on that by adding zoning capacity for all kinds of new housing.

We also, in the fresh look and a slightly different approach, wanted to prioritize advancing the ability to bring in implementation of House Bill 1491, which is a transit already into development bill, sooner than required.

We also are hoping to create the foundation for thriving and complete neighborhoods by making sure that we're putting housing near where transit and therefore where historically we have also put many of our community amenities such as parks, schools and shops and very importantly for the mayor and the mayor's office is responding to very consistent feedback and facts around the putting dense housing where we have arterials and therefore exposing high numbers of people to air pollution and the public health effects of that.

So together, these are the reasons why we wanted to take this fresh approach and a slightly different look to the process.

we are eager to be working in collaboration with the city council here as well as with public, as the department moves forward in its public engagement process to help to develop and refine these concepts and legislation for your consideration.

Yeah, thank you, Alex.

Yeah, and I just wanna reiterate too that we're speaking a lot about the mayor's vision kind of redirecting the next phase, but really appreciate the partnership with Council to work on that scope together, and that's what we're here today to talk about.

And so as we shift gears a bit, some additional study is needed, and that's what we're gonna talk about here.

The comprehensive plan, as well as the phases one and two that we spoke about, those were essentially covered for environmental review by an environmental impact statement.

It looks at all the impacts, all the implications of those phases.

But we didn't cover the next phases, so we need to do that now.

We need to look at those implications.

So to do that, we will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement.

And that's kind of important because it sets the range of what you all, as council members, can sort of choose from and look at.

You know, we study the impacts in a range.

and the joint resolution that you have before you today will give us some guidance about what that range should be.

So I'm going to talk a little bit about our current thinking.

It's also reflected in the resolution about what would be included in the range.

So OPCD expects to study a range to the scale and geographic extent of possible zoning changes, and we'll be looking at three types of places in the city.

These place types are basically what is visioned in the comprehensive plan's growth strategy.

So when I talk about neighborhood centers or regional centers, these are the places that you've defined in your comprehensive plan.

So the building blocks will be some possible changes in neighborhood centers, regional and urban centers, and the frequent transit corridors, which are also those House Bill 1491, the TOD bill areas.

So I'm gonna take you through each of those building blocks.

So first we have neighborhood centers.

And just a quick reminder, you can see them on the map to the right in blue.

These are the 30 new neighborhood centers you adopted in the new comp plan.

These are envisioned as nice walkable neighborhood nodes where you can you know, walk to a local business.

They generally are a three to four minute walk from the business district.

They generally now would allow about four to six story buildings with the centers and corridors legislation.

And The first thing that we're sure we will look at in this new scope are what you already asked us to look for, look at in Council Resolution 32183, where you asked us to review for nine potential new neighborhood centers that are listed on the left, as well as six potential neighborhood center expansions that are listed on the right.

You can see those in the map in orange or the orange hatching.

So just as a baseline, we know that we will look at those you've already asked us to study.

And as a part of Taller, Denser, Faster, we would also like to potentially look at even more neighborhood centers and bring the number up to somewhere in the ballpark of 50 total neighborhood centers citywide in great places that would make sense for a neighborhood center across the city.

So that would be included in the scope for neighborhood centers.

Next, let's talk about the regional and urban centers.

These are places that are Seattle's highest-density housing and job centers, so places like the U District, downtown, Northgate.

The comprehensive plan U adopted expanded six centers and added the Pinehurst Center.

So centers and quarters has zoning changes for those places, but so far you haven't made additional new zoning changes for other regional and urban centers.

So places like Wallingford or the West Seattle Junction or U District, for example, haven't had recent zoning changes.

We would study possible zoning changes in those places as a part of this next phase.

and some of the planning offices thinking on what that could be is some real increases in density very close to transit, maybe even allowing for things like towers in places in the city that haven't had towers before or bringing, you know, places that are underzoned like to five stories up to seven or eight stories.

Lastly, let's take a look at the station areas and the frequent transit corridors.

These are also the TOD bill areas.

We are thinking that we would implement the TOD bill early and really tee up Seattle to be a leader statewide in this space and create TOD neighborhoods a couple years earlier than required.

So for 1491 implementation, what that bill does is that it requires all cities to have a certain minimum level of density near their BRT stations and their light rail stations.

The map on this slide is showing you what that looks like for BRT station areas, where we've done some math, and the areas in green on this map already meet the state's minimum density level.

The areas in orange do not.

So we're thinking that this next phase would bring all of those levels up to green and have them qualify.

So that's within a quarter mile of BRT stops and within a half mile of rail stations.

I do want to note that this is just BRT lines on this map and to some public comments, this map doesn't show other frequent transit routes that are additional frequent transit routes that aren't shown here.

This map also doesn't show light rail stations.

So essentially the next phase would meet and exceed the TOD bill requirements in the scope of what would be looked at in the SEIS.

And so that's a sense of an overview of what OPCD and the mayor are thinking would be in the scope, and I'm going to turn it over to HB on Council to talk to you about how it's described in the resolution.

Thank you.

So resolution 32203 essentially captures what you just heard as being the range of what will be studied moving forward in terms of implementing the comprehensive plan.

and so the point of that is really to make sure that it's very clear, both internally and externally, what the city's aims are.

So we made a special effort to emphasize those things that were in Resolution 32183 from December because that really captured the Council's thinking at the time and we wanted to make sure that those ideas were carried forward.

but additionally, and I think this is likely intuitive to anyone who was here last year, the real thing we want to avoid is council being unduly limited or constrained in its range of choices when it comes to decision making later in the process.

So I know many council members here faced significant hurdles that were difficult to jump when it came to the comprehensive plan amendment process last year.

due to the fact that environmental review had not contemplated the concepts that council members were bringing forward.

Next slide for me.

So in terms of the content of the resolution, it first states that again, Resolution 32183, anywhere that that required SEPA analysis, that that is ensured that we put that right up front, that that happens.

And then Section 2 is really where much of what you just heard is found.

And this section has the council directing OPCD to study land use and zoning changes in these areas.

There's walking distance, frequent transit, those centers that we discussed, new and expanded neighborhood centers, again, including those from the resolution in December, as well as there are a very small number more that were studied in the 2022 EIS scoping report.

There was interest in having those also resurrected, at least for study, right?

Not necessarily for decision-making.

and additionally transit station areas as Jeff just discussed.

So finally, there's a section related to engagement.

I think that's on the next slide, thank you.

And that's city council directing OPCD in partnership with the council and the mayor's office to undertake robust public engagement that supports the City Council's ability to make decisions on any recommendations that come out of this work.

So again, this resolution is not about what policies are going to be put forward, it's about what's going to be studied.

And the important thing, I believe at this point, is that the City Council has the range of things that should be studied represented in this resolution.

With that, I'll hand it back to my colleagues.

Just a couple more quick points and then we'll wrap it up here.

Oh, and I wonder, Alex, would you like to take a first cut at this slide?

Yes, I'd be happy to.

The city is very proud to have in place for a long time many strategies to address displacement, to prevent displacement, to be proactively anti-displacement, and those strategies are shared in the vision and values of Mayor Wilson and wish to be expressed in this scope as well.

And so the strategies that we have here are around engaging communities who are at risk to be consulted and advise and guide the city's approach to this work.

That alternatives will incorporate different approaches to address displacement pressure.

So creating options for you as the decision makers and legislative body around what that will look like.

And of course, to be incorporating more than just process and alternatives but actual mitigation measures including the use of zoning tools for your discussion and recommendation.

And so lastly just some thoughts on the timeline.

So Right now, we're kind of working together.

We're all on the same team working together to kind of figure out what the scope of study should be.

We're defining that.

And the orange bar on this slide is showing you that public engagement will be continuous throughout the process, including our discussion today about this joint resolution and your work to finalize the joint resolution.

OPCD with council and the mayor will do engagement in a variety of different formats.

But the biggest window for really robust public engagement will come around the end of this year or early next, when we have released a draft supplemental impact statement.

And that draft will have alternatives for people to comment on.

There will be maps.

There will be lots of discussion of anti-displacement strategies.

There will be measures, you know, about environmental protections in trees.

And the public will have a really big window to comment on that and weigh in, especially early next year.

after the city releases a final supplemental environmental impact statement, our office would develop the zoning proposal, and Mayor Wilson's goal is that that zoning proposal could be brought to you and potentially adopted by the end of 2027. I know that doesn't sound super fast, but these things do take time, and we want to make sure to have good quality engagement as we go.

So I think that wraps up our slides, and we'd love to take questions or hear your comments.

Thank you very much for this overview.

And colleagues, I'll just state a couple comments before we get started here.

You know, a few things for me was that with four phases, it was just really confusing.

And so I think part of this is also just trying to simplify for the public.

what the next phase is.

And so we have the taller, denser, faster.

I think simpler is also part of it, is trying to just make this more understandable for the public because of the confusion around all the different phases.

And part of the idea behind having this discussion today is also as we work on phase two on centers and corridors and what can be amended, what we're focusing on now, it's also important to sort of understand what's coming next.

And as was discussed, there were limits on what we could do.

because of the prior environmental study, there are limits in what we can do in phase two because of that prior environmental study.

And so some of the ideas that colleagues might want to include might need to be a part of this phase, the next phase.

And so that's also just part of this idea of teeing up as we work on phase two, what the next steps will be.

And with that, I will kick it over to you all colleagues.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Lynn.

Thank you, everyone, for the presentation and the comments.

Chair, I do, yes, the four phases, you know, having some type of understanding, and also, you know, keeping the eye on the prize, too, because there's other issues out there, too, like MHA.

There's a lot of things that impact the ability to develop and build affordable housing to the public commenters.

By the way, thank you very much for the public comments today.

In looking at the briefing, I do want to make one administrative note.

A, thank you for the slide numbers.

I'm saying that on behalf of Council Member Juarez.

But the number one, it is the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

So the title slide should reflect One Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

And I say that because that's been adopted by the council.

And I recognize there's history with One Seattle, but it is our One Seattle, too.

And I think that is, you know, it kind of goes to a theme in this briefing, too, is that with the mayor and the council working together as one, I think it just makes sense to do.

So that's probably just an oversight, but I did want to note that.

Although I will note the clerk and the agenda did have One Seattle Comprehensive Plan, just for the record.

Secondly, You know, I appreciate this.

I will say, as someone who has three regional centers in his district, plus I have a couple other areas of strong interest, which I've already met with OPCD in terms of reviews, you know, there's a lot of work to be done in those areas.

And so, you know, it's important that that work not get sidelined.

I think we can proceed on that, you know, as well, and so I think that's something that's important to note.

Separately, as you walk through the briefing, neighborhood centers, I did want to recommit to the idea of a Nickerson neighborhood center.

In fact, I was in the neighborhood, if you will, last Friday, a week ago almost, talking about the various pieces of that neighborhood, and it's really important to have that on the ground, and so we'll continue to do that for that D7 Neighborhood Center.

And by the way, I recommit my support for the Dravis Neighborhood Center as well.

Separately, I note the number 50, that's a big number.

And I just wanted to say, I've had discussions like in our D7 Neighborhood Council, we've had like the Urbanists there and Street Alliance and other groups.

And one of the things I said repeatedly, and I know neighborhood center is a term, but I said, you know, we should have an idea of like neighborhood villages, which I know technically is not a term.

Mr. Hubner's probably looking at me wanting to correct this.

but if you're going to go with a big number like that, having like a smaller version of like what we've seen and to really put it out there and see which ones organically develop that in turn when the next iteration of this process may then become a neighborhood center.

I say that because it's important to find those areas that organically grow and then can grow with all the various pieces that go into this process in terms of building community.

And I think it's also a chance for the neighborhoods and so forth to kind of absorb and see again which ones.

And I'm still looking to do I've had discussions with OPC about having neighborhood villages within District 7, which wouldn't be a formal thing, but using neighborhood commercial as a way to create those little neighborhood villages.

And so I say that because 50 is a big number.

It's going to create some type of response.

And I just throw that out there, that I'm still committed to the neighborhood village idea for those that had conversations with me in the past.

in terms of, at least in my district.

And again, I think it's important to have that kind of organic growth there.

The last thing, Chair, that I just wanted to note is this Sound Transit 3 experience is really driving home the idea that land use what we're doing here, and transportation are two sides of the same coin.

It is unfathomable, it's a failing to not get the BLE, the Ballard extension to Ballard, the namesake of the line.

And there's really a disconnect, I've said many times, between what the state's doing through sound transit on one hand with ST3 and then through PSRC and so forth with the comp plan.

And so we should be also, with this in mind, we should be also looking for those kinds of issues for us.

and I raise this because, at least in my district and throughout the district by the way, here in the urban core area and also in Queen Anne and Magnolia, we have an issue of steep slopes.

It's been coming up again and again recently and steep slope streets are a problem.

You know, it's a problem on 14th West as it relates to, you know, the fire department and Nestot in terms of service to that area, but also a massive impact on the community there, massive.

And so when I see walkable, like with Neighborhood Center or later on, walking distance and all this, be assured you're not walking in many areas of my district, you are climbing.

and so this kind of goes to the EIS.

This really should be part of the refining and scope is an understanding of the impact of steep slopes.

And again, I'm raising this because it goes to the idea of transportation and land use working together because there's issues that have been popping up that come out, by the way, with not much notification, by the way, from the executive.

But we have these pieces that are coming and It's better to address the issues now versus later when, because we didn't work through that, we have even bigger problems.

So it's the idea of an ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure.

and I just raised that up based on, again, this ST3 piece has been really highlighting the fact that land use and transportation are two sides of the same coin and we have to be in sync on these pieces and ensure that we can do these various pieces, like promising walk zones when you're basically climbing.

These are the things that we need to understand and have some finesse at the local level.

And so with that, Chair, thank you very much.

And just a few points, thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Rank.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for today's presentation, and thank you to everyone who turned out today to provide public comment and make your voices heard as we engage in this next phase in the process.

And thank you also to you, Chair, and to your team for doing the work to get the resolution before us.

I wanted to ask a quick question on timing to central staff, because on slide 15, it shows that council's deliberation process is only three months, and I know part of that is during council recess and right before budget.

is this a realistic timeline for us to pass this legislation and what considerations should be made if we aren't able to pass this in 2027?

Thanks just to get the timeline up there.

I appreciate the question.

I think that it's a hard one to answer accurately.

It's hard to predict the future.

Obviously the council sometimes has unexpected priorities and then we have of course our expected at times like during budget where we have significantly reduced capacity to handle anything else.

So I certainly think this is a possible timeline.

I think it may be a little optimistic, and I'll say that I would not be surprised if it were to push into 2028. I would hope that it wouldn't push far into 2028 if so.

Yeah.

Can I just add that one of the ways that I mean, so we have tolerance or faster, but one of the ways that we can go faster and still do good work is to, you know, work closely between the executive and the council side, and that's kind of what we're doing here, to consult everyone on, you know, what should be included in the scope and try to, you know, condense down that council timeline by having you all be involved in the shaping of the proposal.

So, like, that's a goal that we want to work with you on.

Yeah, I just want to echo that's a really good point because, as you all know, we do have to do additional noticing when Council amendments go outside the scope for what the public might be aware of, and so I think that certainly adds months to our timelines, as you all are well aware.

Thank you for that.

That's helpful just to get a sense of kind of what we're looking at looking ahead, especially as the chair stated, this has been a complicated process and we want to be clear with the public and also be clear just moving forward.

And I just close by taking a moment to voice my support for studying as much as possible.

And I know from the previous process, I state my support for studying what's possible because it was challenging to be in a position where we were really constrained on what our options were.

And I want to give this body options to be able to put forward policy ideas.

There were ideas on the table from anti-displacement measures to additional ideas for bonuses or bringing online new neighborhood centers, and we weren't able to move forward with those in phase one.

And so by allowing us to study, it really just gives us as a legislative body more policy options and choices.

With that, that's just my question for today, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here.

I will say this is my first time having awareness of the specifics of this taller, faster plan, taller, denser, faster plan.

I'm gonna state something for the record, and then I'm gonna make some comments about the actual plan.

I am from the largest city in this country the largest city by double the next second largest city in the country and which is New York City and I love that I grew up in New York City I grew up in an apartment and I had a very happy childhood now I have a home a single-family home where my kids are growing up so I see the benefits of both and then the challenges of both and I love my beloved New York City as much as I love my adopted new city where my kids were born and are growing up in.

So I wanna say that because sometimes when we make comments on behalf of, you know, in our response to what we're seeing, I don't want people to make the comment that somehow I don't agree with growth.

That is not the truth.

That could not be furthest from the truth since I'm from a huge city that I very much love.

And the one thing that was frustrating to me about the comprehensive plan process that we had last year that continues now to be a source of frustration to me even today is that I feel like there is a lack of transparency.

I feel I should not be finding out about this plan here right now in these chambers.

So perhaps some of my colleagues had a briefing ahead of time, but I did not.

and it's hard when we're finding out things in chambers in this way.

If I feel that way, I know constituents feel that way.

And then what's frustrating even more to me is feeling like we're failing constituents by not providing the transparency which seems to be government's constant Achilles heel not just for Seattle but every city.

And I wanna do better.

I wanna make sure that people have access to the information ahead of time.

And if they want to provide feedback ahead of time, they can.

So if you see here today, there weren't very many public commenters for this topic, as we've seen in the past, probably because nobody knew we were having this presentation today or what it entailed.

We have to do better.

We just do.

I mean, we want to hear from everybody, all sides.

both sides because in this case there seems to be two camps and that's great but we need to hear from people otherwise we're going to keep getting attacked for not giving information ahead of time and then we get accused for doing it on purpose even if that's not the case.

So I'm calling it out publicly for the record so that we do better on that score and I'm going to keep talking about it because this is what we hear from our constituents and I know that maybe I will be the only one talking about this but I know I'm not the only one getting those emails from my constituents.

I'm just gonna say that.

And, you know, there is a lot here.

There's a lot that I need to dig into, that we all need to dig into.

As I said, I'm just seeing this now for the first time.

There are pieces, I appreciate my colleague, Councilmember Kettle's points that he made.

You know, I'm also going to add that part of this joint resolution, I think, needs to have aspects of ensuring that we're considering infrastructure and how we're planning for that infrastructure, how we're going to pay for that infrastructure.

We need to, because more growth means more infrastructure than we have today.

And I think that's an important aspect and it shouldn't be an afterthought.

It should be a very active piece of this joint resolution as well as amenities like libraries and parks as well as emergency services like fire and police as part of all of this.

So I do feel, you know, I am not up the frame of mind of slowing things down at the same time you could go so fast that you're not incorporating feedback in a way that then will on the back end.

And to Council Member Kettle, you mentioned this a little bit just about if we don't do the front end work, then we're in a deficit on the back end.

So I hope that we will have the opportunity, Chair, to really have robust conversation and opportunity to give feedback on the joint resolution on the front end.

Because while I understand that this is a resolution is not binding, this is our intent, it does go to what is going to the supplemental EIS.

And then later, I understand there'll be opportunity to give public comment on what comes out of this supplemental EIS.

But then people will feel at that time like they did with last year's process that they're giving feedback on the back end and not in the front end.

And I don't want that, that does not feel good to me.

And I don't think that should feel good to any of us who are working on behalf of all the residents of the city.

And I think we, when we work together, we get better outcomes.

I'm just gonna keep saying that because I think it's true.

And so I just hope we have the opportunity to do that with this joint resolution.

And there's a lot more I can say, but I know we're running out of time.

It's late.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Chair Lynn, for bringing this important piece.

And thank you, Mayor's Office, for being here, and OPCD, and HB, and everyone.

I just had a quick question.

Inside the resolution about anti-displacement, I was curious from our first resolution that council passed, if there was any updates regarding some of that work, because I am looking forward, I am looking into putting some anti-displacement information in this resolution, not just listing what we currently do or strategies, but just adding more stuff.

I don't know if you all had an update on that as well.

And I can list some of those things that we requested too.

Sure.

Thank you, Council President.

I can at least take a first cut at that answer.

There are many components to what OPCD is doing and the city overall is doing on anti-displacement, and I think they all touch in some way to what was called for in the resolution you adopted in December.

For our part, one piece of that was communicating to you at the Council as a companion to the Centers and Corridors legislation, a memo that describes our approach and thinking and analysis around how that legislation interacts with displacement risk and what the range of tools are that can help to mitigate that risk with that legislation.

That was one piece.

We put together our thinking, the data and information we have to date.

So that's the start of providing with the information you need as you take on that one piece of legislation.

But more broadly, OPCD does have a number of bodies of work that we are doing around anti-displacement, including developing and advancing new or emerging tools.

Homeowner's supports for legacy homeowners is one area that we're working on.

We are leading a citywide effort that produced a new dashboard of more urgent measures of displacement risk, and there's an interdepartmental group that is meeting regularly and identifying where the gaps are and getting the word out to people who are in need of the tools that we do have and that are looking at the data to see what we can do to have a more effective suite of anti-displacement tools.

And then, of course, ongoing programs like the EDI program and OPCD are an important part of the mix there.

They weren't called for in the resolution, of course, but we put a lot of our energy into providing those tools and resources to community.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

And a part of the EDI work I know is through a lot of the nonprofit folks, and I think Council did an amendment to include small businesses in that that was written by Council Member Moore and supported that because we know some of our immigrant and our communities of color, you know, they build a lot of their foundation on small businesses.

And so uh we'll link back with you all on that update and would love to get a commitment from you all that more meetings that you have include um and i'm gonna go i just made off the top of my head mount zion church tabernacle church fame art noir africatown wanawari black legacy homeowners king county equity now urban league of seattle bird bar black pastors group langston green home design case 21 resource equity, urban impact, parents for students success.

Those are a lot of the groups that we have interaction with when we were talking about the comprehensive plan and I know they would like to be included.

Part of the anti-displacement work is them having a seat at the table when some of these policies are being crafted so we don't have to do after the fact and a lot of the cleanup that council members have to engage on and spend a lot of our time doing when on the front end this could be done at the beginning.

so they feel like included and incorporated in these decisions that are being made.

And I know that you all care about that as well, but just wanted to say being very intentional about that, you can kind of see the disparity, what it looks like, the perception from the outside, people not feeling like they're incorporated.

So just wanted to say that I just wrote that list off the top of my head, more than happy to send that, or more than happy to put those groups in the resolution so we can cross them off and make sure that we're including them as well.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you to all the colleagues and to the public and to the mayor's office and OPCD and central staff.

Council Member Rivera, our office has been aware of this, so my apologies that we have not better communicated and so I hear you and we'll commit to doing better.

I do wanna just note for the record that no decisions have been made and I think that was part of the reason to do this briefing is to make sure that we get input and we're able to provide that input and on the timeline If we could bring up the draft timeline, I guess it's at least on my screen.

I think, you know, it talked about joint resolution in May.

I think we will be, we have a busy summer coming up ahead.

And so I think there's gonna, it'll be busy summer, but I think we'll try to do that sometime this summer is to get this joint resolution done so that we can provide some feedback to the mayor's office on the approach.

and kind of to Council Member Rink's point earlier, you know, I think part of the difficulty Council faced last time and I joined at the very end of the last process was due to the scope of the study, Council's options were pretty limited.

And unfortunately, you know, if we had a more robust study that first time, we would not have to be doing the second round of study.

I mean, I think some study would have had to happen anyway, especially around probably the TOD.

But this process has taken so many years and we heard some of that today about the exhaustion.

I'm sure some of my colleagues are exhausted by the length of this process.

and it's probably gonna be the better part of a decade before we're done with this process.

And we've had turnovers in administration, we've had new state laws, whether it's 1110 or the TOD bill.

And so this has been a complicated and difficult process, but I do just wanna note for the record that part of this discussion is to make sure that this next phase that we do provide early input, especially what we were hearing about the importance of anti-displacement.

We heard the importance of speaking to our environmental values to make sure that we study these.

And I do also just want to note for the record that a study alone does not Just because we study something doesn't mean that we're going to choose to proceed with that option.

It gives us options, but the hard part is if we don't study, then we can never consider something that's not studied.

And so that really restricts our ability to consider the full range of policy options if something's not studied at all.

I do think it's important to provide input on the scope of that study and my personal suggestion would be to study more than less so that we have the full range of options including strong anti-displacement and environmental protection options.

I do just wanna note that again, faster is a relative term here.

None of this has been fast.

And again, just to repeat for the record, there will be, nothing has been decided yet.

There will be, and we heard today, the importance of ongoing public engagement, particularly with communities that are facing displacement pressures that have been ongoing for many, many, many years.

With that, I wanna thank you all.

We will be having further discussions with the mayor's office with OPCD on the next steps.

And unless there's further questions or comments, Go ahead, Council Member.

Chair, I just also want to provide some context because of this, every 10 years we engage in this exercise, but in the in-between times, about every couple years we have updates.

So I don't think this is out of the realm of what we over time have done, just It may be that there's more now than we've done in the past, but it is true that every 10 years we do the bigger comp plan and between years we do all the zoning and all the things that every couple years there are updates.

It's not irregular is what I'm trying to say.

And I appreciate your comments about ensuring that we include everything in.

I'm all for studying things.

I just want to make sure that the public has that awareness and the opportunity to give the feedback no matter what we decide to do because that's where I think we are constantly getting that you see the public's frustration.

And to me, there's no need for that.

It's unfortunate.

We're gonna do what we're gonna do and we should make sure that we're providing that transparency so we're not constantly feeling like we're under the people feeling like we're burying something.

That doesn't feel great.

So that's really my source of frustration.

more so than, like I said, what we're going to study or not study.

We just need to be forthcoming and make sure that we're including, you know, Council President, super appreciate all the organizations that you mentioned.

That is really important.

And in terms also of the anti-displacement, we have, you know, a lot of retirees and other folks that are being impacted all across the city and folks just need to be, all of that needs to be part of this plan.

so making sure that we have all those aspects in is important.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

And I'll just respond and say that at least in my lifetime, I think this has been the most significant sort of zoning exercise, comprehensive plan exercise in sort of recent history.

And so even though this has taken many years, given the scope of the change, it is understandable why we needed to and why we continue to need to do significant engagement.

but also just why this has taken so long.

To do this level of changes to our cityscape, to our built environment, the planning work around it, it just takes time.

And so I'm not trying to say anything about the length of time other than just to acknowledge acknowledge it for what it is.

So thank you.

Again, thank you colleagues.

Thank you to our presenters and the members of the public for hanging in there with us both today and for the years to come.

And if there's no further business, I'm gonna close out this meeting at 3.44.

Thank you all.

I'll see you soon