>> GOOD MORNING. THE AUGUST 4,
2025 MEETING OF THE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON THE COMPREHESIVE
PLAN WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. IT
IS 9:33 A.M. I AM JOY
HOLLINGSWORTH, CHAIR OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> PRESENT. COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON? AND
CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> HERE. THERE ARE EIGHT
PRESENT. COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON
HAS BEEN EXCUSED. WE WILL NOW
CONSIDER THE AGENDA. IF THERE
ARE NO OBJECTIONS, IT WILL BE
ADOPTED. HEARING NONE, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED. TODAY, WE
WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTING RIDEN
COMMENT. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS
ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS
IS A SECRET EMAIL, NO ONE KNOWS
IT. COUNCIL@SEATTLE.GOV. GOOD
MORNING, COLLEAGUES, AND THANK
YOU FOR JOINING ME ON THIS
MONDAY MORNING. I KNOW WE HAVE A
LOT TO GET THROUGH TODAY. I
APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC ON THIS PROCESS. THERE IS
PLENTY OF TIME FOR YOU TO
COMMENT. WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING. AMENDMENTS WILL BE
POSTED FOR 30 DAYS. THERE WILL
STILL BE TIME. WE ARE ONLY
ALLOWING RIDEN PUBLIC COMMENT
TODAY SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE
HAVE OVER 100 AMENDMENTS . THAT
WAS TAILORED DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY,
SO I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. WE
WILL HEAR A PRESENTATION ON THE
COLLECTIVE GROUP OF AMENDMENTS
FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. THIS IS
THE TIME FOR US TO LEARN ABOUT
EACH OTHER'S AMENDMENTS AND
LEARN THE BASICS OF EACH OF
THESE AMENDMENTS AND HOW THEY
ARE ORGANIZED INTO CATEGORY WITH
THE PRESENTATION WE WILL BE
DOING TODAY. YOU ALL HAVE IN
FRONT OF YOU OR SHOULD HAVE A
SHEET THAT HAS IT BY
COUNCILMEMBER. WE WILL BE
PRESENTING BY CATEGORIES. THAT
WAY, IT IS EASIER FOR US TO
NAVIGATE. OUR CENTRAL STAFF HAS
BEEN WORKING HARD TO REVIEW FOR
THE CONVERSATION TODAY. NONE OF
US HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS. NONE OF US HAVE SEEN
SOME OF THE PACKAGE, AS WELL.
AFTER THIS MEETING, IN BETWEEN
NOW AND THE END OF THE MONTH.
JUST FOR TABLE SETTING TODAY,
AND I BELIEVE EVERY OFFICE KNOWS
THAT EACH COUNCILMEMBER WILL GET
TWO MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE MEETING TO HAVE SOME OPENING
REMARKS ABOUT THEIR AMENDMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON WILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
BEFORE THEY HEAD OFF -- SORRY,
THAT SOUNDS LIKE MEDIEVAL TIMES
, HAD OFF -- BEFORE THEY GO TO A
BUDGET MEETING THAT WAS
PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THEIR TIME AND ENERGY
HERE TODAY TO JOIN US BEFORE THE
IMPORTANT BUDGET MEETING THAT
THEY HAVE. CENTRAL STAFF WILL GO
OVER THE TITLE SPONSOR IN EACH
OF THE AMENDMENTS. SHOULD TIME
ALLOW AT THE END, WE WILL THEN
HAVE TIME FOR DISCUSSION I WILL
ASK COLLEAGUES IF THEY WILL
REFRAIN FROM HAVING DISCUSSION
DURING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS
WHILE CENTRAL STAFF IS
PRESENTING THEM. IF YOU HAVE A
CLARIFYING QUESTION, PLEASE
RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE ZOOM
THING SO WE CAN MOVE THROUGH
THESE AMENDMENTS, EATING THEM
RIGHT INTO THE RECORD WE CAN
HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THE END.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE
AND UNDERSTANDING WITH OUR
SCHEDULE FOR TODAY. PLEASE
REMEMBER, THIS IS JUST THE
BEGINNING OF THE AMENDMENT
PROCESS. I ALSO WANT TO SET THE
TABLE FOR TODAY THAT THIS IS
PHASE 1 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. PHASE 2 WILL BEGIN AFTER
THE BUDGET CONCLUDES. WE ALSO
HAVE PERMANENT LEGISLATION,
HOUSE BILL NUMBER 10, WHICH HAS
ITS OWN IMPORTANT IMPLICATION AS
IT WILL BE WOVEN THROUGHOUT THE
DISCUSSION. TO THE PUBLIC, OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND MANY ENGAGED
RESIDENTS, I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. HAS BEEN
VITAL. IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN
SMOOTH AND EASY. I RECOGNIZE
THAT. I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND THE
GENUINE EFFORT BY MANY
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE SPENT
MANY EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS WITH
THEIR NEIGHBORS, COMMUNITY
GROUPS, AND ORGANIZATIONS TO GET
INPUT. EVERYWHERE, THE GROCERY
STORE, THE BUS, EVERYWHERE, WE
HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WITH YOU.
ONLINE. WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED
WITH YOU. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE
AND ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES FOR THEIR EARLY OUTREACH
THAT THEY DID. AND THE FEEDBACK
WAS GRACIOUSLY SHARED WITH THE
OFFICE BEFORE HER TRANSITION. WE
ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THE
FOUNDATION THAT IT PROVIDED.
COLLEAGUES, NOW WE ARE GOING TO
JUMP INTO IT WITH OUR OPENING
REMARKS . WE ARE GOING TO FIRST
START, REMEMBER , THIS IS TWO
MINUTES THAT YOU WILL HAVE FOR
YOUR OPENING REMARKS ABOUT YOUR
PROCESS, YOUR AMENDMENTS,
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY BEFORE
WE JUMP IN TO THE AMENDMENTS. WE
WILL GO DOWN THE LINE. I DIDN'T
READ AGENDA AND ITEM -- AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER ONE INTO THE RECORD.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE READ AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER ONE INTO THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IS
COUNCIL BILL 120985, AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND USE
AND ZONING; REPEALING AND
REPLACING THE SEATTLE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO A
MAJOR UPDATE, WITH NEW GOALS,
POLICIES, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO
IS COUNCIL BILL 120993, AN
ORDINANCE 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. THIS IS FOR BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION ONLY.
>> WE WILL GOING DISORDER,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS FOLLOWED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA ,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA , VICE CHAIR
SOLOMON , AND THEN MYSELF. IF
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS, NO
NEED TO TAKE UP TWO MINUTES. YOU
CANNOT GIVE THEM TO ANOTHER
COUNCILMEMBER, BUT YOU CAN PASS
THEM ON. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. FOR THE PUBLIC'S
AWARENESS, I HAVE TO DEPART
AFTER THIS BECAUSE I AM LATE FOR
A MEETING ON THE AUGUST ECONOMIC
FORECAST. I WANT TO EXPLAIN THE
RATIONALE BEHIND THE MAJORITY OF
MY AMENDMENTS , WHICH IS THAT
BASICALLY, BROADLY SPEAKING,
WHEN GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN A
CARROT AND A STICK, I AM A
CARROT PERSON. THAT MEANS THAT I
BELIEVE INCENTIVIZING BEHAVIOR
THAT WE NEED TO SEE TO REACH OUR
POLICY GOALS IS WHAT I AM AFTER
HERE. THOSE POLICY GOALS ARE
PROTECTING TREES OR MAKING
HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE OR
WHATEVER. THAT IS MITEL. THAT IS
WHY I WAS HAPPY TO PACKAGE SEVEN
AMENDMENTS WITH THE COMPLETE
COMMUNITIES COALITION
REPRESENTING THE CHAMBER,
FUTURE-WISE, CHECK FOR HOUSING,
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, MASTER
BUILDERS, AND OTHERS THAT
PROVIDE IN EXCHANGE FOR
DEVELOPERS ADDING AFFORDABLE
UNITS TO LOTS. WE HAVE A HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. WE WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO SUBSIDIZE OUR WAY
OUT OF IT. WE HAVE TO MAKE IT
EASIER TO BUILD. I AM
INTRODUCING TWO REFORM BILLS
THIS WEEK. I WANT TO ENSURE THAT
THEY CAN GET OFF THE GROUND.
THAT IS WHAT THESE INCENTIVES
ARE INTENDED TO DO. THIS
MORNING, WE BEGAN RECEIVING
CONSTITUENT EMAILS EXPRESSING
SUPPORT FOR MY AMENDMENTS AND
BASICALLY SAYING WHAT THEY DO.
AGAIN, I AM SORRY THAT I CANNOT
GO INTO THE OTHER AMENDMENTS.
THERE ARE 10 OF THEM. I LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL
AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS IN HOPES
TO EARN YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WILL DO
MY BEST TO BE BRIEF AS WE NEED
TO MOVE ON TO THIS NEXT MEETING.
TODAY, I AM PROPOSING AMENDMENTS
TO THE SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOCUSED ON MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, BATTLING CLIMATE
CHANGE, AND MORE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR OUR SMALLEST BUSINESSES.
THIS INCLUDES PROPOSING SEVERAL
OPTIONS TO FINE-TUNE THE
BOUNDARIES OF EACH PROPOSED NEW
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN DISTRICT
6 WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE
DENSITY. I WAS JUST GETTING
RIPPED BY COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ
FOR HAVING SO MANY AMENDMENTS .
>> 2017.
>> 2017. NOT ALL OF THESE
AMENDMENTS WILL GO FORWARD.
LET'S DISCUSS THE MAPS. IN THIS
PROCESS , FEEDBACK IS NEEDED
BEFORE FINAL ENGAGEMENT TIME.
FOR EACH NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, I
AM PUTTING FORWARD THREE
OPTIONS. THESE REFINEMENTS WERE
DEVELOPED BY REVIEWING GRADE
DIFFERENTIALS IN NEIGHBORHOODS
AND THE STREET GRID ATTRIBUTES,
INCLUDING CONNECTION.
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS THE PART
WHERE 27 AMENDMENTS WILL GET
REDUCED VERY RAPIDLY , ONLY ONE
AMENDMENT FOR EACH NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER WILL MOVE FORWARD TO
COMMITTEE IN SEPTEMBER. THIS
STEP IN THE PROCESS IS IMPORTANT
TO ME, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO
RECEIVE MORE FEEDBACK ON WHICH
OF THESE THREE OPTIONS IS BEST.
THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF I
ONLY POSTED ONE AMENDMENT FOR
THIS COMMENT PERIOD. I WILL USE
THE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND OUR
SEPTEMBER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MEETING TO MEET WITH COMMUNITY
MEMBERS TO CONTINUE OUTREACH AND
ENGAGEMENT. I WILL ONLY BRING
FORWARD ONE AMENDMENT FOR EACH
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN
SEPTEMBER. THE BIGGEST OUTLIER
OF ALL THESE MAPS ARE THE
OPTIONS IN MAGNOLIA. MAGNOLIA
HAS DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES THAN
ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE
CITY BECAUSE THE STREET GRID
ONLY CONNECTS TO OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS ON ONE OF THREE
SIDES. IT ALSO HAS TWO HILLS AND
A VALLEY. WORKING WITH COMMUNITY
MEMBERS, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT
WHEN WE TAKE THE 20+ YEAR
PLANNING VIEW IN MAGNOLIA, THE
VALLEY IS WHERE GROWTH SHOULD
FOCUS AS IT CONNECTS TO THE REST
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM ALL
SIDES. THIS IS WHY AFTER WORKING
WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS, MAGNOLIA
HAS NINE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, 34
MAGNOLIA VILLAGE AND 34 N.
MAGNOLIA, AS WE BASH WILL S3
FROM MAGNOLIA VALLEY. NINE MAY
ONLY BECOME ONE OR TWO. WE WILL
TALK ABOUT THAT MORE HERE. IN
SEPTEMBER, I WILL EITHER ONLY
PUT FORWARD ONE AMENDMENT FOR
MAGNOLIA VILLAGE AND NORTH
MAGNOLIA , OR I WILL ONLY PUT
FORWARD ONE AMENDMENT FOR THE
MAGNOLIA VALLEY. I WILL TAKE
TIME BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER
TO MEET WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK ON WHICH
PROPOSAL I SHOULD PUT FORWARD. I
AM CONTINUING ENGAGEMENT AS TO
INCLUDE SEATTLE RESIDENTS IN THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. WITHIN
THE PLAN ITSELF, I HAVE PLANS
THAT WILL PROTECT OUR ANIMALS
AND INSECTS, SUPPORT OUR
SMALLEST BUSINESSES AND SUPPORT
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STORES, CREATE
OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS AND
CULTURAL GATHERING SPACES AND
PARKS IN URBAN CENTERS, SUPPORT
MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILIES
MOVING TOGETHER . I ALSO HAVE
AMENDMENTS THAT ALLOW FOR MORE
DENSITY IF IT CREATES AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OR PRESERVES TREES AND
SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AROUND
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS AND ABOUT
URBAN CENTERS NEAR LIGHT RAIL. I
AM ALSO PROPOSING CHANGES TO THE
TREE CODE. I WILL SPEAK MORE AT
A LATER TIME BECAUSE THERE
SHOULD BE A DEDICATED PROCESS
THAT IS FOCUSED ON TREE POLICY
AND TREE POLICY ALONE. I WILL
SPEAK MORE ABOUT THAT PROCESS
LATER. TODAY, I HAVE FIVE
AMENDMENTS. ONE IS TO AMEND THE
TREE PROTECTION AREA TO BE THE
DRIP LINE OF THE TREE. THE
SECOND IS TO PROTECT TIER 1 AND
TIER 2 TREES WITHIN FIVE FEET OF
A CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE
THIRD IS TO ADD FLEXIBILITY FOR
FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS AND
AMENITY AREAS IF A TREE IS
PRESERVED. FOURTH IS REQUIRING A
TREE TO BE PLANTED NO MATTER
WHAT FOR EVERY 2500 SQUARE FEET
OR THE REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY
THE TREE POINT SYSTEM IN THE
CODE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
LASTLY, THE DENSITY BONUS FOR
PROTECTING TREES. THIS STAGE IN
THE PROCESS, PUBLISHING OUR
AMENDMENTS FOR THE 30 DAY
COMMENT PERIOD , IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT. I AM USING THIS PART
OF THE PROCESS TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION WITH SEATTLEITES
AND DISTRICT 6 RESIDENTS SO WE
CAN WORK TOGETHER TO SHAPE THE
POLICIES THAT GUIDE GROWTH FOR
THE NEXT 20 YEARS. THANK YOU,
CHAIR. I WILL NOW BE EXCUSED FOR
MY OTHER COMMITTEE MEETING. I
WILL BE BACK AS SOON AS I CAN.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
AWESOME. YOU GAVE YOUR TIME TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, I KNOW.
AWESOME. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
.
>> I AM THE CHAIR. SORRY .
SORRY, FORCE OF HABIT. CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. THERE IS LOTS TO
UNPACK. I AM ALWAYS WILLING TO
CEDE SOME TIME FOR MY DISTRICT 6
REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL IF
NEEDED, BUT NOT NOW. THANK YOU,
CHAIR. I HAVE TO BASICALLY FIVE
AREAS OF AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST
ONE IS , NO SURPRISE, THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AMENDMENT. I HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THIS A LOT. THE
L.A. WILDFIRES, THE FLOODING IN
CENTRAL TEXAS, THE EARTHQUAKE
AND TSUNAMI LAST WEEK, AND THE
THREATS WE HAVE, THERE ARE THOSE
PIECES. WE ARE GROWING AS THE
CITY AND WE NEED TO GROW OUR
PUBLIC CAPACITY AND SAFETY. WITH
THIS BUILDING, WE MAY HAVE TO DO
TO THE NORTH WHAT HAPPENED IN
THE SOUTH AND HAVE TWO
PRECINCTS. WE NEED TO THINK
THESE THINGS THROUGH. WE NEED TO
HAVE THIS PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
BE PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS.
IT NEEDS TO BE FRONT OF MIND.
NUMBER TWO, THE QUEEN ANNE
BOULEVARD PARK, BRINGING BACK
THE SAME AMENDMENT WE HAD ON THE
INTERIM HB 1110 LEGISLATION, I
HAVE HAD SOME GREAT
CONVERSATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS
IN QUEEN ANNE, BUT ALSO AROUND
THE CITY. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE
CAN MAKE ELEMENTS OF IT , SHARED
STREETS, HOW WE CAN IMPROVE AND
REALLY CREATE AN EVEN BETTER
AMENITY FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.
THAT IS THE QUEEN ANNE BOULEVARD
PARK. THIRD, CENTERS. SPEAKING
OF THE PARK, THERE IS A TWEAK TO
THE NORTH PARK -- NORTH PART OF
THE QUEEN ANNE URBAN CENTER. BUT
THEN CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER. WE BUILD ON THE IDEA
THAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT,
A NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE. THERE
WILL BE SOME OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD
VILLAGES POPPING UP SOON AS WE
MOVE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
LASTLY, EXTEND THE QUEEN ANNE
URBAN CENTER DOWN TO ROY STREET
AND UPTOWN. I WORKED WITH OPCD
ON THIS AND IT IS A ONE-FOR-ONE
SWAP . IT ALSO WORKS WITH DSRC.
WE WANT TO STAND UP FOR QUEEN
ANNE. THE FOURTH BUCKET IS
LIVABILITY AND TREE RETENTION.
WE ARE LOOKING TO PROVIDE
BONUSES IN TERMS OF SUPPORT FOR
OUR TREES, ALSO LOOKING AT SIDE
YARD SETBACK FLEXIBILITY. THAT
IS REALLY IMPORTANT . WE WANT TO
CREATE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE
CAN PROTECT OUR HOUSING, AND
ALSO OUR TREES. AND THEN THERE
IS VERITY OF HOUSING. WE NEED TO
HAVE DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES. WE
CANNOT JUST HAVE SKINNY
TOWNHOMES. HOW DO WE MAKE THAT
HAPPEN? HOW DO WE CREATE THOSE
VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE
PART OF THAT MIDDLE HOUSING.
THERE IS A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO THAT TOPIC. THAT IS
SIMILAR TO SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES. I AM SURE UNDER YOUR
LEADERSHIP, WE WILL BE BROUGHT
TOGETHER IN A PACKAGE ON HOW WE
CAN CREATE A DIVERSE SET OF
HOUSING TO ALLOW FOR OUR UNITY
TO GROW , TO ALLOW FOR THAT
FLEXIBILITY IN THE MARKET. WE
WANT FLEXIBILITY AS PEOPLE GO
THROUGH THEIR LIVES, CREATING A
STRONG MARKET FOR HOUSING. THOSE
ARE THE FIVE AMENDMENT GROUPS
THAT I HAVE, CLICK SAFETY, QUEEN
ANNE BOULEVARD PARK, SOME WORK
ON THE CENTERS THAT RELATES TO
PRIMARILY QUEEN ANNE -- THOUGH
THERE WILL BE NEIGHBORHOOD
VILLAGES THAT WILL GO INTO
MAGNOLIA , LIVABILITY AND TREE
RETENTION IN ADDITION TO
DENSIFICATION ON THE HOUSING,
AND CREATING A DIVERSE SET OF
HOUSING PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE
MIDDLE HOUSING EFFORT THAT WE
ARE UNDERTAKING. WITH THAT,
CHAIR, I AM DONE. THAT WAS
QUICKER THAN MY D6 COMMENTS.
>> YOU ARE GOOD. I AM NOT GOING
TO CUT THE MICROPHONE AT TWO
MINUTES LIKE WE DO FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. YOU ARE NOW SEEING HOW
HARD IT IS FOR TWO MINUTES. THIS
IS THE EXERCISE. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, FOR GIVING
US A TASTE OF OUR OWN MEDICINE.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. SIMPLY
PUT, SEATTLE NEEDS MORE HOUSING,
AS WELL AS FULL AND THRIVING
COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE HEARD AN
OVERWHELMING CALL TO ACHIEVE
THESE GOALS WITH MORE HOUSING,
ESPECIALLY IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY
NEIGHBORHOODS. MY 21 AMENDMENTS
WORK TO ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS
BY EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, WHICH WILL
ALLOW FOR MORE HOUSING AND
NEIGHBORS TO LIVE THERE. WE ALSO
WANT OUR RESTAURANTS TO HAVE
MORE CUSTOMERS, HAVE MORE
ACCESSIBILITY FOR OUR DISABLED
COMMUNITY, MORE GREEN SPACES,
MORE FOR EVERYONE. THESE CENTERS
WERE STUDIED AND SELECTED
BECAUSE THEY ARE IN HIGH
OPPORTUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS. IT
WOULD BE GREAT FOR MORE PEOPLE
TO LIVE IN THESE INCREDIBLE
NEIGHBORHOODS. OUR SENSES
ESTIMATES DEMONSTRATE THAT
SEATTLE IS AMONG THE U.S. CITIES
WITH THE HIGHEST OVERALL
POPULATION GROWTH LAST YEAR,
ADDING NEARLY 17,000 NEW
RESIDENTS IN 2024. SEATTLE HAS
SURPASSED THE 800,000 POPULATION
MARK. WE ARE SO LUCKY TO LEAD
AND REPRESENT A CITY THAT SO
MANY PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN. TO
MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE HOUSING WE
NEED FOR ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS ,
OUR LEGACY NEIGHBORS AND NEW
NEIGHBORS, WE WILL NEED TO TAKE
BOLD STEPS, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT
EASY. SEATTLE IS RESILIENT. WE
NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, NOT
BACKWARD. I AM BRINGING FORWARD
AMENDMENTS DIRECTLY FROM
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS . THEY
WERE PRESENT OVER 60
ORGANIZATIONS. WE ARE BRINGING
FORWARD AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD CORNER STORES
CITYWIDE. I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN
SOME DISCUSSION OF WHAT TO CALL
THEM IF THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY
CORNER STORES. BODEGAS ? WE WILL
SEE. WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO CUTTING
RED TAPE TO ALLOW FOR MAKING
DEVELOPING HOUSING CHEAPER , AS
WELL AS SUPPORTING FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES. I AM BRINGING
FORWARD A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO PARKING. SPOKANE,
BELLINGHAM, PORT TOWNSEND, AND
IT LOOKS LIKE SOON TO BE
SHORELINE HAVE ELIMINATED
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE NOT
ONLY DO WE CONTINUE TO SEE
PARKING ADD TO THE COST OF
DEVELOPED HOUSING BUT WE SEE
THESE REQUIREMENTS DON'T
NECESSARILY DELIVER ON THEIR
PROMISE OF MANAGING CURB SPACE.
I HOPE TO TAKE UP THAT
DISCUSSION ON WHAT THIS CAN MEAN
FOR OUR CITY. SEATTLE MUST DO
MORE ON ITS OWN TO ASK. AS FOR
EXPANDING OUR HOUSING OPTIONS,
ENSURING A HEALTHY NEXT
GENERATION, CONNECTING OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BUILDING
TOWARDS ADDRESSING CLIMATE
CHANGE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WORKING PEOPLE ARE THRIVING
HERE. THIS IS AN EXCITING
OPPORTUNITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU ON ALL OF YOUR
AMENDMENTS. WHAT WAS THAT
TWO-BIT MINUTES, CHAIR?
>> 2:56. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE. I DID
HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY REALLY
QUICK.
>> ABSOLUTELY. COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED ,
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> I CAN GO AFTER COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. IS IT OKAY? OF COURSE.
>> I SAW SOMETHING WHEN WE WERE
GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS. I
AM AWARE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND THE AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON THIS. I REMEMBER
WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE
NUMBERS BACK IN 2000 E- 2019
KING COUNTY SAID THEY WERE
ANTICIPATING 112,000 HOUSING AND
70,000 NEW JOBS. IN 2021,
SEATTLE WAS ANTICIPATING 246,000
NEW JOBS. ALSO, THE CURRENT
TARGETS WE WERE LOOKING AT, AS
WELL, IN HOUSE BILL 1110, WE ARE
ANTICIPATING ANOTHER 65,000. ONE
SEATTLE, CORRECT ME IF I AM
WRONG, WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT
WE CAN GO UP TO 300,000 NEW
HOUSING THAT OUR ZONING CAPACITY
HAS INCREASED. IT IS EXCITING
FOR ME TO BE BACK AGAIN, TO SEE
A LOT OF THIS HAS MOVED FORWARD.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE GOT STUFF DONE.
I AM GOING TO DO ONE LAST PLUG
OF WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS SAID WHEN
WE DID MHS AND OF ZONES. I STILL
BELIEVE MY NORTH STAR FOR THE
2025 SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
IS THE HALF MILE RADIUS AROUND
THE HOME OF A CHILD SHOULD BE
OUR NORTH STAR. THAT WE MUST BE
FORWARD-LOOKING AND INTEGRATE
UPWARD ECONOMIC MOBILITY ACROSS
THIS GREAT CITY. EVERYONE WHO
LIVES HERE SHOULD HAVE THE GOOD
STUFF, TRANSIT, COMMUNITY
CENTERS, LIBRARIES, GREEN SPACE,
EDUCATION, A HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE
LEADERSHIP HERE. I THINK I SAID
THIS DURING THE PROCESS WHEN WE
WERE FILLING THIS SEAT, AND I
TRULY MEANT IT , ALL OF US SHARE
LEADERSHIP. THIS IS NOT ANY
NATIVE AMERICAN WISDOM. IT IS
LIKE A FLOCK OF BIRDS. THERE IS
NOT JUST ONE BIRD WHO SAYS, HEY,
WE ARE GOING SOUTH. FOLLOW ME.
WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO SAY
THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE ARE
GOING. PEOPLE TAKE TURNS BEING
IN THE FRONT OR THE SIDE OR THE
BACK. WE SHARE LEADERSHIP. I
WANT TO SAY DU , IN THE TALKS
THAT WE HAVE HAD, THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING ME UP TO SPEED.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I AM BRINGING FIVE AMENDMENTS
TO THE PLAN RELATED TO THE
BOUNDARIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS IN MY DISTRICT AND THE
PROTECTION OF THE TREE CANOPY.
BASED ON MONTHS OF FEEDBACK FROM
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO LIVE NEAR
THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTERS,
MY AMENDMENTS MODIFY THE
BOUNDARIES TO REFLECT RESIDENT
CONCERNS. I MADE THE CHANGES
BASED ON REVIEWING THE EXISTING
BUSINESS AREAS IN THE CENTERS,
RELIABLE TRANSIT OPTIONS, AND
CONCERNS ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY
OF NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS TO
HANDLE THE INCREASED GROWTH AND
INFRASTRUCTURE. I WANT TO MAKE
PERMANENT THE SAME ONE I BROUGHT
IN FOR THE HB 1110 LEGISLATION,
WHICH ALLOWS HISTORIC DISTRICTS
TO REGULATE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
SIGHTING . THIS IS ALLOWABLE
UNDER HB 1110. I AM BRINGING TWO
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO
THE PROTECTION OF THIS CITY TREE
CANOPY . SINCE THE START OF MY
TERM, I HAVE HEARD FROM
CONSTITUENTS WHO BELIEVE SEATTLE
HAS NOT DONE ENOUGH TO PROTECT
OUR EXISTING TREES AND REPLACE
THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED. WE
HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE GREAT
VALUE OF OUR TREE CANOPY AND HOW
IMPORTANT TREE PRESERVATION IS
TO THE RESIDENCE OF DISTRICTS
FOUR AND FIVE. AS I HAVE SAID
BEFORE, I BELIEVE WE CAN HAVE
INCREASED DENSITY AND THE TREES.
WE MUST, BECAUSE THE CLIMATE
CRISIS IS NOW. GIVEN THE NEW
STATE LAW WHICH REQUIRES THAT
SEATTLE AND OTHER CITIES ALLOW
UNITS TO BE BUILT ON A CITY LOT
AND THE UPDATING OF OUR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE MUST ACT
NOW TO ALIGN OUR CLIMATE GOALS
WITH OUR DENSITY GOALS. I
BELIEVE THESE AMENDMENTS WILL
HELP TO THAT. HIM -- I AM
BRINGING THIS IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
WORKING ACROSS THE CITY WHO CARE
ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF TREES
AS WE PLAN FOR GROWTH. I WANT TO
THANK FORMER COUNCILMEMBER MOORE
FOR HER PARTNERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE. FORMER COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE HAD BEEN WORKING FOR A
LONG TIME TO THE NEEDS OF
COMMUNITY ON TREE PRESERVATION.
THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN A
LONG TIME IN THE MAKING IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITY AND
THE PRODUCT OF OUR JOINT
EFFORTS. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE
COMMUNITY TO FIND AREAS OF
COMPROMISE SO WE CAN PROTECT OUR
TREES WHILE ALLOWING
DEVELOPMENT. THOSE OBJECTIVES
CAN AND SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED.
WE NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL IN
DOING SO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, COLLEAGUES
AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. FIRST
AND FOREMOST , I WANT TO THANK
OUR CENTRAL STAFF EXPERTS FOR
THEIR INCREDIBLE WORK IN
DRAFTING THESE MANY COMPLEX,
NUANCED AMENDMENTS. I THINK ALL
OF US CAN CELEBRATE THE WORK OF
OUR CENTRAL STAFF. I ESPECIALLY
WANT TO THANK THE MANY
CONSTITUENTS WHO SHARED THEIR
THOUGHTFUL INPUT . YOUR VOICE IS
TRULY SHAPED THIS WORK. MY
AMENDMENTS REFLECT WHAT WE HEARD
DIRECTLY FROM OUR COMMUNITY.
WHILE NOT EVERY SINGLE CONCERN
IS CAPTURED , I WELCOME THE
PROPOSALS OF MY COLLEAGUES,
ESPECIALLY ON KEY ISSUES LIKE
TREE PROTECTION IN AREAS LIKE
SOUTH PARK AND WEST SEATTLE. MY
AMENDMENTS AT A HIGH-LEVEL FALL
INTO THREE CATEGORIES OR
BUCKETS. ONE IS SIGNALING INTENT
THROUGH COMPANION RESOLUTION.
TWO, REINFORCING EXISTING
POLICY. THREE, ADVANCING NEW
DIRECTION. HIGHLIGHTS OF MY
AMENDMENTS INCLUDE MINOR
BOUNDARY CHANGES TO THREE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS AND ONE
NAME UPDATE BASED ON HAVING
WALKED ALL NINE DISTRICT 1
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS. SIX
TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENTS ALIGN
MORE CLOSELY WITH THE SEATTLE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT WE
ADOPTED LAST YEAR. AND THEN
INCENTIVES TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE
COTTAGE AND HOME OWNERSHIP,
FOCUSING ON ATTENTION ON THE
LOCAL VALLEY, WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, AND CREATING LOW
CARBON NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY CALL
FOR MORE EQUITABLE PLACEMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES ACROSS THE CITY,
NOT JUST HEAVILY CONCENTRATED IN
DOWNTOWN. SHORING UP OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE MORE BROADLY,
INCLUDING SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE,
WASTEWATER, AND THE LIKE. GOOD
GOVERNANCE ITEMS LIKE STRONGER
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND
ADDRESSING THE VACANT LOT
DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM
CITY HALL. COLLEAGUES, LOOKING
AHEAD, I ALSO PLAN TO BRING
FUTURE AMENDMENTS ON ISSUES LIKE
OUR FREEWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
INCLUDING I-5 AND RECONNECTING
SOUTH PARK , ALONG WITH
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS. THANK
YOU. JUST A LITTLE OVER TWO
MINUTES. 2:05, I'VE GOT.
>> THAT WAS IMPRESSIVE. THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. I WILL
HOLD MY COMMENTS AND WE WILL
JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. FOR THE
RECORD, NONE OF YOU WERE UNDER
TWO MINUTES.
>> CLOSEST?
>> YOU WERE THE CLOSEST,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. PLEASE STATE
YOUR NAME AND YOU CAN GO RIGHT
INTO THE AMENDMENTS.
>> LISH WHITSON, COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> HB HARPER, COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> THERE ARE 106 AMENDMENTS THAT
WE ARE GOING TO WALK THROUGH
TODAY. 53 OF THEM ARE AMENDMENTS
TO THE BILL TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 53 ARE
AMENDMENTS TO THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION REGARDING HB 1110.
WE HAVE ORGANIZED THESE
AMENDMENTS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN GENERALLY BASED OFF THE
ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE
GROWTH STRATEGY ELEMENT AND WALK
THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS
OF THE PLAN. AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE
BILL 1110 ARE GROUPED BY TOPIC.
WILL START OFF WITH ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS AND END UP WITH
TREES. YEAH, I WOULD JUMP RIGHT
IN. AMENDMENT ONE IS SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. IT ADDS
BOTH DISCUSSION LANGUAGE AND
POLICY LANGUAGE TO THE GROSS --
GROWTH STRATEGY TO RECOGNIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF CHILD CARE IN THE
CITY.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO IS ALSO
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. IT WOULD ADD A NEW POLICY
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT
WOULD SUPPORT A ZONING PILOT
PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES TO
MITIGATE THIS PLACEMENT AND
PROMOTE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT.
>> BEFORE YOU CONTINUE, I
APOLOGIZE. COLLEAGUES, IF YOU
HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AS WE
ARE GOING THROUGH THESE, YOU ARE
MORE THAN WELCOME TO RAISE YOUR
HAND SO WE CAN CONNECT WITH
CENTRAL STAFF. IF NOT, WE CAN
WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE
AMENDMENTS AND THEN YOU CAN ASK
QUESTIONS. MY APOLOGIES. AHEAD.
>> AMENDMENT THREE IS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE DISCUSSION OF
INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND IS INTENDED
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF
MARITIME AND INDUSTRIAL
EMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY. IT IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH. AMENDMENT FOUR IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
IT STATES THAT HOUSING SHOULD
NOT BE PERMITTED IN AREAS WITHIN
THE STATION AREA OVERLAY
DISTRICT WHERE IT IS NOT
CURRENTLY PERMITTED. IT SHOULD
NOT BE PERMITTED WEST OF 1st
AVENUE SOUTH. AMENDMENT FIVE IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS AND SUPPORTS INCREASED
ACCESS TO FOOD THROUGH ZONING
FLEXIBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF
FOOD IN FOOD DESERTS, INCREASING
FOOD ACCESS IN FOOD DESERTS.
AMENDMENT SIX IS ALSO SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. IT
AMENDS THE LAND-USE ELEMENT TO
SUPPORT MULTIGENERATIONAL
HOUSING. AMENDMENT SEVEN IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. THIS IS THE ONLY
AMENDMENT IN THE COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA BUILD IT ALSO REQUIRES AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PERMANENT HOUSE
BILL 1110 BILL. THIS WOULD AMEND
THE POLICIES OF THE CITY RELATED
TO PARKING TO END THE PRACTICE
OF THE CITY OF REQUIRING
OFFSTREET PARKING WITH
DEVELOPMENT. IT REQUIRES ZONING
CHANGES TO A COMPANY THAT. WE
WILL TALK ABOUT THOSE PROBABLY
IN AN HOUR OR SO. AMENDMENT
EIGHT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. IT WOULD
APPLY, IT WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT
WE CURRENTLY APPLY MAXIMUM
PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN OUR
REGIONAL CENTERS, PARTICULARLY
THOSE WITH RED STATIONS.
AMENDMENT NINE IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH. IT
WOULD AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT TO SUPPORT SAFE AND
EFFICIENT TRUCK MOVEMENT THROUGH
INDUSTRIAL LANDS . AMENDMENT 10
IS SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA. IT ADDS A POLICY ON
TRANSIT SECURITY TO THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT.
AMENDMENT 12, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, AMENDS THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TO
SUPPORT CLOSING GAPS IN THE
SIDEWALK NETWORK. AMENDMENT 12
IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. IT ADDS A
NEW POLICY ON TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTAINING
AND RESERVING THE CURRENT
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. AND
SYSTEMS. AMENDMENT 13 IS AN
AMENDMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA
TO AMEND THE POLICY ON ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGING IN THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT. THAT
INCLUDES MICROMOBILITY.
AMENDMENT 14 ADDS TWO NEW
POLICIES TO THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT ON PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE
COMPLETION , ALSO SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. AMENDMENT 15
IS AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA TO ADD A NEW
POLICY ABOUT POTHOLES AND
REPAIRING THEM. AMENDMENT 16 IS
AN AMENDMENT TO THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PROPOSED
BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA TO EXPAND
POLICY ON LOW CARBON, LOW
POLLUTION NEIGHBORHOODS AND
EMPHASIZING THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN
THE DOOR MISSION VALLEY, WHICH
HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY POLLUTION.
AMENDMENT 17 IS AN AMENDMENT TO
THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. IT WOULD
INCORPORATE THE CONCEPT OF
SOCIAL HOUSING INTO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE ARE A
SERIES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
HOUSING ELEMENT. AMENDMENT 18 IS
PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH. IT EXPANDS A
POLICY IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT
RELATED TO HOUSING STRATEGIES
FOR COMMUNITIES MOST IMPACTED BY
DISCRIMINATION INJUSTICE TO MAKE
SURE THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE
HEALTHY ACCESS TO AN EQUITABLE
ENVIRONMENT. AMENDMENT 19 WOULD
ADD A POLICY TO THE HOUSING
ELEMENT , ADDING A NEW GOAL FOR
MULTI-BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL UNITS
WITH TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS.
AMENDMENT 20 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. IT
SUPPORTS, IT ADDS A POLICY TO
THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO SUPPORT
CULTURAL HOUSING FOR SENIORS.
AMENDMENT 21 IS SPONSORED BY THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT. IT IS ONE OF
TWO POLICIES THAT ARE BASED ON
AN EXISTING POLICY IN THE
DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THE
DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS
PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. THIS
WOULD RESTORE COMPONENTS OF THAT
PLAN , SEEKING TO AVOID OVER
CONCENTRATION OF HUMAN SERVICE
FACILITIES. THIS IS ONE VERSION
OF THAT AMENDMENT. THERE IS A
SECOND VERSION SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA AND
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON THAT
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT POLICY 'S
FOCUS ON DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. THERE
ARE TWO VERSIONS OF A SIMILAR
CONCEPT. AMENDMENT 23 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
UTILITIES ELEMENT, SEEKING TO
CONSIDER PROGRAMS TO EQUITABLY
BALANCE THE COST OF
INFRASTRUCTURE , UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
AMENDMENT 24 IS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. IT IS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT . IT IS A
POLICY ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES, WORKING TO EMPHASIZE
THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE
STRATEGIES TO NEIGHBORHOODS IN
THE DUWAMISH VALLEY THAT HAVE
EXPERIENCED HISTORIC THIS
INVESTMENT. -- DISINVESTMENT.
AMENDMENT 25 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. IT LINKS
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
TO EMPHASIZE THE SUPPORT FOR THE
SMALLEST BUSINESSES IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 26,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH, IS RELATED TO THE
NATURAL CAPITAL OF THE CITY. IT
WOULD ADD SOMETHING TO THE
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY
THAT WOULD INCLUDE A POLICY TO
ENCOURAGE ATTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE URBAN
FORESTS AND OPEN SPACE.
>> THE NUMBERING ON THAT IS
INCORRECT. IT IS AMENDMENT
NUMBER 26.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 27 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH. INVOICES SUPPORT
FOR CONVENIENT ACCESS TO
CULTURALLY RELEVANT, EQUITABLE,
AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD. IT SUPPORTS
WORK TO REDUCE FOOD INSECURITY.
IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CLIMATE ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT.
AMENDMENT 28 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. IT ADDS A
NUMBER OF POLICIES TO THE
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF
TREES, BEES, EAGLES, ORCA , AND
OTHER PLANTS AND ANIMALS IN OUR
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT TO THE CITY.
AND TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
AMENDMENT 29 IS A PROPOSAL FROM
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS TO AMEND
THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF
PARKS AND SUCH IN REGIONAL AND
URBAN CENTERS. AMENDMENT 30 IS
ALSO SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS . IT SUPPORTS , IT
AMENDS THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT TO SUPPORT REGIONAL AND
URBAN CENTERS AND THE CREATION
OF COMMUNITY CENTERS. AMENDMENT
31 IS SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. IT AMENDS THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SUPPORT
THE CREATION OF CULTURAL
GATHERING PLACES. THIS IS IN THE
ARTS AND CULTURE ELEMENT.
>> AMENDMENT 32 WOULD ADD A
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT ,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. THIS WOULD RESTORE
POLICIES FROM THE EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADD NEW
POLICIES, AS WELL.
>> AMENDMENT 33 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. IT WOULD
AMEND THE POLICY RELATED TO
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS TO SUPPORT
ZONING THAT ALLOWS BUILDINGS
GREATER THAN SIX STORIES ,
PARTICULARLY NEAR LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS OR EXISTING
CONCENTRATIONS OF AMENITIES AND
SERVICES. THIS KICKS OFF A SET
OF AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO CHANGE
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND
OTHER MAPS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN RELATED TO NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. IT WOULD ADD EIGHT NEW
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ACROSS THE
CITY . IT INCLUDES MAPS OF EACH
OF THOSE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS. AMENDMENT 35 IS
PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
IT CHANGES THE NAME OF THE
PROPOSED IN-LINE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER TO FOLLOW RIGHT --
FAUNTLEROY . AMENDMENT 36 IS
ALSO PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA. IT ADDS A BLOCK TO THE
HIGH POINT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
AMENDMENT 37 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. IT REMOVES
THE SMALL AREA FROM THE MORGAN
JUNCTION NEIGHBORHOOD, OR URBAN
CENTER. AMENDMENT 38 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH. IT REMOVES A
COUPLE OF PORTIONS WITH STEEP
SLOPES FROM ONE OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS. AMENDMENT
39 IS SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVERA. IT WOULD AMEND
THE BRYANT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
BOUNDARIES. AMENDMENT 40 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA
-- COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. IT
AMENDS THE RAVENNA NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER TO REMOVE THE HISTORIC
DISTRICT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER. AMENDMENT 41, SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, WOULD
AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
WEDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, I THINK
THIS MAY BE THE WRONG MAP. MY
APOLOGIES. WE WILL GET THAT
FIXED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AMENDMENT 42 IS THE FIRST OF
A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS FROM
TRANSCEND THAT, AS YOU HEARD,
PROPOSES THREE DIFFERENT
VERSIONS FOR EACH OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS IN HIS
DISTRICT. THE FIRST ONE IS A NEW
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER THAT
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS IS
PROPOSING TO ADD AT EIGHTH AND
-- 8th AVENUE NORTHWEST AND
NORTHWEST 65th STREET. HE IS
CALLING IT THE EAST BALLARD
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. THERE ARE
THREE VERSIONS OF THOSE
BOUNDARIES. THERE ARE NEW
BOUNDARIES FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE
MAGNOLIA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
THREE VERSIONS THAT WOULD EXTEND
FROM WEST GOVERNMENT WAY ALL THE
WAY DOWN TO AND -- TO WEST
McGRAW STREET. AMENDMENT 44 IS
ALSO FROM TRANSCEND. INSTEAD OF
AMENDMENT 43, HE IS PROPOSING
ANOTHER DISTRICTING. HE HAS
VERSION 1, VERSION 2, AND
VERSION 3. AMENDMENT 45 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS FOR A NORTH MAGNOLIA
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. THIS IS THE
NORTHERN PORTION OF THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. HE HAS
THREE VERSIONS OF THAT ALONG
WEST GOVERNMENT WAY. AMENDMENT
46 ARE COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'S
THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE
PHINNEY RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER. ONE, TWO, THREE.
AMENDMENT 47 ARE THREE VERSIONS
OF THE TANGLED TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER. ONE, TWO, THREE.
AMENDMENT 48 ARE THREE VERSIONS
OF AN UPPER FREMONT NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER. AMENDMENT 49 ARE THREE
VERSIONS OF A WEST GREEN LAKE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. LEAVING
DISTRICT 6, AMENDMENT 50 IS A
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PROPOSED
BY COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE AROUND
THE NICKERSON NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT
WOULD BE NEAR SEATTLE PACIFIC
UNIVERSITY, SOUTH OF THE FREMONT
BRIDGE. AMENDMENT 51 IS A
PROPOSAL TO TAKE SAMARIA THAT
WAS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE
UPTOWN REGIONAL CENTER AND
INSTEAD ADD THAT AREA TO THE
UPPER QUEEN ANNE URBAN CENTER.
THERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXACT
BOUNDARIES A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
THAT IS THE END OF CHANGES TO
THE CENTERS. AMENDMENT 52 IS
ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE COUNCIL
BILL 120985 THAT WOULD AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT BILL
ALSO INCLUDES SOME LAND USE CODE
AMENDMENTS. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT
TO AMEND THAT BILL RELATED TO
CASH SORRY , DO YOU WANT TO JUMP
IN HERE?
>> AMENDMENTS 52 AND 53 ARE
PRIMARILY A BILL THAT AMENDS THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT BILL IF
PASSED WOULD CHANGE A LOT OF
NAMES AND TOUCHES ON SOME NEW
GEOGRAPHIES. AMENDMENT NUMBER
52, SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON , WOULD EXEMPT
FROM THE STANDARD AREA POLICY
REVIEW THE USE OF MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT. THAT EXEMPTION IS
ALLOWED UNDER SOME RECENT
CHANGES TO STATE LAW. IN ORDER
TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THIS
AMENDMENT, THE CITY WILL NEED TO
IDENTIFY SOME MITIGATION
MEASURES. IT WOULD EXEMPT
BROADLY MOST RESIDENTIAL AND
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE
CITY FOR THE DURATION OF THE
PLANNING PERIOD. THAT IS
AMENDMENT NUMBER 52. 53 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
IT WOULD ADD NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS TO THE LIST OF PLANNING
GEOGRAPHIES WHERE PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED WHEN A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT OR
A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS OCCUR.
>> WE HAVE GONE HALFWAY , GONE
THROUGH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO
CB 120985.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU, LISH ,
KETIL, AND HB. I WILL PAUSE HERE
FOR COLLEAGUES TO HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS THAT THEY WANT TO
CLARIFY. PLEASE JUST RAISE YOUR
HAND ON THE SCREEN. I WILL BE
LETTING COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS NO
ON HIS AMENDMENT 28, I WOULD
LIKE AUDITORS TO BE ADDED TO THE
LIST -- OTTERS TO BE ADDED TO
THE LIST -- JUST KIDDING. I WILL
PAUSE HERE FOR ANY
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS. IT IS A LOT TO TAKE
IN. WE CAN HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL
THE END, AS WELL. I KNOW A LOT
OF PEOPLE ARE ABSORBING A LOT OF
THIS. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WAS
TRYING TO KEEP IT TO TWO
MINUTES. I DID NOT SUCCEED. IN
THAT VEIN, I NEGLECTED TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS
PROCESS. IT HAS BEEN A LONG
ROAD. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU
AND YOUR STAFF FOR ALL THE HARD
WORK AND THE SUPPORT YOU HAVE
PROVIDED TO MY OFFICE AS PART OF
THIS PROCESS. I WANT TO THANK
YOU AND YOUR STAFF. I WANT TO
THANK OUR CENTRAL STAFF FOR ALL
OF THEIR HARD WORK AND FOR THE
VERY LONG HOURS THAT YOU HAVE
ALL PUT INTO THIS PROCESS WITH
THESE 106 AMENDMENTS AND ALL THE
ADVICE THAT ALL THREE IF YOU
HAVE PROVIDED THROUGH THIS
PROCESS. FOR MANY MONTHS NOW,
SINCE I GOT HERE LAST JANUARY ,
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. I
REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU, LISH,
KETIL, AND HB FOR ALL THE HARD
WORK. I DO HAVE A BROAD QUESTION
ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS WILL BE
FOR SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
SOME OF THEM ARE SIMILAR AND
MAYBE DO SOMETHING SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT. HOW DOES THAT ALL GET
PRESENTED IN THE END? THERE
NEEDS TO BE SOME MARRIAGE, IF
YOU WILL, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
CHAIR, IF WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL
THE END OF IT, I AM SURE THERE
ARE SOME -- TO THE WHOLE THING.
>> LISH?
>> I THINK EACH OF YOU HAS A
MEETING WITH THE CHAIR TO TALK
ABOUT YOUR PRIORITIES. I THINK
THE INTENT IS TO PULL TOGETHER
SUBSTITUTE BILLS FOR BOTH BILLS
THAT REFLECT A GENERAL CONSENSUS
ON THE COUNCIL . THERE WILL
LIKELY BE AMENDMENTS THAT DON'T
MAKE IT TO THOSE PACKAGES. OUR
HOPE IS THAT COUNCILMEMBERS WILL
WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A
CONSENSUS ON LANGUAGE . THERE
WILL BE DISAGREEMENTS IN ANY
LEGISLATIVE BODY. WE WILL HAVE
SOME AMENDMENTS THAT COME
FORWARD IN ABOUT A MONTH AND A
HALF.
>> CHAIR, WE WILL HAVE ABOUT A
MONTH TO TRY TO WORK WITH
COLLEAGUES ON ONES THAT ARE
SIMILAR AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND
POINTS OF COMPROMISE BEFORE WE
COME FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR
EXPLAINING THAT, LISH. I ALSO
NEGLECTED TO THANK OUR NEWEST
COUNCILMEMBER DOWN THERE,
REPRESENTS DISTRICT 5. ALTHOUGH
I WAS REPRESENTING AND WORKING
WITH COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR A
LONG TIME , I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU ON THE COMP
PLAN AND THE PARTS OF THIS WHERE
THERE IS OVERLAP. THERE IS A LOT
OF OVERLAP BETWEEN OUR
DISTRICTS. I AM SO LOOKING
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON
THIS. I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
YOU AND YOUR ENGAGEMENT. THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ. THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. I DON'T
SEE ANY OTHER HANDS. SO I THINK
WE CAN POWER THROUGH. SOME
COUNCILMEMBERS ARE GOING TO SAVE
THEIR QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END.
IT IS A LOT TO ABSORB. WE WILL
THANK YOU ALL AND WE WILL KEEP
POWERING THROUGH.
>> GREAT. AMENDMENT 54 IS AN
AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL BILL
120993. IT WOULD AMEND
PROVISIONS RELATED TO UNIT LOT
SUBDIVISIONS TO ALLOW ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS TO BE SUBDIVIDED
FROM THE PRINCIPAL UNIT AS PART
OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION.
>> AMENDMENT 55 WOULD ALLOW
LARGER MAXIMUM SIZES FOR
ACCESSORY DAY-TO-DAY UNITS ,
RATHER THAN CAPPING THEM AT 1000
SQUARE FEET. IN CERTAIN
INSTANCES, THEY CAN BE UP TO
1500 SQUARE FEET IF LOCATED IN A
LOW RISE ZONE NEAR FREQUENT
TRANSIT AND IT HAS NOT BEEN
PURCHASED FOR 20 YEARS. WE ARE
TRYING TO GET THAT LEGACY
HOMEOWNER CONCEPTS. AMENDMENT 56
WOULD EXEMPT RESIDENT UNITS FROM
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS. THESE
ARE BOTH SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. AS YOU MAY
KNOW, WE CALCULATE DENSITY IN A
COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS. FLOOR
RATIO IS ONE OF THEM. WE ALSO
CALCULATE IT BY MAXIMUM DENSITY
UNITS HER -- PER LOT AREA. AND
THEN WE ALLOW FOR LARGER SIZE
THROUGHOUT THE BOARD. IT WOULD
INCREASE THE SIZE FROM 1000 TO
1200 SQUARE FEET. AMENDMENT 58
ALSO SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK WOULD EXCLUDE ED USE FROM
DENSITY CALCULATION. THIS IS THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE DENSITY COIN ,
ENSURING THAT ONLY PRINCIPLED
DWELLING UNITS ARE COUNTED
TOWARDS DENSITY. AMENDMENT 59 ,
ALSO SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, WOULD EXEMPT ACCESSORY
DAY-TO-DAY UNITS FROM THE MHA
PROGRAM. AMENDMENT 60, SPONSORED
BY THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT, BUT
EXPAND OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BONUS IN RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES. AS PROPOSED,
THE LEGISLATION REQUIRES THAT
LOW INCOME HOUSING ONLY QUALIFY
FOR ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS IF IT
IS LOCATED WITHIN A FREQUENT
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA. THIS AREA
WOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT. IT
WOULD ALLOW THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BONUS TO BE USED
ANYWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WOULD ALSO
INCREASE THE FLOOR RATIO LIMIT
FROM 1.8 TO 2.0 AND ALLOW FOR NO
MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING FOR LOW
INCOME DEVELOPMENT IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL.
AMENDMENT 61, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WOULD ADD
SOCIAL HOUSING TO THE CATEGORY
OF ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT . LOW-INCOME HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT BONUS WOULD BE
AVAILABLE TO SOCIAL HOUSING,
WHICH WOULD BE DEFINED AS
HOUSING BUILT BY THE PUBLIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. IT WOULD
REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THE
LOT BE LOCATED WITHIN A FREQUENT
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD EXPAND THE
EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BONUS THAT IS BEING TRANSMITTED
IN TERMS OF WHERE IT CAN BE
USED, AND CAN EXPAND IT TO
SOCIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
WITHOUT ANY INCOME RESTRICTIONS.
SIMILARLY TO THE LAST AMENDMENT
, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR NO MINIMUM
REQUIRED PARKING FOR BOTH
LOW-INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
IS AND SOCIAL HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT. AMENDMENT 62,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH, WOULD EXTEND THE
HOUSING AFFORDABLE BONUS TO
SOCIAL HOUSING WITHOUT ANY OTHER
CHANGES TO THE LOW-INCOME
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS
PROGRAM. WE WOULD ADD THE SOCIAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEFINITION
FOR PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITIES, BUT OTHERWISE NOT
CHANGE ANY REQUIREMENTS OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ,
LOW-INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS.
AMENDMENT 63, SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, BUT
EXPAND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BONUS. NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT THE
LOW RISE ZONES, MULTIFAMILY
ZONES. AS TRANSMITTED, THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION INCLUDES A
BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON
PROPERTIES OWNED OR CONTROLLED
BY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.'S
AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE A BROADER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS
PROVISION WITH HIGHER
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ,
SIMILARLY STRUCTURED TO THE
BONUS AS TRANSMITTED. AMENDMENT
64, SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, VERY SIMILAR TO THE
LAST ONE, EXPANDING THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS IN
MULTIFAMILY ZONES . IT RETAINS
THE EXISTING BONUS THAT HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED THAT ONLY APPLIES TO
MULTIFAMILY ZONES ON PROPERTIES
THAT ARE OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. IT
KEEPS THE BONUS PROGRAM ON THE
BOOKS, BUT ALLOWS IT SUPPLY --
TO APPLY TO ANY LOT. AMENDMENT
65, SPONSORED BY THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT , NOW WE ARE SHIFTING
TOPICS TO CORNER STORES. AS
TRANSMITTED, THE LEGISLATION
WOULD REQUIRE THAT ANY
COMMERCIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES BE LOCATED ON CORNER LOTS.
THIS IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS CORNER
STORES IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL. THIS WOULD REMOVE
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE GROUND
FLOOR COMMERCIAL USE BE ON A
CORNER LOT. IT WOULD ALLOW IT ON
ANY LOT IN THE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE. OTHERWISE,
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS
TRANSMITTED WOULD BE RETAINED.
THAT IS DISTINCT FROM AMENDMENT
66, SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, WHICH WOULD REMOVE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE LOCATED
ON A CORNER LOT. CORNER STORES
CAN BE ANYWHERE. IT WOULD ALSO
BROADEN THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT
ARE ALLOWED SLIGHTLY FROM
RESTAURANTS ONLY TO ALL KINDS OF
EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENTS. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REMOVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
CAP OF 2500 SQUARE FEET. IT
WOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT
THAT BUSINESSES MAY NOT BE OPEN
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 P.M.
AND 6:00 A.M. THAT WOULDN'T IT
-- THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT
. ON THE SAME TOPIC, AMENDMENT
67 SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS WOULD GO BACK TO THE
MORE SIMPLE VERSION WE SAW
EARLIER, WHERE WE WOULD ALLOW
COMMERCIAL USES ON ANY LOT, NOT
JUST CORNER LOTS, IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL.
OTHERWISE, THE PROVISIONS ARE
THE SAME.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 68 ,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH, WOULD AUTHORIZE
THE DIRECTOR TO WAIVE CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS. THOSE
STANDARDS INCLUDE DESIGN
STANDARDS , PARKING LOCATION,
AND STRUCTURE WITH DEPTH
CONVERSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THAT SECTION. IT WOULD BE
DEFINED AS KEEPING AN EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE INTACT
WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF AN
INTERIOR FLOOR AREA.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, AMENDMENT
NUMBER 69, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK WOULD ALLOW
A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT
FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS SMALL
LOTS ON F.A.R. REGULATIONS THAT
ARE PROPOSED BELOW 4000 SQUARE
FEET FOR A LOT. IT WOULD MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE
WITH 2500 SQUARE FEET. IT WOULD
ESTABLISH AN -- A MINIMUM FLOOR
AREA FOR SMALL LOTS.
>> AMENDMENT 70, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WOULD
INCREASE THE FLOOR RATIO FOR THE
DENSEST DEVELOPMENTS. AMENDMENT
71, SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, WOULD REORDER SOME
LANGUAGE SLIGHTLY TO CLARIFY
DENSITY ALLOWANCES. A LOT MAY
HAVE UP TO FOUR UNITS DEVELOPS.
IT REMOVES SOME WORDING ABOUT
LIENS THAT HAVE CRITICAL AREAS
THAT ARE ALLOWED AT LEAST ONE
AREA PER LOT.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 72,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, WOULD AMEND DENSITY
LIMITS TO ALLOW PORTIONS OF A
LOT IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREA EXCEPT FOR
SUBMERGED AREAS TO COUNT TOWARDS
DENSITY CALCULATIONS. IT DOES
NOT PREVENT INVOLVEMENT IN
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS,
BUT IT COUNTS TOWARDS THE AREA
ON A LOT.
>> ON THE MEND 73, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, WHICH
RANGE -- WOULD CHANGE THE
DENSITY CALCULATIONS. IT WOULD
GO UP FROM 0.85 TO 1.2.
>> THE NEXT AMENDMENT WOULD
INCREASE THE NATIONAL -- MAXIMUM
HEIGHT. THE THREE-FOOT INCREASE
WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL
FLOOR AREA, BUT WOULD ALLOW FOR
HIGHER CEILING HEIGHTS.
>> AMENDMENT 75, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH,
WOULD INCORPORATE LANGUAGE THAT
IS CURRENTLY APPLIED IN AREAS
THAT WE HAVE REZONED FROM
INDUSTRIAL TO OTHER ZONING
CATEGORIES. IT WOULD REQUIRE
THAT DEVELOPMENT NEAR HIGHWAYS
AND MAJOR TRUCK STREETS
INCORPORATE NOISE ATTENUATED IN
WINDOWS AND HVAC SYSTEMS TO
REDUCE AIR POLLUTION INDOORS. IT
WOULD APPLY TO SCHOOLS AND
CHILDCARE CENTERS AND HOUSES.
AMENDMENT 76, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, AMENDS THE
DEFINITION OF MAJOR TRANSIT
SERVICE SO THAT MAJOR TRANSIT
SERVICE INCLUDES FREQUENT
TRANSIT SERVICE . THEREFORE, ANY
CHANGES TO ANY OF THE PROVISIONS
THAT APPLY TO MAJOR TRANSIT
SERVICE AREAS BUT NOT FREQUENT
TRANSIT SERVICE AREAS, SUCH AS
EXEMPTIONS FROM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS, WOULD APPLY TO
FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE.
>> AMENDMENT 77 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA WOULD REQUIRE
A DENSITY BONUS AND MODIFIED
STANDARDS FOR COTTAGE
DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD BE DEFINED
AS DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING
ENTIRELY OF ONE OR TWO STORY
UNITS ARRANGED ON A COMMON
GROUND LEVEL AMENITY AREA EQUAL
TO AT LEAST 20% OF THE LOT AREA
THAT USES COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE
AND TREES.
>> AMENDMENT 78, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH,
WOULD GIVE BONUS HEIGHT AND
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA TO
PROJECTS THAT INCORPORATE AT
LEAST 25% OF THE UNITS HAVING
THREE BEDROOMS OR MORE WITH A
MINIMUM OF 1050 SQUARE FEET.
THEY NEED TO BE NEAR A SCHOOL,
SO WITHIN A QUARTER-MILE OF AN
ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL.
THESE UNITS WOULD BE GRANTED A
BONUS. AMENDMENT 79, SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH,
WOULD RELAX DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS INCORPORATING A HIGHER
LEVEL OF ACCESSIBILITY.
CURRENTLY, FOUR UNITS WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO BE TYPE B
ACCESSIBLE, WHICH IS A FLEXIBLE
STANDARD THAT CAN BE ADAPTED TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF DISABLED
RESIDENTS.'S AMENDMENT WOULD
INCENTIVIZE TYPE A UNITS , THAT
ARE MORE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE
TO MEET THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS
WITH SIGNIFICANTLY , WITH
SIGNIFICANT MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS
. THE AMENDMENT WOULD
INCENTIVIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TYPE A UNITS BY EXEMPTING THERE
-- THEM FROM FLOOR RATIO
REQUIREMENTS FOR AMENDMENT 80
INCENTIVIZE BALCONIES ON STACKED
FLAT PROJECTS OR APARTMENT
BUILDINGS BY ALLOWING SMALLER
BALCONIES TO COUNT TOWARD
AMENITY AREA REQUIREMENTS BY
REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF COMMON
SPACE THAT IS REQUIRED AND
ALLOWING MORE PRIVATE SPACE TO
COUNT TOWARDS AMENITY AREA
REQUIREMENTS AND BY RAISING THE
OVERALL AREA REQUIREMENT TO 25%
OF THE LOT UNLESS EVERY UNIT
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL HAS A
BALCONY, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD
BE 20% OF THE GROUND AREA.
>> AMENDMENT 81 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. SHE
MENTIONED THIS . THAT APPLIES A
PORTION OF STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS
FOR EXTERIOR REQUIREMENTS FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN HISTORIC
DISTRICTS.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 82,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH, WOULD INCREASE
THE THRESHOLD FOR EXEMPTIONS
FROM STEPHEN -- STREET
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS FROM
TWO UNITS TO FOUR UNITS TO
REFLECT CHANGES TO THE ALLOWABLE
NUMBER OF UNITS ON A TYPICAL
5000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT. THE EFFECT
OF THIS WOULD BE TO REDUCE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR SMALLER
PROJECTS, BUT WOULD ALSO REDUCE
STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
>> AMENITY THREE IS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT. YOU MAY REMEMBER THE
PROPOSED BILL WOULD REZONE ALL
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT IN THE
CITY TO LOW RISE 1. 'S
AMENDMENT WOULD REZONE A PORTION
OF THE BLOCK IN COLUMBIA CITY
FROM LOW RISE 1 TO LOW RISE 2. I
HINTED AT THIS ONE PREVIOUSLY.
AMENDMENT 84 REQUIRES AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
CONSISTENCY. IT REMOVES PARKING
REQUIREMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.
LET ME JUMP, IT IS A VERY
LENGTHY AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT
103, SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS -- SORRY. I JUMPED AWAY
AHEAD.
>> NO WORRIES. WE ARE JUST
GETTING CAUGHT UP HERE.
>> THERE WE GO. NOPE .
>> IT IS A BIG BOOK. WHY DID THE
SEATTLEITE CROSS THE ROAD? TO
YELL AT CITY COUNCIL. THAT IS A
GOOD ONE.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD
ONE.
>> TOUGH CROWD. THERE WE ARE,
PAGE 345.
>> THERE WE GO. SORRY ABOUT
THAT. AMENDMENT 85, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK , IN THE
NEXT COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS WOULD
BE MOVED IF THE PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT WERE TO BE ADOPTED --
INSTEAD OF REMOVING PARKING
REQUIREMENTS ALTOGETHER IT
IMPLEMENTS A NEW STATE LAW ,
SENATE BILL 5184, REQUIRES THE
CITY TO REDUCE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OR ELIMINATE THEM
FOR SOME USES. FOR EXAMPLE , A
NEW, SMALL COMMERCIAL CASH A NEW
COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH LESS THAN
3000 SQUARE FEET ANYWHERE IN THE
CITY WOULD BE REQUIRED , THE
CITY COULD NOT IMPOSE A PARKING
REQUIREMENT ON THOSE KINDS OF
SPACES , THOSE SIZE OF SPACES.
AMENDMENT 86 , SPONSORED BY THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WOULD REMOVE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS NEAR
FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE AREAS
AND SPECIFICALLY WITHIN HALF A
MILE OF A FREQUENT TRANSIT
SERVICE AREA.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 87,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, WOULD WAIVE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PRESENTATION -- PRESERVATION OF
A TIER 2 TREE.
>> AMENDMENTS 88, 89, AND 90 ARE
SIMILAR. THEY ARE ALL RELATED TO
STACKED FLAT BONUSES. AMENDMENT
88, BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH, EXPANDS THE BONUS
BY REDUCING THE LOT AREA THAT IS
REQUIRED. AS TRANSMITTED, THE
DENSEST DEVELOPMENT HAS AN
F.A.R. MAXIMUM OF 1.2, EXCEPT IT
IS 1.4 FOR STACK UP DEVELOPMENTS
LOCATED IN A FREQUENT TRANSIT
AREA. THE LOT SIZE IS SET AT
6000 SQUARE FEET IN THE
TRANSMITTED LEGISLATION. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE THAT THE
5000 SQUARE FEET , SO MAKING IT
AVAILABLE TO SLIGHTLY MORE LOTS.
AMENDMENT 89, SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, WOULD
REMOVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOT
SIZE ENTIRELY , REMOVE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THESE PROJECTS
BE LOCATED WITHIN A FREQUENT
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA , AND
INCREASE THE F.A.R. BONUS FROM
1.4 TO 1.6. IT WOULD INCREASE
THE LOT COVERAGE TO 55% FROM
50%. IT WOULD INCREASE THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY SLIGHTLY BY
CHANGING ONE DWELLING UNIT PER
650 UNIT MAXED TO 600 MAX. THAT
ONE IS SORT OF THE
MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD COMPARED TO
AMENDMENT 90, WHICH GOES THE
FURTHEST , SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. THIS WOULD
EXPAND THE STACKED FLAT BONUS TO
REMOVE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT
SERVICE AREA REQUIREMENT, REMOVE
THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT, REDUCE
THE MAXIMUM TOLLING UNIT
CALCULATION SUCH THAT MAXIMUM
DENSITY IS INCREASED . IT WOULD
INCREASE LOT COVERAGE TO 60% AS
OPPOSED TO 50% IN THE
TRANSMITTED LEGISLATION OR 55%
IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT.
>> WE HAVE A COUPLE OF
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE VARIATIONS
ON THAT THEME WITH THE ADDITION
OF INCENTIVES FOR PROVISION OF
ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE OR
PRESERVATION OF TREES. AMENDMENT
91, SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON, BUT INCREASE
THE F.A.R. FOR STACKED FLAT FROM
1.4 TO 1.8 AND ALLOW A
DIFFERENTIAL INCREASE OF UP TO
TWO FOR PROJECTS THAT RETAINED
TIER 1 TREES, RETAIN TWO TIER 2
TREES, OR HAVE A SCORE OF 0.6
THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE
BONUS. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCESS ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND
HIGHER BUILDING HEIGHTS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 92, SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WOULD
EXPAND THE STACKED FLAT BONUS.
THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITION , THE
BONUS WOULD INCREASE FROM 1.22
TO -- 1.22 2.0 WITH THE
RETENTION OF A TIER 1 ENTRY.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 93 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA WITH
MODIFIED TWO PLANTING
REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE
INCENTIVES, INCLUDING REDUCED
SETBACKS, ADDITIONAL F.A.R., AND
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ON LOTS WITH A
TIER 2 TREE. THIS ONE MAY NEED A
LITTLE BIT MORE COLLABORATION.
IT WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF TREE POINTS THAT WOULD
BE REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
OUR ZONES AND REQUIRE A MINIMUM
TREEPLANTING AREA FOR MEDIUM AND
SMALL TREES, AS WELL. AMENDMENT
NUMBER 94, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WE ALSO
HAVE A BONUS FOR THE RETENTION
OF TIER 2 TREES THAT WOULD ALLOW
AN EXEMPTION FOR HEIGHT UP TO 42
FEET FOR ANY TIER 2 TREE THAT
PRESCRIBES A TREE SCORE AND
MAINTAINS 10% CAN BE AVERAGE AT
MATURITY. -- CANOPY COVERAGE AT
MATURITY. AMENDMENT 95 WOULD
REDUCE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AMENDMENT
NUMBER 96, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, AND ALLOW
FLEXIBLE AVERAGE FIVE FOOT SIDE
SETBACKS THAT COULD NOT BE LESS
THAN THREE FEET. SIDE SETBACKS
COULD BE AVERAGE. AMENDMENT
NUMBER 97, ALSO SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WOULD
REQUIRE LARGER SETBACKS. THE
COMMITTEE WILL HEAR A SIMILAR
AMENDMENT FROM THE INTERIM BILL.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 98 , SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, WOULD
REDUCE REQUIRED BUILDING
SEPARATIONS, SPECIFICALLY THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS. IT
COULD BE REDUCED BELOW A CERTAIN
THRESHOLD PROVIDED IN NEEDS
F.A.R. SEPARATION STANDARDS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 99, SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WOULD
ENTIRELY ELIMINATE AMENITY
AREAS. TO THE EXTENT THAT OPEN
SPACE IS DEVELOPED, IT WOULD
ALLOW THE GROUND LEVEL OPEN
SPACE TO BE USED TO ACHIEVE
OTHER GOALS SUCH AS TREE
PRESERVATION. AMENDMENT NUMBER
100 , SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS , WOULD PROVIDE THAT
THERE IS AT LEAST ONE TREE
PLANTED FOR EVERY 2500 SQUARE
FEET OF LOT AREA. AMENDMENT
NUMBER 101, SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON, YOU HAVE SEEN
A VERSION OF THIS SPONSORED BY
ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER
PREVIOUSLY. THIS WOULD MANDATE
PARKING WAIVERS FOR ANY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
MAINTAINS A TIER 2 TREE.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 102, SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, WOULD
PROVIDE THE SDCI DIRECTOR WITH
THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER SITE
PLANS WITH SOME PROCEDURAL
DISCRETION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A
TREE COULD BE PRESERVED AND
MAINTAINED THE AMOUNT OF
DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED ON THE LOT.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE -- 103
FROM COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WOULD
REQUIRE THE RETENTION OF TREES,
TIER 1 AND TIER 2 TREES , WITHIN
FIVE FEET OF THE CORNER OF A
LOT. AMENDMENT NUMBER 104,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS , WOULD PROVIDE MORE
DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY WHEN
TREES ARE PROTECTED, INCLUDING ,
ALLOWING FOR GREATER EXTENSION
OF DEVELOPMENT . AMENITY AREAS
AND REDUCTION OF LANDSCAPING AND
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND AN
INCREASE OF STRUCTURE WITH
DEPTH. THE LAST TWO AMENDMENTS
ARE BOTH BY COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
THEY PROVIDE BOOKENDS FOR
DISCUSSION . THEY WOULD CHANGE
THE TREE PROTECTION AREA
REGULATIONS. AMENDMENT 105 WOULD
SET THE TREE PROTECTION AREA FOR
ALL TREES TO BE A SIX FOOT
RADIUS FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
TREE. AMENDMENT 106 , AND OUR
FINAL AMENDMENT, WOULD INSTEAD
DEFINE A TREE PROTECTION AREA AS
THE DRIP LINE OF A TREE. IT
WOULD REMOVE AUTHORITY FOR THE
SDCI DIRECTOR TO WAIVE TREE
PROTECTION OR MODIFY TREE
PROTECTION AREAS. THAT BRINGS US
TO THE END.
>> THANK YOU. I AM SORRY. I
FORGOT I WAS RUNNING THE MEETING
AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THE
DOCUMENTS. I KNOW THIS IS A LOT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION QUESTION
ON THE PROCESS AND FOR
UNDERSTANDING HOW AMENDMENTS
STACK UP TO EACH OTHER AND WHAT
ONE CAN DO WITH THE OTHER. THAT
WAS SUPER HELPFUL. I KNOW WE HAD
A LOT FOR STACKED FLAT BONUSES.
THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF THIS,
A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, A LITTLE
IN THE MIDDLE. THAT WILL BE GOOD
FOR US TO NAVIGATE AND TRY TO
FIND CONSENSUS ON AS A BODY. I
WILL PAUSE HERE TO FIND OUT IF
PEOPLE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
WOULD LIKE TO OFFER ANY COMMENTS
. I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
WE ARE AT 11:00. WE HAVE MADE IT
THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. NOW IS
THE TIME FOR DISCUSSION.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU,
TEAM , FOR WALKING THROUGH ALL
OF THIS WITH YOUR HARD WORK. WE
DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOU. TAKING US
ALL THE WAY BACK TO NUMBER EIGHT
, AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT, DOES
THIS APPLY ANYWHERE SINCE WE ARE
REMOVING THE WORDS WHERE
APPROPRIATE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
PLACES LIKE REGIONAL CENTERS
WHERE THIS COULD BE HAPPENING?
WHERE WOULD WE REVOKE THIS FROM
HAPPENING?
>> I NEED TO LOOK INTO THAT A
LITTLE BIT MORE. WE MAY HAVE
SOME MAXIMUM PARKING LIMITS IN
OUR DENSEST INDUSTRIAL AREAS
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO
THAT PROPOSAL. I AM NOT 100%
SURE. OTHER THAN THAT,
GENERALLY, WE ONLY HAVE THEM IN
REGIONAL CENTERS WHERE THE MOST
CONGESTION IS LOCATED.
>> INTERESTING. OKAY. MOVING
ALONG TO 21 AND 22, THESE ARE
THE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO
HUMAN SERVICES. COULD YOU
EXPLAIN THE MAIN DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THESE TWO AMENDMENTS?
>> 21, LET ME JUMPED TO 22. SO
BASICALLY, 22 IS FOCUSED ON
DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. IN THE FIRST
SENTENCE, CONSIDERING THE NEEDS
OF TARGET POPULATIONS AND HUMAN
SERVICE FACILITIES THROUGHOUT
DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. IN 21, IT SAYS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND SIMILAR
THROUGHOUT THE POLICY.
>> THANK YOU FOR BET. AMENDMENT
25, IS THERE A DEFINITION TO
ELABORATE WHICH BUSINESSES ARE
THE SMALLEST?
>> NO. DISCUSSING THIS WITH
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, HE
MENTIONED THAT THE SMALL
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
CLASSIFIES BUSINESSES WITH UP TO
500 EMPLOYEES AS SMALL
BUSINESSES. 'S INTENT WAS NOT
TO USE THAT SORT OF GENEROUS
DEFINITION OF SMALL BUSINESS.
>> MOVING US ALONG TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER 41, THIS IS ONE WHERE WE
HAVE A MAP. I THINK YOU HAD MADE
A COMMENT ABOUT SOME OF THE
INACCURACIES WITH THE MAP THAT
WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT THIS
MAP SHOULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT IT
LOOKS LIKE ? WHAT SHOULD IT LOOK
LIKE?
>> MY MEMORY IS THAT YOU SHOULD
BASICALLY RUN FROM NORTHEAST
77th STREET TO NORTH EAST 70th
STREET BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY
36th AVENUE NORTHEAST AND 34th
AVENUE NORTHEAST, WITHOUT THE
JOG IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND
CORNER.
>> I AM CURIOUS ON AMENDMENT 51
. MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR
THE SPONSORS. APOLOGIES FOR
PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. I AM
CURIOUS ABOUT THE INTENT OF
REMOVING THE AREAS NORTH OF ROY
STREET FROM THE REGIONAL CENTER.
WE CAN CIRCLE BACK ON THAT, TOO.
>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE
COUNCIL DESIGNATED NORTH OF ROY
STREET UP TO QUEEN ANNE. THAT IS
THE FIRST POINT. TWO, BASICALLY
CONTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD , I DID CHECK IN
WITH OPCD. IT HAS NO IMPACT
RELATED TO PSRC OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT. IS NOT QUITE LIKE FOR
LIKE, BUT IT IS NEARLY LIKE FOR
LIKE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. 91 AND 92, I JUST HAVE A
COUPLE MORE. THANK YOU FOR
INDULGING ME, CHAIR. IS THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO
AMENDMENTS THE GREEN FACTOR?
>> I BELIEVE SO? THERE MAY BE A
SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT
OF F.A.R. I HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT
HERE. YEAH. I THINK THE
DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN 0.2 F.A.R.
FOR COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AND
0.18 FOR COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
NOTICE THERE IS A DIFFERENTIAL
REQUIREMENT HERE, TOO. IT IS
1.84 STACKED FLAT DEVELOPMENT.
THERE IS ALSO THE OPTION TO GO
TO TWO IF YOU NEED HIGHER TREE
PROTECTION AND GROWTH FACTOR.
>> GREAT. MY READING OF THIS,
BUT THIS MEAN IT WOULD APPLY TO
VERY MUCH ANY TREE? HOW SMALL OF
A PLANT COULD BE PROTECTED UNDER
THIS AMENDMENT?
>> IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY KIND OF
TREE.
>> ANY KIND OF TREE?
>> I BELIEVE SO. THIS IS ONE
THAT I FEEL LIKE I PROBABLY
SHOULD CHECK OFF-LINE AND
RESPOND TO ALL OF THIS.
>> OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION, 105
AND 106 , ARE THESE MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE TO ONE ANOTHER?
>> YES.
>> GREAT. EASY ANSWER. THANK YOU
FOR THOSE ANSWERS. THANK YOU,
CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
>> NO WORRIES. THAT IS WHAT THE
TIME IS FOR. WE ARE A LITTLE BIT
OF HEAD OF SCHEDULE, WHICH IS
VERY GOOD FOR THIS BODY.
>> WE ARE JUST GETTING THESE
TODAY. I THINK THAT PART OF WHAT
IS HAPPENING IS THAT WE NEED TO
READ THROUGH THESE AND THEN BE
ABLE TO GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED
FROM CENTRAL STAFF AND THEN
FIGURE OUT -- THIS WAS MY
QUESTION EARLIER, WHY I ASKED
ABOUT HOW WE HANDLE THOSE WHO
ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS SIMILAR
THINGS, BUT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH
EACH OTHER. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST
WANTED TO NOTE, LIKE EVERYONE
ELSE, I DO APPRECIATE THE
LEADERSHIP AND YOUR STAFF
WORKING THROUGH THIS. THIS IS
NOT EASY. TO GO ALONG WITH MR.
WHITSON AND THE TEAM, THIS IS AN
INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE DIFFERENT
VERSIONS OF THE SAME THING.
KEEPING TRACK OF THAT IS
PROBABLY NOT A FUN ELEMENT.
HOPEFULLY I HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED
TO THAT. I█ HAVE MORE OF A
STATEMENT. AS I AM LISTENING AND
HEARING THESE THINGS, I THINK IT
IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE
MINDFUL THAT SOME OF THESE
CHANGES, WHEN IT IS JUST THE
WORK, IT CAN HAVE MAJOR
SECOND-ORDER AND THIRD ORDER
EFFECTS. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT
WE DON'T GO CROSS PURPOSES , WE
DON'T CREATE SITUATIONS WHERE
THE INTENT WAS ONE THING, BUT ON
THE GROUND IT WILL BE VERY
DIFFERENT. IN PARTICULAR, IN MY
DISTRICT, I HAVE THREE REGIONAL
CENTERS, AN URBAN CENTER, AND
THEN SOME NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL. I HAVE THE WHOLE
MIX. WHAT IS GOOD FOR ONE PART
IS NOT NECESSARILY GOOD FOR THE
OTHER PARTS. WE HAVE TO BE
MINDFUL ON SOME OF THESE BLANKET
AMENDMENTS ACROSS THE CITYWIDE.
WE NEED TO BE SMART ON THOSE. I
WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PASS SOME THANKS AND TO MAKE
THOSE POINTS. I THINK AS A BODY,
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE
AND LOOKING TO DECONFLICT , BUT
ALSO TO ENSURE THAT WE MOVE
FORWARD IN A VERY -- I WAS GOING
TO SAY SMART WAY, THAT CAN BE
INTERPRETED IN A WAY THAT
ACCOUNTS FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT
PIECES. I CAN SENSE SOME CROSS
PURPOSES HERE AND SOME CONFLICTS
THAT WE MAY NOT BE TRULY
APPRECIATIVE OF RIGHT NOW. THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. LOOKING TO
MY LEFT, I DON'T KNOW IF
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA OR
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ HAVE
ANYTHING. I KNOW IT IS A LOT.
ONE QUESTION I HAD. IS THERE
ANYTHING, AND I WILL PROBABLY
TAKE THIS OFF-LINE, ARE THERE
ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD
TRIGGER MORE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STUDY PIECES? GO AHEAD.
>> AFTER THE COMMITTEE VOTES, WE
WILL NEED TO DO SOME
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO MATTER
WHAT. WE ARE LOOKING AT CHANGES
TO THE PLAN. THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW WILL LOOK AT WHETHER OR
NOT THERE ARE PROBABLY NO
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS,
WHICH IS A TECHNICAL TERM, THAT
WEREN'T STUDIED UNDER THE EIS.
IF THERE ARE PROBABLE
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, AN
IMPACT STATEMENT COULD BE
REQUIRED. IF WE CAN MAKE THE
CASE THAT THE AMENDMENTS OF THE
COUNCIL ARE BASICALLY IN LINE
WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN
DONE ALREADY UNDER THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEN
WE WILL ISSUE AN ADDENDUM TO
THAT EIS, BASICALLY STATING OUR
RATIONALE AND ANALYSIS THAT
SUPPORTS THAT DETERMINATION. THE
EIS ADDENDUM REQUIRES PUBLIC
NOTICE , BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR AN APPEAL. IT
WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO ACT
ON BILLS BEFORE THE END OF THIS
YEAR. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT IS A LENGTHIER
PROCESS. IT REQUIRES MORE
ANALYSIS. IT WOULD PROBABLY
PRECLUDE THE COUNCIL FROM ACTING
ON THE BILLS THIS YEAR. SO IT
DEPENDS ON HOW FAR THE COUNCIL
WANTS TO GO AND WHAT THE IMPACTS
OF THE CHANGES OF THE COUNCIL
ARE HOLISTICALLY, LOOKING AT
EVERYTHING THE COUNCIL IS DOING.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA? THANK YOU,
CHAIR. LISH, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
DO YOU KNOW WHICH OF THESE YOU
THINK MIGHT TRIGGER THAT
ADDITIONAL ADDENDUM OR
SUPPLEMENTAL THIS?
>> AGAIN, IT WILL BE DEPENDENT
ON THE TOTALITY OF THE CHANGES.
SOME CHANGES WHEN TAKEN
TOGETHER, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IF
WE REMOVE OR REDUCE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALLOW MORE
DEVELOPMENT, THEN MAYBE THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS BALANCE
OUT FROM THE COMBINATION OF
THOSE CHANGES BECAUSE YOU HAVE
FEWER CARS ON THE ROAD SO YOU
ARE NOT TRIGGERING THE SAME
LEVEL OF INTERSECTIONAL IMPACTS
OF THE INCREASED GROWTH THAT YOU
ARE ALLOWING IN AN AREA. ON THE
OTHER HAND, THERE WILL BE OTHER
IMPACTS OF REDUCING PARKING
REQUIREMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU
MAY SEE MORE UNITS ON A
PARTICULAR LOT IF PEOPLE ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A PARKING
SPACE FOR EACH UNIT. WE WILL BE
TALKING WITH THE CONSULTING TEAM
THAT DEVELOPED THE ORIGINAL EIS
AND HOPEFULLY RELY ON THEIR
EXPERTISE TO HELP US WORK OUT
WHERE WE ARE GOING AND PROVIDE
MORE INPUT TO COUNCILMEMBERS
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF EACH OF THE
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
>> SO PARKING REQUIREMENTS, YOU
ARE SAYING THAT MIGHT BE ONE?
THE CHANGES THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FROM WHAT GOT SENT
DOWN MIGHT BE SOMETHING ?
>> ACTUALLY, CHANGES TO PARKING
REQUIREMENTS MIGHT MITIGATE SOME
OF THE IMPACTS. YOU HAVE LESS
AIR POLLUTION. YOU HAVE LESS
TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION
IMPACTS IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE
CARS. THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN -- RESEARCHERS HAVE
FOUND THAT IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE
A PARKING SPACE WITH A
RESIDENTIAL UNIT, MEMBERS OF
THOSE UNITS ARE LESS LIKELY TO
OWN A CAR.
>> WHAT THINGS ARE YOU THINKING
-- I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE
SAYING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
MIGHT MITIGATE FOR SOMETHING, SO
PERHAPS DON'T NEED A
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS. WOULD -- WHAT
WOULD THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
THE MITIGATING ?
>> ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT
INCREASE THE FLOOR RATIO THAT IS
PERMITTED , ADDING OR EXPANDING
A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MIGHT LEAD
TO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN
AREA WHERE IT WAS NOT UNDER THE
EIS. THOSE STAND OUT AS ONE'S
THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED
CAREFULLY.
>> AND THAT IS BECAUSE THAT
WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL THAT WAS ALREADY
STUDIED.
>> MOST, BUT NOT ALL OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS WERE A PART
OF THE EIS. THEY WERE INCLUDED
IN ALTERNATIVES TWO AND FIVE.
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DID
LOOK AT SORT OF A COLLECTION OF
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ACROSS THE
CITY TO ANALYZE WHAT ADDING
THOSE ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS BACK IN DOES TO THE
PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT ACROSS
THE CITY.
>> SO THAT MAY TRIGGER AN EIS, A
SUPPLEMENTAL.
>> YEAH. WE WON'T KNOW FOR A
WHILE.
>> GOT IT. ANYTHING ELSE, LISH,
KETIL, OR HB , THAT MIGHT
TRIGGER AN ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW?
>> THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SAY AND SO
WE KNOW WILL COLLECTIVELY THE
COUNCIL , THE DIRECTION THAT THE
COUNCIL IS TAKING AFTER A
COMMITTEE LEVEL VOTE ON ALL OF
THE AMENDMENTS. THINGS CAN
CHANGE HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT
HAPPENED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THE CITY. F.A.R. CHANGES,
CHANGES TO PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND MAY MAKE IT MORE
LIKELY THAT A SITE MAY BE
DEVELOPED, AND OTHER SUCH
CHANGES, AS WELL.
>> BUT CHANGES OF BOUNDARIES TO
INCREASE, NOT TO REDUCE, I WOULD
THINK. AND F.A.R., TO INCREASE,
NOT TO REDUCE. I GUESS WHAT I AM
TRYING TO , WHAT I AM HEARING --
I AM TRYING TO CHECK THAT WHAT
I'M HEARING IS ACCURATE. IS
MOSTLY RELATED TO MORE
DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT
WOULD HAVE A BIGGER IMPACT AND
IT HADN'T BEEN STUDIED IN THE
ORIGINAL EIS.
>> RIGHT. IF THE COUNCIL ALLOWS
FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT , THE GIVES
MORE PROTECTION TO TREES, THERE
IS SOME BALANCING THERE THAT
COUNCIL WILL NEED TO DO.
>> GOT IT. THANKS, LISH.
>> AWESOME. I KNOW THIS IS ALL
SPECULATION. I ASKED A LEADING
QUESTION. I AM NO LAWYER.
AWESOME. I WILL PAUSE THERE. I
WILL SEE IF THERE ARE, IF THERE
IS ANY OTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE
WRAP UP AND I TALKED ABOUT THE
NEXT STEPS. I THINK IT, LISH,
YOU DID ALREADY TALK ABOUT THE
NEXT STEPS IN TERMS OF TIMELINE.
I WILL TALK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF
OUR PERSPECTIVE AND THEN WE WILL
GO INTO DETAILS. WHEN WE FIRST
STARTED THIS PROCESS, OUR OFFICE
HAS LED WITH THE ACRONYM OF
WELCOMING, AFFORDABLE,
ACCESSIBLE, LIVING, AND SAFE.
LISTENED TO PEOPLE ACROSS THE
CITY WITH A FOCUS ON PEOPLE WHO
CALL IT HOME AND PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO CALL SEATTLE HOME . THE
FEEDBACK HAS BEEN POWERFUL.
PEOPLE TOLD US HOW MUCH THEY
LOVE THEIR BLOCKS, FROM THE
CLOSE-KNIT NEIGHBORS, ACCESSIBLE
SCHOOLS, WALKABLE PARKS,
MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILIES,
TREE-LINED CANOPIES, STRONG
TRANCE LINES. WE ALSO HEARD FROM
PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY DON'T OWN A
CAR OR THE RENT IS TOO HIGH OR
DON'T LET THEM TAKE MY HOME
BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO BE
HERE. THEY HAVE BEEN PRICED OUT
AND THEY CAN'T MAKE IT WORK. IT
IS A MIX. IT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.
WE CANNOT IGNORE THE TRUTH THAT
SEATTLE HAS A HISTORY OF
PROTECTING SOME NEIGHBORHOODS
OVER OTHERS. BECAUSE OF THAT,
FAMILY ROOTS HAVE BEEN TORN OUT
BLOCK BY BLOCK. SOMETIMES THE
CULTURE WE EXPERIENCE IN
SEATTLE, FESTIVALS OR EVENTS, IT
IS VERY SEASONAL . WE WANT TO
SEE IT LIVE EVERY DAY ON OUR
STREETS. EVERY DAY WE ARE
GRIEVING OVER TREES AND WE WANT
TO PROTECT THEM. I ALSO CARRY
THAT SAME ENERGY FOR TREE ROOTS
AND FAMILY ROOTS. THEY CAN EXIST
TOGETHER. WE CAN DO THIS WITH
THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IF WE
WANT MORE HOUSING WE HAVE TO
MODERNIZE OUR APPROACH. THAT
MEANS UPDATING CODES,
OVERHAULING PERMITTING
PROCESSES, EATING CREATIVE AT
LOOKING AT HOW OTHER CITIES DO
IT BETTER, POTENTIALLY USING
TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE IT FASTER AND
PRIORITIZING FAMILY, KIDS, AND
MULTIGENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLDS.
THAT IS THE SEATTLE WE LOVE AND
WANT TO KEEP. I ALSO UNDERSTAND
THAT WE ARE NOT THE FIRST
CARETAKERS OF THIS LAND. OUR
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY IS. SOME OF
US HAVE GENERATIONAL ROOTS HERE.
SOME CAME FOR COLLEGE AND
STAYED. SOME CAME FOR JOBS, SOME
FOR SAFETY. WE ARE ALL WELCOME
IN THE CITY. THAT COMES AS A
RESPONSIBILITY. WE HAVE TO
PROTECT AND SHAPE THIS PLACE
TOGETHER. THE AMENDMENTS YOU
HEARD FROM ME PARTICULARLY
TODAY, OUR BONUS FOR ACCESSIBLE
UNITS, BALCONIES FROM MY TRAVEL
OVERSEAS AND VANCOUVER AND
TORONTO, SOCIAL HOUSING BONUSES
, PROVIDING POLICY DIRECTION FOR
FOOD ACCESS , MARITIMES, FREIGHT
MOVEMENT, THERE ARE A LOT OF
THINGS THAT I HEARD. ADDING
GOALS FOR MULTI-BEDROOM HOUSING.
THE CONVERSION OF HOMES TO
DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEX BUSINESS,
AS WELL. EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE
THE SAME OPPORTUNITY MY FAMILY
HAD TO CREATE MORE HOUSING FOR
FOLKS . I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT
WE HAVE TO START BECOMING A
YOUNG CITY. BEING YOUNG IN THE
CITY AND FINDING HOUSING IS AN
INCREDIBLE CHALLENGE, NOT JUST A
CHALLENGE THAT IS UPHILL, BUT
ONE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT WINNING
RIGHT NOW. WE ARE LOSING THAT
BATTLE RIGHT NOW. WE NEED MORE
OF IT. WHAT IS NEXT? WE ARE SO
EARLY IN THIS PROCESS. THIS IS
JUST THE BEGINNING. THE
AMENDMENTS WILL BE POSTED
PUBLICLY FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS TO
GATHER YOUR FEEDBACK. WE HAVE
RECESS FROM AUGUST 16 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 1. FROM AUGUST 4
THROUGH AUGUST 15, WE HAVE
SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH ALL OF
YOU ON YOUR CALENDAR SO WE CAN
FIND A CONSENSUS AND UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOUR VALUES ARE. WE WILL
RETURN SEPTEMBER 2. THE PUBLIC
HEARING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 12 AT
9:30 A.M. WE WILL POST THAT AND
THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD
TO FEEDBACK BETWEEN NOW AND THEN
ON OUR AMENDMENTS. WE ARE
LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING HOW
WE CAN SHAPE AND CRAFT THIS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE FINAL
VOTE IS EXPECTED OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 17
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 19. WE HAVE
THREE MEETINGS SCHEDULED THAT
DAY. BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, WE
WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. TELL US
WHAT IS MISSING OR WHAT WE NEED
TO CHANGE SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO
BUILD THIS TOGETHER. WITH THAT,
OUR NEXT MEETING WITH THIS BODY
WILL BE SEPTEMBER 12, WHICH IS A
FRIDAY, AT 9:30 A.M. THAT WILL
BE OUR PUBLIC HEARING BETWEEN
NOW AND THEN, COLLEAGUES, WE
HAVE A TON OF WORK TO DO. YOU
WILL BE READING AND ABSORBING
ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS. WE WILL
FIGURE OUT HOW THEY INTERACT
WITH EACH OTHER. WE LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING THAT COMMUNITY
PROCESS WITH YOU ALL. I WANT TO
TAKE THIS TIME TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF. EVERYONE HAS THANKED YOU.
YOU ALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETE ROCK
STARS DURING THIS PROCESS. I
KNOW YOU PROBABLY HAVE A TON OF
CAFFEINE IN YOU RIGHT NOW,
ESPECIALLY YOU, LISH. AND KETIL.
AND HP, ALL THREE