>>> GOOD MORNING. THE SEPTEMBER
18th, 2025
MEETING OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL COME TO
ORDER.
THE CURRENT TIME IS 9:36.
I AM JOY HOLLINGSWORTH, CHAIR
OF THE COMMITTEE.
CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
[ ROLL CALL ]
>> SEVEN PRESENT.
>> FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL
MEMBER SOLOMON IS EXCUSED
AND COUNCIL MEMBER RANK IS
EXCUSED.
CAN WE TAKE THE ROLE ONE MORE
TIME, PLEASE?
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> AND COUNCIL MEMBERMEMBER
RANK, AS
WELL.
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL
COUNCIL MEMBER RINK FOR THE
CALL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RINK.
>> PRESENT.
>> EIGHT PRESENT.
>> FOR THE RECORD,
COUNCIL MEMBER SOLOMON IS
EXCUSED.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTIONS, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NONE, AND SEEING NONE,
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
SO GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
TODAY, JUST A HEADS UP,
WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY,
AS
ALWAYS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A GREAT
DAY.
IT'S A GREAT DAY TO BE A
COUNCIL
MEMBER.
TODAY, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO
BE ACCEPTING WRITTEN, PUBLIC
COMMENT. PLEASE DROP OFF
COMMENTS AT THE FRONT OF
CHAMBERS OR SEND US
YOUR THOUGHTS
ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THE
WEBSITE.
TODAY, WE ARE GOING -- WE HAVE A
FULL AGENDA AND A FULL
DAY, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SO REALLY EXCITED TO GET THIS
PROCESS STARTED.
WE WILL BE TACKLING AMENDMENTS
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
VOTE. AS A REMINDER, WE
SPLIT THESE TWO THREE
CATEGORIES.
WE VOTED YESTERDAY ON THE
CHAIR'S PACKAGE, AS WELL AS
ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PULLED
OUT OF THE CONSENT PACKAGE, AS
WELL.
SO WE VOTED ON THOSE YESTERDAY.
DAY TWO, WE ARE VOTING
ON INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE
NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONSENT
PACKAGE.
THESE ARE FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
MAYBE SOMEONE ASKED THAT THE
AMENDMENT BE MORE DISCUSSED,
MORE THAN ONE PERSON ASKED THAT.
WASN'T SURE HOW COUNCIL
WOULD FEEL ABOUT IT AFTER
TALKING TO
DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
AND UNDERSTANDING THEIR VALUES
AND WHAT THEY WANTED.
AND THEN ALSO, IF YOU
PROPOSED BOUNDARIES THAT ARE
DIFFERENT -- OR DIFFERENT
AMENDMENTS THAT
THE BOUNDARIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, REGIONAL OR URBAN
CENTERS THAT WERE CHANGED.
WE ALSO HAVE A RESOLUTION, AND
WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT
MORE LATER.
WE WILL NOW BEGIN THE DISCUSSION
ON THE AMENDMENTS AS FOLLOWS --
COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL MOVE
THEIR -- THIS
IS HOW TODAY IS GOING TO GO.
COUNCIL MEMBER ALSO MOVE THEIR
AMENDMENTS. AFTER RECEIVING A
SECOND, CENTRAL STAFF THAT WE
HAVE HERE
WILL PROVIDE US AN OVERVIEW
OF THAT AMENDMENT.
AND JUST TO CONFIRM, WE'LL
HAVE THAT ON THE SCREEN AS WELL,
SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT ON
THE
SCREEN. I KNOW YOU HAVE
A BUNCH OF PAPERS IN FRONT OF
YOU.
THE SPONSOR WILL THEN ADDRESS
THAT AMENDMENT.
MEMBERS WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT BEFORE A
VOTE ON
EACH
AMENDMENT. JUST A HEADS UP, WE
HAVE 40
PLUS AMENDMENTS, AND SO WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO GET THROUGH
THEM, SO
I KINDLY ASK THAT WE KEEP OUR
COMMENTS -- NOT TELLING YOU HOW
LONG YOU SHOULD TAKE, BUT
WE JUST KEEP OUR COMMENTS
CONDENSED
AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
BUT PLEASE, THIS IS FOR AN OPEN
DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERENT
AMENDMENTS.
THESE STEPS WILL BE
REPEATED TO EACH PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
THE ORDER WILL BE CONSIDERED
IN NUMERICAL ORDER.
AMENDMENTS THAT CONFLICT
WITH EACH OTHER WILL BE
CONSIDERED
LAST.
SO WE ASK CENTRAL STAFF TO GO
AND LOOK AT THE
AMENDMENTS THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY CONFLICT WITH
EACH OTHER SO WE CAN VOTE
ON THOSE LAST, BECAUSE I DIDN'T
WANT US TO GO THROUGH NUMERICAL
ORDER, AND YOU SAW ONE AMENDMENT
IN HIGHER ORDER
AND THEY MIGHT HAVE CONFLICTED
WITH EACH OTHER.
SO I ASKED CENTRAL STAFF TO
PULL THOSE OUT, AND WE WILL VOTE
ON THOSE AFTER WE GO THROUGH
THE AMENDMENTS IN NUMERICAL
ORDER.
I WILL PAUSE HERE TO SEE
IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
SO APOLOGIES, I DON'T HAVE --
I HAVE THE MEMO THAT HAS THE
ORDER BY THE BILL.
BUT I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE
SHEET WITH THE REORDERED --
THE ONES THAT GOT REORDERED.
>> OKAY.
SO, THANK YOU.
WE WILL GO -- THAT'S FINE.
WE WILL GO ONE BY ONE THROUGH --
THERE WASN'T A SHEET THAT WAS
MADE.
LET ME REPEAT. THERE WASN'T A
SHEET THAT
WAS MADE THAT SHOWED THOSE.
WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH
AMENDMENT.
I THINK WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL
IS THAT WHEN WE REACH AN
AMENDMENT
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PULLED, AND
I THINK THAT WE ONLY HAVE
TWO THAT GO AND CONFLICT
WITH EACHEACH OTHER FOR THE
COMP.
SO LET ME TELL YOU
WHAT THOSE TWO ARE.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
>> 34 AND 50.
>> AMENDMENTS 34 AND 50 ARE
CONFLICTING -- NOT CONFLICTING,
BUT --
>> ONLY ONE OPTION CAN BE
ADOPTED.
>> SO 34 AND 50, COUNCIL
MEMBERS, 34 AND 50 WILL BE
VOTED ON AT THE END, 34 AND 50.
SO IF YOU WRITE THOSE NUMBERS
DOWN.
I FEEL LIKE A BIGO O -- BINGO
CALLER.
34,
50. I DID NOT SAY 42, NO.
34 AND 50.
>> THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> AMENDMENTS 34 AND 50.
SO AMENDMENT 34 INCLUDES
A VERSION OF A NICKERSON
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER,
AND AMENDMENT 50 INCLUDES
A DIFFERENT VERSION OF NICKERSON
CENTER.
THERE'S NO EAST VALORVALOR
AMENDMENT.
SO THERE'S NO CONFLICT THERE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. WOODSON.
I WAS THINKING ABOUT ANOTHER
CONFLICT THAT WILL COME UP IN
DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME.
SO WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE?
IT'S 34 AND 50.
THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS WILL
BE VOTED ON
IN THE END. FOR NOW, WE'LL GO
IN NUMERICAL
ORDER.
NOW, FOR THE OTHER BILL, FOR
HOUSE BILL 11- 10, THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
THAT CONFLICT, AND I WILL ASK
STAFF FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET A
SHEET SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE
FOLLOW ALONG FOR THAT.
RIGHT NOW, WE'LL
ADDRESS THIS
ONE FIRST.
OKAY? AWESOME.
THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
OKAY.
SO, I ASK -- I HAVE LETTERS --
I HAVE NUMBERS ON MY SHEETS
RIGHT NOW, AND I STILL LOST MY
PLACE.
>> YOU WANT ME TO READ
IT INTO THE RECORD?
>> YES, ITEM NUMBER ONE.
>> COUNCIL, REPLACING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH NEW
GOALS, POLICIES AND ELEMENTS AND
DISCUSSION OF
A POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> AWESOME, THANK YOU.
WE WILL BE -- CONTINUE
OUR DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO
COUNCIL BILL, THE KOCH COMP
PLAN, AND
AMENDMENTS FOR POTENTIAL
CONFLICT.
SO NOW, I'M GOING TO ASK
COUNCIL MEMBERS -- SO WE'RE
GOING TO
START WITH NUMBER 7.
COUNCIL MEMBER RINK, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120-985 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 7.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THE COUNCIL
BILL
AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 7.
CENTRAL STAFF,
PLEASE PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF
THE AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
AMENDMENT 7 AMENDS A FEW
POLICIES IN THE ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REMOVE
REQUIREMENTS FOR --
REMOVE POLICY DIRECTION THAT
LEADS US
TO REQUIRE OFF-
STREET PARKING SPACES TO BE
DEVELOPED.
IN PARTICULAR, REMOVES LU-5.
1 WHICH SAYS WE WILL USE
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
WHERE
APPROPRIATE, AND LU-5. 2
WHICH SAYS WE WILL SET MINIMUM
PARKING REQUIREMENTS WHERE THEY
ARE IMPLEMENTED.
AND THEN EXPANDS THE IMPACT OF
POLICY LU-5. 3, WHICH SAYS AVOID
SETTING MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING.
>> AWESOME.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR
TO ADDRESS
IT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
PARKING MANDATES ARE JUST THAT,
MANDATES. AND ARBITRARY NUMBER
WITH
NO SCIENTIFIC A -- PARKING IS
IMPORTANT, DON'T GET ME WRONG.
DELIVERIES, PRIORITY PARKING
FOR FOLKS WITH DISABILITIES, OUR
ELDERS, LOADING AND
UNLOADING ZONES AND MORE ARE
STILL ESSENTIAL, AND I WILL ADD
THAT AS SOMEONE WHO CHOOSES NOT
TO
OWN A CAR, I KNOW IT ISN'T
FOR THE FEINT OF HEART, BUT
I REPRESENT 20% OF
SEATTLE HOUSEHOLDS THAT NOW LIVE
CAR-FREE.
AND WE KNOW IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE GOALS AND
OUR
VISION ZERO GOALS, WE NEED TO
BE WORKING TO GET MORE FOLKS OUT
OF CARS, WALKING, USING OUR
TRANSIT SYSTEM, AND BIKING.
AND SO WE NEED TO BE TAKING
STEPS IN ORDER TO BE MOVING
TOWARDS THAT
FUTURE. THIS MEANS REMOVING THE
MANDATE WE HAVE PUT ON BUILDERS
TO EXPECT MORE CARS THAN ARE
NEEDED.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY SOME RECENT
DATA THAT CAME OUT THAT OVER
THE PAST FIVE YEARS, CAR
OWNERSHIP IN SEATTLE HAS
REMAINED ROUGHLY
STAGNANT AND HAS NOT
GROWN DESPITE OUR POPULATION
GROWTH.
I THINK THIS IS A FANTASTIC SIGN
MOVING FORWARD, BUT SHOULD
REQUIRE US TO THINK CRITICALLY
ABOUT HOW WE ARE PLANNING
FOR PARKING IN THE CITY,
BECAUSE PARKING ARTIFICIALLY
INFLATES COSTS FOR PROJECTS,
CAUSING HIGHER HOUSING PRICES.
BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS
IS NOT AN END TO PARKING
WHATSOEVER, BUT AN END
TO PARKING MANDATES.
BUILDERS AND HOUSING PROVIDERS
WILL CONTINUE TO MEET DEMAND FOR
PARKING IN THEIR PROJECTS
AS NEEDED AND IT MAKES
SENSE, BECAUSE UNITS WITH
PARKING
DEVELOPERS COST A LOT OF MONEY.
WE RECEIVED IN FUNDING, THE
FINDINGS OF A STUDY CONCLUDED
THIS INCREASES THE MEDIAN
PRICE OF A HOUSE BY $26,000.
DEPENDING ON IF PARKING IS A
SURFACE SPOT OR A GARAGE.
FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES,
THE COST OF PARKING CONSTRUCTION
AND
THE MAINTENANCE ARE BUILT INTO
THE
RENT, WHETHER YOU'RE PARKING
ON SITE
OR NOT. FOR THOSE WHO DO, THEY
WILL
PAY A PARKING FEE, HUNDREDS
OF DOLLARS A MONTH.
PARKING MANDATES CAN BE A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
PROJECT MOVING FORWARD OR BEING
SCALED BACK OR CANCELED
ALL TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY ON
SMALLER LOTS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE
ACCOMMODATE MIDDLE HOUSING,
LARGE PORTIONS OF THE LOT NEED
TO BE PAVED FOR
CAR STORAGE AND NOT HOUSING.
AND I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT
INDIRECTLY MANAGING SOMETHING
IS NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS
DIRECTLY MANAGING IT.
IF WE WANT TO MANAGE CURB
SPACE, LET'S PRICE CURB
SPACE APPROPRIATELY TO ENSURE
THAT WE HAVE IT.
WE HAVE BEEN LIVING
UNDER PARKING MANDATES FOR A
NUMBER OF
YEARS.
THEY HAVEN'T QUITE WORKED.
THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF SPACE ON
THE CURB IF THERE IS ENOUGH
OFF- STREET PARKING, BUT THE
CURB ALWAYS FILLS UP FIRST.
WITH THAT IN MIND,
I HOPE YOU
WILL SUPPORT SEATTLE IN JOINING
THE RANKS OF CITIES, BIG AND
SMALL, ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, ENDING THESE
MANDATES. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THE CITY
SO FAR HERE IN
WASHINGTON THAT HAVE ENDED
MANDATES, SPOKANE,
BREMERTON, BELLINGHAM, AND OUR
NEIGHBOR, SHORELINE.
BY ENDING THIS URBAN
DESIGN, PSEUDO SCIENCE AND TO
CUT
THE COST OF HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
IN
SEATTLE. I WANT TO ALSO NOTE
THAT
THIS AMENDMENT IS LINKED TO
AMENDMENT
84, SINCE
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS
REFERENCES TO PARKING.
SO IF WE WERE TO REMOVE
THESE MANDATES IN THE COMP
PLAN, LEGISLATION NEEDS TO
REFLECT
THAT.
THANK YOU FOR THE
TIME, CHAIR. AND COLLEAGUES, I
ASK FOR YOUR
SPORT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBER. I WANT TO SEE IF NICKEL
ANY
COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, SHARE.
ON THIS AMENDMENT, COLLEAGUES,
WE DO NOT HAVE THE LEVEL
OF PUBLIC TRANSIT YET, AND
FAMILIES
NEED CARS IN THIS CITY.
THE CITY AND THE STATE
BOTH ENCOURAGED ELECTRIC
VEHICLES
AS A WAY TO REDUCE OUR CARBON
FOOT
PRINT.
PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN ON BOARD.
WE HAVE A LOT OF ELECTRIC
VEHICLES, AND THEY NEED PARKING.
I SUPPORT, DIDN'T HAVE A
DRIVER'S LICENSE UNTIL I
WAS 30 AND I TRY TO USE PUBLIC
TRANSIT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
WE STILL NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE PARKING
PROVIDED FOR
THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO USE IT.
80% OF THE PEOPLE NEED TO USE A
CAR FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
WHILE I SUPPORT THE EFFORTS
TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS
WHOLE HEARTEDLY, WE STILL ARE
IN A PLACE WHERE FOLKS NEED
PARKING
IN THE CITY.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WON'T
BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT,
BUT
I DON'T WANT IT TO BE SAID THAT
I
DO NOT SUPPORT CLIMATE GOALS.
I VERY MUCH DO.
THAT'S WHY I
HAVE THE AMENDMENT I HAVE LATER
ON INTO THESE
LIST OF VOTES.
AND I DO SUPPORT VERY MUCH
TRYING TO GET FOLKS OUT OF THEIR
CARS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AND
WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON?
>> THIS IS A VERY WORTHY
EFFORT TO ADDRESS A VERY WEIGHTY
POLICY
CONCERN. SO I FEEL LIKE I --
THIS
MERITS
MORE DISCUSSION THAN WE CAN HAVE
HERE.
PARKING PLACES, I'M TOLD,
UNDERGROUND PARKING PLACES
ADD ABOUT $45,000 TO HOUSING --
TO APARTMENTS IN HIGH RISES.
SO THAT IS -- IT IS
VERY EXPENSIVE AND IT RAISES THE
COST OF HOUSING.
AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN I TALK
TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
DISTRICTS, THEY'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT
ELIMINATING COMPLETELY
ALL PARKING WITHOUT A SEAT
AT THE TABLE TO DISCUSS THEIR
NEEDS FOR
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PARK
CLOSE TO THEIR BUSINESSES JUST
TO
SHOP THERE.
AND THEY'RE CONCERNED
THAT RESIDENTS JUST END UP
PARKING
ON WHEREVER.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE STILL
STILL
UNDERSTAFFED IN PARKING
ENFORCEMENT.
SO I'M JUST SIGNALING THAT I DO
THINK THAT WE NEED TO
COMPLETELY LOOK AT OUR PARKING
POLICIES,
HOWEVER RIGHT NOW I FEEL LIKE
THAT IS A CONVERSATION THAT
MERITS HAVING A FULL
DISCUSSION WITH ALL PARTIES
IMPACTED.
SO I AM GOING TO BE VOTING NO.
BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR AT
LEAST SIGNALING THAT THIS IS --
THIS MERITS OUR ATTENTION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I FIRST WANT TO THANK
COUNCIL MEMBER RINK FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN BRING THING
PROPOSAL FORTH.
FORESEEING ALL OF US AS A CITY
TO HAVE
UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT THE ROLE AND
RELEVANCE OF CARS IN OUR CITY.
TODAY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY OVER
THE NEXT TWO DECADES.
I AM ENCOURAGED BY SOME OF THE
DATA THAT WE HAVE
AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF OVERALL
CAR OWNERSHIP
RATES.
AT LEAST NOT GROWING.
AND AS WE BUILD AND GROW AND
EXPAND TRANSIT, AND IMPROVE OUR
ROADS, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE THAT
TREND ONLY INCREASING.
AND SO AS CHAIR OF
OUR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE,
I'VE BEEN KEENLY AWARE OF SOME
OF THE
PARKING ISSUES AND
CONCERNS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY,
AND PARKING IS ONE OF THE TOP
CONSTITUENT CONCERNS THAT WE
HEAR IN OUR OFFICE.
IT IS COMPELLING THAT TAKING --
REMOVING THIS REQUIREMENT
COULD POTENTIALLY LOWER
DEVELOPMENT
COSTS, WHICH WOULD ALSO ASSIST
WITH HOUSING GOALS,
ESPECIALLY NEAR TRANSIT.
THAT SAID, IT ALSO INCREASES --
THERE'S ALSO A CORRESPONDING
INCREASE OF A NEED FOR ANTIVE
ON STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT,
SUCH AS CURB SPACE,
PRICING MANAGEMENT.
BASICALLY, SOME SPILLOVER
IMPACTS.
AS WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS FEWER
CARS, WHICH I STRONGLY SUPPORT,
PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW I GET
AROUND KNOW THAT I PRACTICE WHAT
I PREACH IN TERMS OF TRUE
MULTIMOTO TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS.
BUT I HAVE
ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT WE NEED
TO MAINTAIN A
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM. I THINK IT'S A GREAT
IDEA.
WHAT GIVES ME SOME INITIAL
PAUSE AND CONCERN IS IT JUST
HASN'T GONE THROUGH THE LEVEL
OF
REVIEW AND STUDY THAT SOME OF
THE
OTHER CONCRETE PROPOSALS, AND
THAT'S WHY I'M COMFORTED BY
THE
FACT THAT IT IS IN THE COMPANION
RESOLUTION, AND ONCE WE HAVE
THOSE REQUISITE STUDIES THATTHAT
RESOLUTION CALLS ON, I THINK OUR
CITY WILL BE WELL POSITIONED
TO QUICKLY IMPLEMENT.
BUT FOR NOW, FOR PURPOSES OF
REQUIRING THIS RIGHT NOW IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY ADDITIONAL STUDY
ANALYSIS, I JUST DON'T THINK
IT MAKES SENSE AT THIS MOMENT IN
TIME.
BUT, AGAIN, THE COMPANION
RESOLUTION DOES CALL FOR
THE APPROPRIATE ANALYSIS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD, AND
FORCING THESE IMPORTANT
CONVERSATIONS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBER. ANYMORE COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT
NUMBER SEVEN?
SEEING NONE, AS SPONSOR OF
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7,
COUNCIL MEMBER RINK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED FOR CLOSING COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES,
FOR YOUR REMARKS AND
CONSIDERATION OF THIS AMENDMENT.
I KNOW THIS IS TO BE
INCLUDED ALSO IN OUR COMPANION
RESOLUTION
FOR FURTHER STUDY.
ALL INDICATORS AS WE TALKED
ABOUT PREVIOUSLY THAT SOMETHING
LIKE THIS WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE
IMPACT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT GIVEN
THAT WE WOULD
BE PLANNING FOR HAVING LESS
CARS.
SO CLOSE, I WOULD SAY
THIS ISN'T THE END OF
PARKING. JUST TO AFFIRM ANY OF
THE LISTENING PUBLIC, THIS
DOESN'T SIGNAL THE END OF
PARKING. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A
CONTINUED DISCUSSION WITH THIS
BODY HOW
WE PLAN FOR PARKING IN THE
FUTURE, BUT HOPING WE CAN KEEP
AN
OPEN MIND FOR THE FUTURE OF THE
CITY.
I SEE FAMILIES GETTING
AROUND EVERY DAY.
ON
THE BUS TO WORK THIS MORNING, I
SAW A MOM WITH HER TWO
KIDS RIGHT ON THE G-LINE.
SO FAMILIES CAN GET THROUGH TOWN
USING TRANSIT, AS WELL.
I KNOW IT'S A BIT OF A PROCESS
TO THINK THROUGH, AND HOPING
WE CAN BE A VISIONARY AND THINK
ABOUT WHAT THAT FUTURE CAN LOOK
LIKE. SO COLLEAGUES, I
APPRECIATE
YOUR QUESTIONS AND
YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME.
THANK YOU.
WE CAN START WITH FIXING THE
LATE EIGHT. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENT NUMBER
7. [ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> ONE IN FAVOR, SIX
OPPOSED, ONE ABSTENTION.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
AND WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE
NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
GOOD MORNING, COLLEAGUES.
I MOVE AMENDMENT EIGHT TO
COUNCIL BILL 120985.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO MOVE THE BILL AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT.
STAFF, PLEASE PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT.
>> PLATFORM FOUR TALKS ABOUT
USING MAXIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS TO
DISCOURAGE SINGLE OCCUPANCY
TRAVEL, WHERE
APPROPRIATE. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD
CLARIFY THAT WHERE APPROPRIATE
AND SAY
THAT MAXIMUM
PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE
APPLIED IN REGIONAL CENTERS THAT
ARE CERTIFIED BY LIGHT RAIL.
WE HAVE MAXIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS, AND MOST OF
THE REGIONAL CENTERS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY SERVED BY LIGHT
RAIL,
BUT NOT ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS THE
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THE FIRST TIME I SAW THIS
POLICY USED, I WAS CONFUSED.
WHY WOULD YOU PUT A
PARKING MAXIMUM SOMEWHERE?
IT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR --
IF WE WERE TO BUILD A SPECIFIC
PLACE, A SHOPPING MALL, IT'S
NOT
DESIGNED FOR THAT.
THIS IS DESIGNED FOR PARKING
GARAGES, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IN
PLACES WHERE LIGHT RAIL SERVES
AN AREA THAT THERE
IS SPECIFICALLY IN THE
INDUSTRIAL
ZONE, THE
INDUSTRIAL MARITIME ZONING
CHANGES A FEW YEARS AGO.
SOTO AND VALOR BOTH HAVE
INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT
WOULD ALLOW PARKING GARAGES.
HOWEVER, IF A PARKING GARAGE
IS BUILT BECAUSE THERE'S LIGHT
RAIL NEARBY, IT'S NOT THE
HIGHEST
AND BEST USE OF THAT INDUSTRIAL
LAND. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT'S
CREW
IN OUR REGIONAL CENTERS.
SO THE CONNECTION HERE IS
LIGHT RAIL AND A REGIONAL
CENTER.
THE POLICY DECISION HERE,
OUTCOME THAT WE ARE
WORKING TOWARDS IS TO ENSURE
THAT
PEOPLE NOT BUY LARGE PARCELS AND
THEN
DEVELOP IT INTO SOLELY A PARKING
GARAGE
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY SERVED BY
LIGHT RAIL.
THAT'S WHAT I GOT.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
I WILL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF
ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE AMENDMENT.
WELL, I GUESS YOU EXPLAINED THAT
PERFECTLY, COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS.
>> OR EVERYONE DOESN'T LIKE
IT, EITHER WAY.
>> I'LL JUST
BE THE GLASS IS HALF FULL.
COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING
--
>> NO, CHAIR.
>> AWESOME.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> SIX IN FAVOR, ONE
OPPOSED, ONE ABSTENTION.
>> MOTION CARRIES AND
THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
NOW THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT, NUMBER 24.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND 120985
WITH AMENDMENT 24.
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED TO MOVE
THE BILL
AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 24,
CENTRAL STAFF,
PLEASE PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF
THE AMENDMENT.
>> ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY
4. 3 TALKS ABOUT WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD FOCUS
THAT POLICY, PROVIDE MORE OF AA
ON COMMUNITIES THAT
HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN IMPACTED
BY THIS
INVESTMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTIONS, SUCH AS SOUTH PARK.
AND EMPHASIZE HIRING LOCAL
RESIDENTS AS PART OF
THOSE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS.
AND TRY AND PARTNER WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT WITH
CLIMATE RESILIENCY IN THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT ALSO AMENDS POLICY
ED-4.6 IN SIMILAR WAYS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, AS
SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS IT.
>> THANK YOU,
CHAIR. THIS SIMPLY ENHANCES THE
EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SYSTEM AND DEVELOPING OUR FORK
WORSE.
COLLEAGUES, IN DISTRICT
ONE, NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE SOUTH
PARK
AND GEORGETOWN HAVE BEEN
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED
BY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES,
WHERE THE LAND WAS, IN MANY
CASES
EXPLOITED AND LOTS OF PROFITS
GENERATED.
BUT THOSE PROFITS WERE EXPORTED
OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY.
MEANWHILE, THE COMMUNITY HAS
LANGUISHED AND SEEN -- BEEN
BURDENED BY THE IMPACTS OF
SOME OF THAT INDUSTRY AND GROWTH
THAT
OUR ENTIRE WATER REGION
BENEFITED FROM.
SO THIS REALLY ADDS EMPHASIS
TO ADDRESSING THAT.
AS A POLICY VALUE AND
STATEMENT, EMPHASIZING THINGS
LIKE
HIRING LOCAL RESIDENTS AND
GROWING EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS TO
COMMUNITY MEMBERS FACING
SYSTEMIC BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT.
COLLEAGUES IN EVERY SINGLE
HAVE, THERE ARE COMMUNITIES
THAT SUFFER FROM HISTORICAL
UNDERINVESTMENT AND ARE
DISADVANTAGED IN SOME WAY,
ALTHOUGH IT IS FAIR TO SAY IN MY
OPINION THAT THOSE SOUTH OF
THE SHIP CANALS SUFFER THE
WORST.
BUT THIS REALLY BENEFITS ALL
DISTRICTS, ALL COMMUNITIES
WHEN WE CENTER THE EXPERIENCES
AND
TRY TO CORRECT FOR
SOME HISTORICAL WRONGS.
AND DOING RIGHT BY EVERYBODY.
SO I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
I THINK IT'S, AGAIN, A
FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD POLICY
AND
VALUE STATEMENT.
JUST AS AN ASIDE, WENT THROUGH
A FEW WORD SMITHING ITERATIONS
WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT
RATHER.
AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE
MEMO THERE ARE STILL SOME
POTENTIAL
LEGAL
CONCERNS. I DO STRONGLY
BELIEVEBELIEVE THE
POLICY, RATIONAL AND
JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS
AMENDMENT OUTWEIGHS ANY
POTENTIAL
LEGAL RISK OR EXPOSURE.
WE NEED TO STAND UP FOR OUR
VALUES AND WHAT WE BELIEVE
IN AND FIGHT BACK.
AND I DON'T CARE WHO'S IN
OFFICE.
SO I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
AGAIN, FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
WE'LL PAUSE TO SEE IF ANYONE
HAS COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT NUMBER
24.
SEEING NONE, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 24.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR.
>> MOTION CARRIES AND
THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE'LL NOW CONSIDER THE
NEXT
AMENDMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 33.
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE NUMBER 33 TO COUNCIL
BILL 120950.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
PRESENTED.
ALL YOU.
>> SO THE CONFERENCE OF
PLANNING INCLUDES NEW
NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, AND INCLUDES
POLICIES ABOUT WHAT SORT OF
ZONING IS
APPROPRIATE IN THOSE CENTERS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD AMEND THAT
LANGUAGE TO STATE
THATTHAT BUILDINGS GREATER THAN
STORIES MAY
BE APPROPRIATE NEAR LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY
TWO NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
NEAR PLANNED LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS, NOT
ALONG THE CURRENT LINE.
AND JUST TO EMPHASIZE THIS
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN UPDATED
SINCE THE ORIGINAL PACKET WAS
RELEASED TO FOCUS ON LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS, AS SPONSOR OF
THIS
AMENDMENT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS IT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, THIS AMENDMENT --
FIRST I WANT TO SAY I
HEARD COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
WHEN WE DEVELOPED
THIS AMENDMENT, IT WAS REALLY
FOR
ME FOCUSSED ON LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
THAT
HAVE LIGHT RAIL STATIONS.
AND THE WORDS, AND
OTHER AMENITIES WERE INCLUDED.
I HEARD COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TO
SAY THAT CAN OPEN THE DOOR TO
X, Y, Z, FILL IN THE BLANK.
THAT'S WHY WE CHANGED
THE AMENDMENT.
IT IS SO FOCUSED HOW ARE WEWE
DENSITY NEAR IT LOO
RAIL.
THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE US IS AN
ALLOWANCE FOR BUILDINGS TO
BE TALLER THAN SIX STORIES, NOT
A
REQUIREMENT. CAN YOU REMIND ME,
IS
PINEHURST IS THE ONLY
NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER THAT WILL HAVE LIGHT RAIL
IN THIS NEXT YEAR?
THAT'S DISCOUNTING ST- 3
EXPANSION.
>> PINEHURST WILL BE AN URBAN
CENTER, NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER. THE TWO ON THE FUTURE
LIGHT
RAIL ARE --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> THAT'S GREAT.
NEITHER OF THOSE STATIONS
ARE PLANNED TO BE OPENED FOR
PROBABLY A DECADE.
AND THE REASON
THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME IS,
IF WE
LEAVE THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS
IT
IS, AND THOSE LIGHT
RAIL STATIONS COME
ONLINE EARLIER, YES, I KNOW THAT
THE
NEWS HAS JUST BEEN THAT IT MIGHT
TAKE
LONGER. BUT I WILL TELL YOU
THAT THERE ARE WAYS IT MIGHT
COME FASTER.
IF WE WERE TO CREATE THESE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, AND
THEN IT WOULD BE SERVED BY LIGHT
RAIL, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TOTO BE
ABLE BUILD HIGHER THAN
SIX STORIES AND COME BACK AND
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
THEN ALLOW FOR THAT ZONING
CHANGE.
THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE US IS
A POLICY CHANGE ACROSS
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS TO SAY
THAT AS LIGHT RAIL STATIONS COME
ON
IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
WOULD
NOT HAVE TO AMEND THE COMP
PLAN TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE
ZONING.
AGAIN, NOT A REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS AN ALLOWANCE, AND I
LOVE TO EARN YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
SO THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SINCE
2014,
'15.
THAT'S WHY D- 5 HAS TWO LIGHT
RAIL STATIONS. I KNOW THAT
PINEHURST WAS ADDED
AS AN URBAN CENTER TO THE OTHER
25, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> SO WHAT WE ARE DEALING
WITH, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE, I
WASN'T HERE FOR A BIT, BUT A
LOT
OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WERE
STILL GOING ON WHEN I WAS HERE.
SO I JUST WANT TO
THANK COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
THIS IS THE STUFF WE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT SINCE THIS
BECAME VERY FASHIONABLE 15 YEARS
AGO ABOUT TRANSIT ORIENTED
HOUSING.
THE DENSITY AT NORTH GATE HAS
JUST EXPLODED WITH AFFORDABLE,
HIGH- END, MARKET RATE,
LOW- INCOME, YOU NAME IT.
IT'S A REALLY EXPANDING
NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO KNOWING THAT WE HAVE 130
COMING ON LINE SOON, AND
THEN LOOKING TO THE OTHER GROWTH
THAT
WE HAVE GOING ON, I WOULD
INVITE ANY OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT
BEEN
OUT TO D- 5 TO TAKE A LOOK.
SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBER
JUAREZ. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER
33.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> AND THE MOTION CARRIES,
AND THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER RINK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED --
OH, WE ARE.
I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.
THAT COMES AT
THE END. YOU LOOKED AT ME LIKE,
WHAT?
I'M SORRY. SO WE ARE NOW ON
COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED
FOR AMENDMENT -- TO
RECOGNIZE AMENDMENT 35.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120985 WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 35.
>> SECOND.
>> SECOND TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120985 AS AMENDMENT NUMBER 35.
THANK YOU.
>> AMENDMENT 35 IS THE FIRST
OF A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
THAT ADJUST
THE BOUNDARIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS.
THIS ONE IS RELATED TO THE FONT
LA'ROI NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
AND IT REMOVES AREAS ON THE EAST
AND WEST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER BOUNDARIES.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS MAKES
MINOR TWEAKS TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD SENT THEY ARE
ARE SPECIFICALLY FINE TUNED TO
THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF
THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE
DENSITY AND THE HOUSING WE
DESPERATELY NEED TO ADDRESS OUR
HOUSING
AND AFFORDABILITY CRISIS.
THIS AMENDMENT SPEAKS TO THE
OFTEN MENTIONED
CONCERNS, SOMETIMES THAT WE HEAR
FROM COMMUNITY THAT THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS DID THE
BEST THEY
COULD WHEN DRAFTING THE FINAL
PROPOSED PROPOSAL.
BUT ALSO THAT WE KNOW SEATTLE --
THERE'S NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL
APPROACH. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
KNOW
EVERY SINGLE STREET, ALLEY, ALL
THE
UNIQUE PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS AND THE
THOUSANDS OF BLOCKS
IN OUR ENTIRE CITY THAT
SPANS 84 SQUARE MILES.
SO THERE'S TWO MAIN
ASPECTS, DIMENSIONS TO THIS
AMENDMENT,
IF YOU WILL.
ONE IS A VERY MINOR,
NONSUBSTANTIVE NAME CHANGE.
AND THEN THE OTHER ADJUSTS THE
BOUNDARIES WITH RESPECT TO
THE NAME CHANGE.
STRONG COMMUNITY
FEEDBACK, OVERWHELMING FEEDBACK
IS THAT
WE KNOW, AT LEAST IN WEST
SEATTLE, EVERYONE REFERS TO
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS FONT
LA'ROI.
QUEEN ANN, UPPER
FREMONT, THERE'S AN UPPER FONT
LA'ROILA'ROI
CENTER AND NOW A
PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NAMED THE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AS AN
EXAMPLE, BUT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY
NOT. IT HAS NO MATERIAL IMPACT,
JUST A MINOR NAME CHANGE.
THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WE ADJUSTED
TWO SECTIONS BASED ON
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PHYSICAL
CONSIDERATIONS.
HAVING WALKED THIS
SPECIFIC PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER END
TO END, BOUNDARY TO BOUNDARY
ALONGSIDE DIRECTLY
IMPACTED RESIDENTS AND
CONSTITUENTS,
I LEARNED MORE FIRSTHAND
ABOUT SOME OF THE
UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF
THIS AREA. THE STREETS ALONG
FONT
LA'ROI AND 47th ARE DEAD ENDS,
AND THERE ARE 1500 OR SO
RESIDENTS WHO ARE DEPENDANT ON
THIS ROADWAY TO BRACE POINT
FOR ACCESS TO AND FROM THEIR
HOMES.
THE CHOKE POINTS ARE THAT THEY
BACKED UP SOLID TRAFFIC WHEN THE
FONT LA'ROI FERRY IS
UNROADING, WHICH HAS 1. 7
MILLION VEHICLES
PER YEAR AND EXPECTED TO
INCREASE BY OVER 2
MILLION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
YEARS.
I SHOULD ALSO NOTE IN
THIS SPECIFIC AREA, THIS IS THE
ONLY FERRY TERMINAL IN THE
ENTIRE
STATE FLEET INVENTORY THAT
UNROADS ONTO RESIDENTIAL
STREETS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE STREETS ARE
NARROW, AND THERE IS A
CONCERN TO ALLOW FOR QUICK FIRE
TRUCK AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE
ACCESS. BOTH IN TERMS OF INGRES
AND EGRESS VEHICLES ARE GOING
THROUGH AT THE SAME TIME.
THERE
ARE ALSO MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS OVER THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS, UNDERGROUND
CABLE REPLACEMENT, CULVERT
REPLACEMENT AND FERRY TERMINAL
REPLACEMENT ALL WITH MAJOR AN
ANTICIPATED DISRUPTIONS.
FONT LA'ROI LIES IN A
BASIN, BECAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
ARE -- FONT LA'ROI LIES IN A
BASIN WHERE THE
PUMP STATION OVERFLOWS INTO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD REDUCING PERMABLE
SOLID
GROUND, AND THE CITY WANTS TO
PROTECT THE FRAGILE WATERSHED
AND
COMMITTED MILLIONS TO
RESTORING ACCESS TO THE UPPER
FONT
LA'ROI CREEK BY SALMON.
THIS MUST BE PROTECTED, AND THE
SECOND COMPONENT COMPONENT THIS
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, RESPECTS
PROPERTY OWNED BY SEATTLE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, WITH MANY COMMUNITY
USES YEAR ROUND.
SO COLLEAGUES, I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT ON THIS TODAY.
HAVING HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
LEARNING DIRECTLY FROM
IMPACTED RESIDENTS AND STAKE
HOLDERS,
PRIMARILY WITHIN THIS AREA,
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND
SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT BROADLY,
WEST SEATTLE MORE BROADLY.
AND WHILE NOTHING IS
UNANIMOUS, THESE ISSUES
IMPACT PEOPLE'S EVERYDAY LIVES
TODAY AND
GOING FORWARD.
THE OVERWHELMING FEEDBACK THAT
WE HEARD WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY,
COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
I WILL PAUSE HERE TO SEE
IF ANYONE HAS
ANY COMMENTS REGARDING AMENDMENT
35.
COUNCIL MEMBER RINK?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA, FOR BRING THING FORWARD.
I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR
ENGAGEMENT WITH
THIS COMMUNITY IN SHAPING THIS
RECOMMENDATION.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT AT THE
TOP.
APPRECIATE YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH
IMPACTED NEIGHBORS OF THE END
OF LINE FONT LA'ROI AREA.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS, IF THAT'S ALL
RIGHT, JUST ON SOME OF THE
IMPACTS OF THIS.
GIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER SIZE AS A DEFINED TERM IN
THE
PLAN, DOES THIS
REDUCTION RAISE ANY CONCERNS
ABOUT THAT?
>> NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ARE
LOCALLY DESIGNATED.
AND SO THERE AREN'T
ANY REGIONAL
STANDARDS THE CITY NEEDS TO
MEET.
SO THE GENERAL STANDARD
THAT WE HAVE IN THE COMP PLAN IS
EIGHT-MINUTE WALK, AND THIS
EXCLUDES SOME AREAS
THAT WOULD BE AN
EIGHT-MINUTE WALK FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
THAT'S A POLICY DECISION
WHETHER
OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO
REMOVE THOSE AREAS.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
DO WE KNOW --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> WE DO NOT HAVE SPECIFICS
ON PROPOSALS YET FOR ALL OF
THESE
AREAS.
I DON'T HAVE ZONING CAPACITIES
FOR EACH NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER AT THIS POINT.
>> OKAY. UNDERSTOOD.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY
QUESTIONS ON THIS.
I WILL SAVE MY COMMENTS ON THIS,
AND I THINK THIS RELATES TO
A HANDFUL OF THE AMENDMENTS
WE'LL BE CONSIDERING TODAY THAT
ARE CHANGES IN BOUNDARY SIZE
THAT
COULD RESULT IN THE LOSS IN
ZONING CAPACITY.
GENERALLY WHAT WILL BE
GUIDING MY DECISIONS ON THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE A RECOGNITION
THAT
SEATTLE IS IN THE MIDST OF A
HOUSING
CRISIS AND A HOUSING
SHORTAGE, AND I AM -- I WILL BE
A BIT
SKEPTICAL OF ANY AMENDMENT
THAT IS REDUCING OUR ABILITY TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR CITY AT
THIS
TIME.
SO RESPECTFULLY FOR THOSE
REASONS, I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT TODAY.
BUT, AGAIN, WANT TO COMMEND
THE SPONSOR FOR
HIS ENGAGEMENT WITH
NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL MAKE THIS
COMMENT ONCE SINCE IT APPLIES TO
EACH OF
THE NEXT 13 AMENDMENTS UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THESE SMALL BOUNDARY
CHANGES WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
CONSENT PACKAGE, BECAUSE I
WOULDN'T
IMAGINE OPPOSITION TO A DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE'S AMENDMENT TO
BOUNDARIES, BECAUSE THEY
KNOW WHAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS
WANT.
BUT I FEEL LIKE NOW THAT WE
ARE GOING OVER THEM ONE BY ONE,
I
AM GOING TO ABSTAIN, BECAUSE I
HAVE NOT HAD THE TIME TO GO GO
AND
TALK TO THE CONSTITUENTS MYSELF.
SO I'M GOING TO BE
ABSTAINING FROM THIS VOTE AND I
JUST
FEEL LIKE I'M PRIORITIZING WHAT
I
SEE IN WHAT -- WHAT I SEE AS
GOOD GOVERNMENT ON MY PART TO
WEIGH IN ON ISSUES ONLY WHEN
I'M
EXTREMELY WELL INFORMED.
SO THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT
OR OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGES
IN THESE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
DISCUSSING
TODAY.
IT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF SORT
OF WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON ALL
OF
THEM.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR UNDERSTANDING.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON.
IS THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS REGARDING AMENDMENT 35?
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, DO YOU HAVE
ANY CLOSING REMARKS?
>> NO. THAT IS ALL.
THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR.
>> AWESOME, THANK YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBER SAKA.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 35.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> THREE IN FAVOR, TWO
OPPOSED, THREE ABSTENTIONS.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES, AND
THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT
AMENDMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, YOU
ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LET ME GATHER -- LET ME ORIENT
MYSELF HERE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120985 WITH AMENDMENT 36.
>> SECOND.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. I'LL SECOND IT, TO
AMEND
COUNCILCOUNCIL AMENDMENT NUMBER
36.
PLEASE DIVE IN.
>> AMENDMENT 36 ADDS ONE
LARGE BLOCK TO THE HIGH POINT
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
THE BLOCK IS ZONED
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND
MULTIFAMILY, AND
INCLUDING THE HIGH POINT LIBRARY
ON IT.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
SO COLLEAGUES, AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, I HAD THE PLEASURE
OF WALKING TO ALL THE
PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS,
AND FOR
URBAN CENTERS IN MY
DISTRICT, INCLUDING THIS ONE.
AND I MADE A NUMBER OF I
THINK FAIRLY MINOR BOUNDARY
TWEAKS
TO REFLECT THOSE WALKS AND TO
REFLECT THE OPPORTUNITY AT HAND.
IN SOME CASE, WE
PAIRED BACK. AS IN THE CASE OF
THE RECENTLY
ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
IN FONT LA'ROI, AND IN SOME
CASES WE EXPANDED THE
BOUNDARIES.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
EXAMPLESEXAMPLES WHERE EXPANDED
THE
BOUNDARY IN HIGH POINT BASED OFF
OF
SOME COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
AND SO REALLY EXCITED ABOUT
THIS PROPOSAL AND THE
POSSIBILITIES THAT IT UNLOCKS
FOR OUR CITY
AND WEST SEATTLE MORE
SPECIFICALLY.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
AND, AGAIN, SOME OF MY BOUNDARY
PROPOSALS REFLECT REDUCING THE
BOUNDARIES, SCALING THEM BACK A
LITTLE. SOME REFLECTS EXPANSION
AND
TOGETHER, ON BALANCE,
IT REFLECTS A BALANCED APPROACH.
IN ANY EVENT, I ASK FOR
YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK.
>> I
APOLOGIZE. I WILL TAKE THIS
MOMENT TO SAY I
WILL BE SUPPORT THING AMENDMENT.
I WANT TO THANK THE
SPONSOR FOR
THOUGHTFUL ENGAGEMENT. THANK
YOU.
>> AWESOME.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?
ALSO, CAN WE CALL THE ROLL
FORFOR AMENDMENT 36.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES, THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE ARE ON AMENDMENT 3.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED
TO ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT.
37. I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120985 WITH AMENDMENT 37.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND THE BILL AS
AMENDMENT NUMBER 37.
CENTRAL STAFF, WILL YOU PLEASE
TELL US WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> YES.
THE MORGAN JUNCTION
NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER IS
PROPOSED TO BE
EXPANDED UNDER THE ONE SEATTLE
PLAN.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE OFF
A COUPLE OF BLOCKS ON THE
WEST SIDE OF 45th AVENUE
SOUTHWEST.
AND REMOVE THEM FROM
THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE
MORGAN
JUNCTION URBAN CENTER.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED
TO ADDRESS YOUR BILL.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT
ON THIS AMENDMENT, COLLEAGUES.
WE MADE THESE TWEAKS IN
RESPONSE -- DIRECT RESPONSE
TO COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND
CONCERN, CENTERING THE FEEDBACK
OF THOSE
MOST DIRECTLY IMPACTED IN
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WEST
SEATTLE
MORE BROADLY.
SO WE MADE SOME SMALL
TWEAKS, INCLUDING TO THE
SIDEWALK,
CURBS, NO GUTTERS, THAT ARE
NEXT TO A RAVINE AND VERY STEEP
SLOPE, NARROW STREETS, AND
IT'S ALSO IMPACTED
AREAS CONSIDERED ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREA.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE
FOR ECA AND THE PLAN IS
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STEEP
SLOPES, ALTHOUGH IT IS INCLUDED
IN THE
STATE HB- 111 OR 1110
LEGISLATION.
AGAIN, I WALKED THIS
AREA FIRSTHAND ALONGSIDE
IMPACTED
RESIDENTS, AND GO THERE
REGULARLY.
IT A ES
IT'S A GREAT PLACE, CHECK IT
OUT.
I'M PROUD THAT THIS
WAS SUPPORTED BY THE MORGAN
JUNCTION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
OR
THE MORGAN COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, AND I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
I'LL PAUSE TO SEE IF ANYONE
HAS ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER 37.
COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK.
>> THANK YOU.
SORRY, JUST SINCE THERE WAS A
MENTION OF AN ECA, CAN
ANYONE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON
THE
ECA MATTER FOR THIS PARTICULAR
CHANGE?
>> I CAN PULL UP THE CITY'S
MAPS. IT WILL BE JUST A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT.
SO THESE ARE THE BLOCKS THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
AND THEY ARE RINGED BY STEEP
SLOPE AND LANDSLIDE PRONE AREAS.
YEAH.
BUT THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THOSE
AREAS, OR IT'S JUST ON THE
EDGE.
>> OKAY.
SO THERE'S NO ECA LOCATED
WITHIN THE INITIALLY PRO-
POSED NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
AREA, THIS IS JUST IN PROXIMITY
TO.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT
CORRECTLY?
>> IT ABUTS THE ECA AREA ON --
THE PROPERTIES, WHICH IS THIS
CURB STREET HERE, SOME OF
THEM DO APPEAR TO HAVE ECA,
STEEP
SLOPE ECAs ON THAT.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU FOR BREAKING THAT
DOWN.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
GIVEN JUST
THIS AMENDMENT FOR ME, I WILL BE
ABSTAINING ON
THIS ONE JUST
FOR THE ECA CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RINCK.
ARE THERE
OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT 37?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE, CLERK, WILL YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED,
TWO ON STENGSS.
>> MOTION CARRIES
AND THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE'LL NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT
AMENDMENT.
I WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO MOVE
THE AMENDMENT.
I MOVE COUNCIL BILL 120985 AS
PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT 38.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND THE BILL AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
38. WILL YOU WALK US THROUGH
THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> YES.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD MODIFY
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
MEDRONA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER,
PLACING THEM ON 32nd AVENUE AND
35 th
AVENUE, JUST EAST OF 35th
AVENUE. I WANT TO NOTE THAT
THERE IS A
MINOR ERROR IN THE
DESCRIPTION, COPYING AND PASTING
VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TOO QUICKLY.
THE DESCRIPTION SHOULD READ
AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
MEDRONA CENTER.
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO ADDRESS
IT.
I BROUGHT THIS AMENDMENT,
I HEARD DIRECTLY FROM NEIGHBORS
THAT WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS OFF OF 35th.
THEY SUGGESTED AN
AMENDMENT THAT WAS WELL INTENDED
BUT
WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT OUR
ABILITY TO BUILD ACROSS THE
CITY.
AND I HONESTLY JUST
WASN'T COMFORTABLE MAKING SUCH
A
BROAD CHANGE TO THE ENTIRE CITY.
AND I CHOSE TO ADJUST
THE BOUNDARY TO REFLECT
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
WITHOUT COMPROMISING CITY
PLANNING.
THIS TOOK A TON OF MEETINGS AND
ENGAGEMENT WITH FOLKS MAKING
SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, I CAN TRY
TO
FIND COMMON GROUND AS BEST AS
POSSIBLE.
THE OTHER PIECE, AND I BELIEVE
IT'S ON THE EAST PART, YEAH,
EAST PART, THERE WERE
ALSO SEVERAL LEGACY BLACK
HOMEOWNERS ON THE WESTERN EDGE,
EXCUSE
ME, EASTERN EDGE I FELT STRONGLY
ABOUT TO MAKING SURE THE
BOUNDARIES REFLECTED THEIR
ISSUES, AS WELL.
AS THAT IS THE LENS I'M
ALWAYS TRYING TO LOOK THROUGH,
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION.
I WOULD LOVE YOUR SUPPORT ON
THE AMENDMENT, AND WILL ENGAGE
ANY TYPE
OF CONVERSATION OR QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
SEEING NONE, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL --
OH,
SORRY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON.
>> I JUST HAD TO SAY THAT
I DID -- THIS SEEMS TO MAKE
SENSE, BECAUSE -- AND I HAVEN'T
HEARD FROM ALL THE GROUPS,
BUT WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE
STEEPNESS
OF THOSE SLOPES GOING DOWN THERE
TOWARDS THE LAKE, THAT'S
WHAT I HEARD MOST CONCERN ABOUT.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY OTHER -- OKAY,
GREAT.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON ITEM NUMBER 38.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED,
ONE ABSTENTION.
>> MOTION CARRIES AND
THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO CONSIDER
THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT -- OR MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120985 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
39.
>> SECOND.
IT'S BEEN -- I'LL JUST SECOND.
MOVED AND SECONDED TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120985 AS
AMENDMENT NUMBER 39.
PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THE
AMENDMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE
BRYANT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, AND
ADDING
AN AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, I'M GOING TO
SPEAK TO THIS AND THE NEXT
TWO AMENDMENTS THAT ALSO ADDRESS
BOUNDARY CHANGES, JUST SO FOR
EFFICIENCY.
THESE AMENDMENTS -- THESE THREE
AMENDMENTS ARE BASED ON FEEDBACK
FROM AND IN RESPONSE TO
CONSTITCH WENTS IN MY
DISTRICT, INCLUDING THE ONES
THAT
LIVE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY ALL MAKE MINOR TWEAKS TO
THESE CENTERS.
I UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THE
APPRECIATION OF HOUSING.
WE KNOW WE NEED MORE
HOUSING, WE'RE ALL ALIGNED ON
THIS
GOAL, AND I KNOW THIS DENSITY
NEEDS TO
AND SHOULD BE ABSORBED BY ALL
THE DISTRICTS, WHICH IS WHY
I DID NOT PROPOSE TO REMOVE ANY
OF THE PROPOSED CENTERS.
I KNOW THE PROPOSALS THE
CITY MAKES NEED TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE AMENITIES AND
WHAT'S GOING
ON, ON THE GROUND AND
WORKING WITH CONSTITUENTS.
I DO THINK SOME OF
THE CONCERNS AROUND NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER
BOUNDARIES COULD HAVE BEEN
AVOIDED IF THE DEPARTMENT
HAD DONE ROBUST OUTREACH,
INCRUDING
TO CONSTITUENTS THEY THOUGHT
WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE.
SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME
UP COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.
IT IS CRITICAL TO DO THE ROBUST
OUTREACH TO BRING PEOPLE
ALONG AND FIND AREAS OF
COMPROMISE.
DOING THIS OUTREACH DOES
NOT MEAN YOU CANNOT MOVE FORWARD
WITH YOUR PROPOSALS BUT
GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO LET
PEOPLE FEEL HEARD, AND AS I SAID
EARLIER, FIND SOME COMPROMISE.
I HOPE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL
TAKE THE TIME TO
HEAR CONSTITUENTS IN THE NEXT
PHASE OF THIS WORK.
THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND I WILL
NOT SPEAK INDIVIDUALLY TO THE
OTHER
TWO, BECAUSE I BROUGHT THEM
FOR SIMILAR REASONS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA.
I'LL PAUSE TO SEE IF THERE'S
ANY
OTHER PERSON THAT HAS QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEFORE
US, AND I'M ROUGHLY
ESTIMATING WITH MY EYES WHEN I
LOOKED AT
THIS, THIS LOOKS LIKE A
50% REDUCTION OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER.
AM I SEEING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> IT IS SLIGHTLY MORE -- SO
20 ACRES ARE BEING REMOVED AND
16 ACRES ARE BEING ADDED.
>> OF THOSE 16 ACRES
BEING ADDED, THIS LOOKS LIKE
PARKLAND -- IS THIS --
>> SORRY, WITH THE CHANGES,
YEAH.
SO IT'S LARGE REDUCTION ENDS
THE AREAS THAT ARE ADDED.
ARE THESE DEVELOPABLE AREAS?
YOU CAN SEE THE PARK SPACE
HERE IN GREEN.
THE REST ARE
SITES IN MULTIFAMILY USE.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
THAT. I JUST WANTED TO GET A
SENSE OF
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF REDUCTION
AREA.
THIS IS A LARGE REDUCTION TO
A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER THAT IS IN
A HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORT THING AMENDMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THE PAIN POINTS
AROUND ENGAGEMENT ON THIS.
I THINK WE HAVE ALL
EXPERIENCED A LOT OF TOUGH
NEIGHBORHOOD
MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS IN
THIS, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE'RE GROWING HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY, PARTICULARLY NORTH
OF THE SHIP CANAL.
SO I CANNOT SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RINCK.
ARE THERE
OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON -- I LOST OUR PLACE.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 39, SORRY.
MY BAD. AMENDMENT NUMBER 39.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> THREE IN FAVOR, THREE
OPPOSED, TWO ABSTENTIONS.
>> THE AMENDMENT FAILS AND
WILL NOT BE ADOPTED BUT
WE'LL CONSIDER THE NEXT
AMENDMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE AMENDMENT
40.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120985 ON AMENDMENT 40.
>> SECOND.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 40, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> YEAH.
APOLOGIES.
THE
COMPUTER IS NOT PLAYING WELL
WITH ME.
LET ME -- SO AMENDMENT 40 --
SORRY, ARE WE ON AMENDMENT 40?
LET'S SEE IF AMENDMENT 41
WILL WORK IN JUST A MINUTE.
I SKIPPED AHEAD.
SO AMENDMENT 40 WOULD REMOVE
AREAS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SENT
THEY ARE ARE WITHIN THE
RIVENNA PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT
SOUTHSOUTH
65th STREET, NORTHEAST 65th
STREET.
>> THANK YOU.
WAS THAT IT?
I'M SORRY.
>> YEAH.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> I DON'T HAVE FURTHER
COMMENTS
OF WHAT I MADE EARLIER.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA.
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING
AMENDMENT 40?
OKAY.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED,
ONE ABSTENTION.
>> THE AMENDMENT PASSES.
MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER NUMBER 41.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNSEL BILL
120985 AS PRESENTEDPRESENTED
AMENDMENT
41.
>> IT'S
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO AMEND
THE BILL AS
PRESENTED ON COUNCIL BILL
120985 AS AMENDMENT NUMBER 41.
>>
YEAH. BEAR WITH ME FOR JUST A
SECOND.
SO AMENDMENT 41, I'M SORRY, I
PUBLISHED THE WRONG VERSION IN
THE PACKAGE, AND AM PULLING
UP THE RIGHT VERSION.
IT AMENDS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
AND IT WOULD -- HERE WE GO.
IT WOULD REMOVE AREAS GENERALLY
EAST OF 36th AVENUE NORTHEAST
AND WEST OF 34th
AVENUE NORTHEAST TO AMEND
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
BOUNDARIES.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS
YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER
FROM WHAT I SAID EARLIER.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING
AMENDMENT 41?
COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
FOR AFFORDING ME THE TIME.
MY UNDERSTANDING WITH
THIS CHANGE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS THERE WOULD BE 16.
8 ACRES
REMOVED FROM
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER UNDER
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> YES.
>> COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO LIFT UP
MY OWN ENGAGEMENT WITH RESPECT
TO THE DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA.
OUR OFFICES HAD A LOT
OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE
WEDGWOOD COMMUNITY ASKING FOR
EXPANSIONS TO WEDGWOOD.
I KNOW WE'LL BE TALKING
ABOUT AMENDMENT 34 LATER,
TALKING
ABOUT SOUTH WEDGWOOD.
BUT I WOULD WANT TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO CHAMPION.
I SIMPLY HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS
IN THE AREA THE DESIRE TO BE
GROWING AND ALLOWING FOR MORE
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY IN WEDGWOOD
BROADLY.
SO I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORT THING
AMENDMENT TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE
IT CLEAR THAT I HAD A LOT OF
ENGAGEMENT WITH WEDGWOOD
NEIGHBORS AS
WELL, AND THEY WEREWERE ASKING
A REMOVAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER. AS I SAID EARLIER, I
DIDN'T
REMOVE IT, BECAUSE I THINK
ALL NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TO ABSORB
DENSITY. IT IS NOT RIGHT TO
REMOVE CENTERS FROM ANY PART OF
THE
CENTER, AND ALSO I THINK
THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR
COMPROMISE
IN WORKING WITH THE WEDGWOOD
NEIGHBORS.
THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH
THIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST ONE,
BECAUSE YOU WERE THE SPONSOR
OF THE AMENDMENT.
MY
APOLOGIES. OKAY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ]
>> THREE IN FAVOR, THREE
OPPOSED, TWO ABSTENTIONS.
>> THE MOTION FAILS, AND
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 42.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH.
CHAIR, WOULD IT BE WELCOME IF I
MOVED ALL OF MY AMENDMENTS AND
SPOKE TO THEM ALL AT THE SAME
TIME?
>> IT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY NICE
OF YOU TO DO THAT.
>> THANK YOU, FRIEND.
I MOVE AMENDMENT 42, 43, 44,
45, 46, 47, 48, AND 49 TO
COUNCIL BILL 120985.
>> I DON'T HAVE A 46 OR A 47.
OR A 43.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE
I'M RUNNING OFF OF AN OLD LIST.
>> WE HAVE 42,
44, 45, 48, AND 49.
>> I MOVE THOSE AMENDMENTS.
>> AWESOME.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120985, NUMBER 42, 44,
45, 48 AND 49.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THOSE BILLS, H
2,
44, 45, 48, 49.
>> AMENDMENT 42 ADDS A NEW
EAST NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AT THE
LOCATION OF 65th NORTHWEST
AND 8th AVENUE NORTHWEST.
IT WOULD ALSO REMOVE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, WHICH
IS ABOUT EIGHT BLOCKS EAST OF
THIS AT 65th AND FINNEY
GREENWOOD.
AMENDMENT 44.
IT WOULD EXPAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER.
TO THE NORTH AND REMOVE SOME OF
THE AREA
TO THE SOUTH AND OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
IT
WOULD SHIFT THE BOUNDARIES TO
THE NORTH, FOCUSING ALONG WEST
GOVERNMENT WAY AND
REMOVE SOME OF THE AREAS OF
SOUTH
EMERSON STREET PARTICULARLY.
AMENDMENT 48 WOULD EXPAND
THE UPPER FREMONT NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER TO THE NORTH AND
WEST, AND REMOVE A COUPLE OF
BLOCKS ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
AMENDMENT 49, REMOVES A
COUPLE OF BLOCKS ON THE WEST
SIDE
OF THE NORTHWEST GREEN LAKE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, ADD
AREAS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, AND
RENAME THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
FROM WEST GREEN LAKE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
TO NORTHWEST GREEN LAKE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
AND THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS ALL
OF YOUR AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
AS COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ
REMINDED ME, FIVE AMENDMENTS,
I DID BRING THEM DOWN FROM 27.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO
TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT I
USED
TO DEVELOP THESE PROPOSALS.
LAST DECEMBER, I MET
WITH RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT SIX
DURING
OFFICE HOURS REGARDING ALL
OF THE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS. WE MET IN GROUPS.
IN QUARTER ONE OF THIS YEAR,
I DID WALKING TOURS IN
ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.
WE THEN, FROM THE PEOPLE
IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS,
CAME TO THE DISTRICT
OFFICE. WE SAT AROUND THE
CONFERENCE TABLE WITH LARGE MAPS
ON
THE TABLE AND MARKERS AND DREW
UP
DIFFERENT OPTIONS, ALL OF WHICH
WERE TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION THE GRID
CONNECTIVITY,
THE RIGHT OF WAY ATTRIBUTES, ARE
THEY
NARROW, ARE THEY WIDE, ET
CETERA.
AND THE GRADE CHARACTERISTICS.
WE DREW THESE DIFFERENT LINES
ON THE MAPS, AND THAT CREATED
MY OPTIONS A, B, AND C
AMENDMENTS,
WHICH IS WHY I HAD SO MANY.
MY OFFICE THEN SENT OUT A
SURVEY.
WE HAD 1,100 RESPONSES TO OUR
SURVEY THAT WAS OUT DURING
AUGUST.
I THEN MET WITH RESIDENTS
AGAIN AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE
WITH
MAPS AND THE SURVEY
RESULTS, WHICH CREATED THE FINAL
AMENDMENTS.
I'LL BE CANDID IN SAYING MANY
OF THE RESIDENTS I MET WITH
WOULD RATHER REMOVE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ENTIRELY
AND DID NOT
NECESSARILY SIGN OFF ON THESE
APPROACHES.
THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE
THAT SAID THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS NEEDED
TO BE LARGER, AND THESE
PROPOSALS THAT YOU SEE TODAY
ARE, I THINK, THE
BEST PROPOSALS THAT WE CAN
PROVIDE AT THIS
TIME THAT TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION
THE GRID CONNECTIVITY, THE RIGHT
AWAY ATTRIBUTES, THE GRADE
CHARACTERISTICS, AND HOW
THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL PROSPER,
THE BEST ABILITY FOR
THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROSPER IN
THE
FUTURE.
SO TALKING REAL BRIEFLY, THE
FINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER,
WE MOVED IT TO EAST BALLARD.
WE ALSO EXPANDED UPPER
FREMONT ON THE MAP HERE YOU CAN
SEE A
SMALL EXPANSION TO THE
NORTHWEST GREEN LAKE, AS WELL AS
WE
DOCKETED THE FINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER, THE LARGEST OF THE
OPTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY.
THE GRID CONNECTIVITY AND
GRID UP THERE IS NOT GRATE.
65th IS NOT PROPERLY ALIGNED.
IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN STUCK ON
THE HIL LOOKING AT THE ESPRESSO
REPAIR, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
I KNOW PEOPLE DON'T DRIVE STICK
SHIFTS ANYMORE, BUT THAT IS
A HILL TO LEARN ON, BECAUSE
IF YOU CAN GET IN FIRST GEAR AT
65th AND FINNEY, YOU KNOW HOW TO
DRIVE A MANUAL.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GOING TO
BUMP INTO SOMEBODY BEHIND YOU.
THERE IS A FLAT TOP AT THE TOP
OF FINNEY AREA AND IT'S
BORDERED BY STEEP SLOPES.
THAT CONNECTIVITY IS NORTH AND
SOUTH, AND THIS AREA WAS CHOSEN
BY OPCD OVER EAST
BALLARD BECAUSE THE FIVE BUS
RUNS MORE
FREQUENTLY THAN THE 28 EXPRESS
BUS.
IF WE COULD MOVE TO EAST
BALLARD, I'LL SPEAK ABOUT THAT
NEXT, WHICH IS, AGAIN, IT
IS EASIER TO ADJUST BUS
SERVICE THAN IT IS TO ENGAGE IN
A
REGRADE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOCK
DOWN FINNEY RIDGE.
THIS OPTION IS THE
SMALLEST OPTION OF
THE THREE THAT I PUT FORWARD.
AND I CHOSE TO DO SO
BECAUSE IT -- WE'RE BRINGING
THIS
BACK FROM ONE OF THE FIRST
STUDIES.
AND THE DOCKETED VERSION OF THIS
IS THE LARGEST VERSION.
SO IN HERE THE GRID
CONNECTS THREE DIFFERENT GRIDS.
THIS WAS THE BORDER OF
BALLARD SOME MANY, MANY YEARS
AGO.
THE RIGHT OF WAY
CHARACTERISTICS ARE ODD BECAUSE
DIVISION IN E
-- CLEOPATRA, YOU CAN
SEE A GOOD WILL, THREE EMPTY
LOTS,
ALTHOUGH ONE IS A PARKING LOT.
AND IT'S NEAR A FORMER TROLLY
LINE, WHICH MEANS THIS AREA
ALREADY HAVE DUPLEXES, TRI
PLEXS AND SMALL APARTMENTS NOT
ALLOWED TO BE BUILT TODAY.
EAST BALLARD IS A GOOD PLACE
TO START SO WE CAN GROW FROM
HERE.
IF WE COULD MOVE BACK TO THE
NORTHWEST GREEN LAKE AND THEN --
NORTHWEST GREEN LAKE, THIS
SHIFTED IT UP A LITTLE BIT NORTH
AND ACTUALLY TO THE EAST.
IT FOCUSES ON TWO ANCHORS.
WE HAVE DUKES AND THE BEN AND
JERRY'S OVER THERE ON THE EAST
SIDE, AND THEN ON THE
WEST, THERE IS A WONDERFUL
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE LYNDON AND
WINONA
ANOTHER ACRE.
THESE CHANGES IMPROVE
NOT ONLY THE ABILITY TO HAVE
GATHERING PLACES ON EITHER SIDE
OF
AURORA, IT ALSO REQUIRES US TO
IMPROVE THE CONNECTION ACROSS
AURORA.
THE DOCKETED VERSION OF THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD BETTER CONNECT
NEIGHBORING URBAN CENTERS
TO GREEN LAKE, AND THIS AREA DID
TAKE SOME OF THE
EXPANDED EVER SO SLIGHTLY, AS WE
MOVED
FINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER TO
EAST
BALLARD.
IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO UPPER
FREMONT. I SWEAR I'M ALMOST
DONE.
UPPER FREMONT, THIS IS A
FLAT- ISH PLACE THAT HAS
SOME SLOPING AREAS SOUTH OF
42nd, DROPS VERY SIGNIFICANTLY
WEST
OF GREENWOOD -- DROPS OFF VERY
SIGNIFICANTLY AND AURORA IS
A BOUNDARY HERE, AS WELL.
WE DID MOVE THIS FURTHER NORTH
ON NORTH 46th STREET.
HAD THE BUS 44 ROUTE
THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO LIGHT
RAIL.
AND IT IS ALREADY AN ARTERIAL
THAT FOLKS IN THE AREA EXPRESSED
INTEREST IN HAVING US USE AND
LEVERAGE MORE THAN JUST HAVING
IT AS A BOUNDARY.
I DID -- AFTER I PUT OUT THIS
AMENDMENT, I HEARD A GREATER
DESIRE TO DO EVEN MORE IN THIS
AREA.
WE HAD ALREADY PUT OUT THE
AMENDMENTS, SO I WASN'T
JUST GOING TO CHANGE IT EVEN
FURTHER.
THAT'S WHY THE
DOCKETED AMENDMENT GOES ALL THE
WAY NORTH
TO THE ZOO, BECAUSE I HEARD
FROM NEIGHBORS IN THAT AREA THAT
THEY THOUGHT THAT THE LOW-RISE
WAS ALREADY TOO LOW TO BE
CONNECTED
TO AURORA,
THE PARKS, AND LIGHT RAIL.
IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO MAGNOLIA.
SO THOSE FOUR -- THOSE THREE
AMENDMENTS ARE ALL CONNECTED TO
FINNEY.
WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE
OTHER MAGNOLIA VILLAGE IF WE CAN
START THERE.
MAGNOLIA, AS A
WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONLY
ACCESSIBLE FROM ONE OF FOUR
SIDES.
YOU EITHER HAVE TO GO UNDER
A BRIDGE OR OVER A BRIDGE TO GET
FROM THE REST OF THE CITY
INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OVERALL, I HAVE HUGE
GRATITUDE AND APPRECIATION FOR
MAG NOLIA
NS WHO SAID WE
UNDERSTAND THE GREATER NEED FOR
DENSITY. WE WANT TO DO OUR
SHARE.
OF ALL OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS I WORKED
WITH,
AND THERE'S NO SLIGHT TO
ANYONE,
BUT THEY CAME WITH SOLUTION
ORIENTED CONVERSATION.
THEY REALLY DUG INTO THE
DETAILS.
I THINK I HEARD A PUBLIC
COMMENTER YESTERDAY SAY WE
DON'T 2030 UNION SOMETHING,
SOMETHING,
UNLESS MAGNOLIA LOOKS LIKE THAT.
I'M NOT HERE SAYING
MAGNOLIA WILL LOOK LIKE 23rd AND
UNION, BUT IN MANY WAYS IT
COULD.
WHAT I HEARD FROM PEOPLE IS
THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THEIR ROLE
IN
TAKING THEIR SHARE OF THE
DENSITY. GRANT IT, THEY DIDN'T
THINK THE
LINES WERE DONE RIGHT THE FIRST
TIME, AND
THAT'S FINE. THEY CAME WITH
DIFFERENT
OPTIONS. IN THE PROPOSAL I PUT
FORWARD,
WE HAD NINE AMENDMENTS
FOR MAGNOLIA BECAUSE OF
THE CONVERSATIONS WITH
NEIGHBORS WERE SO ROBUST.
SO WE HAD PRO-POSALS S S TO
COMBINE THE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS
BUT DECIDED LEAVING TWO
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS THAT
FOCUSED ON THE
VALLEY.
SO HERE MAGNOLIA VILLAGE
FOCUSESFOCUSES ON th AS THE
NORTH/SOUTH
CORRIDOR, WHICH
IS THE MAIN STREET THROUGH THE
VALLEY.
THIS LEVERAGES THE OPEN SPACE OF
THE PARKS.
IT DOES ADDRESS
GRID CONNECTIVITY.
YOU CAN SEE IN THE
SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL
MAP, THERE ARE A FAIR NUMBER OF
FINGERS AS THE GRID DROPS
OFF INTO RAVINES.
AND THERE IS ALSO AN
ADDITIONAL LARGER MAP DOCKETED
FOR FURTHER
STUDY.
MOVING UP TO NORTH MAGNOLIA, IF
YOU WILL, THIS AREA AGAIN
FOCUSES ON 34th AS THE
NORTH/SOUTH AND GOVERNMENT WAY
AS THE EAST/WEST.
GOVERNMENT WAY LITERALLY BUILT
FT. LAUTEN, WHICH IS THE POINT
FOR TROOPS TO WORLD WAR II IN
THE PACIFIC THEATER.
IT HAS THE ABILITY TO HANDLE
AA OF PEOPLE, STRUCKS,
MACHINERY, ET CETERA.
IN THIS AREA BETWEEN
DISCOVERY PARK AND THE WESTERN
BOUNDARY
OF THE DOTTED LINE HERE IS A
FLAT- ISH AREA.
FROM WEST -- OR EAST OF THE
EASTERN BOUNDARY STARTS
DROPPING OFF, AS WELL.
BETWEEN GOVERNMENT WAY AND
EMMERSON, IT IS AN UPHILL AND
DOWNHILL. THERE IS INTERESTING
REVIEWS
TO EITHER SIDE, AND THERE ARE
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL
AREAS IN
HERE. THIS IS HOW I UNDERSTOOD
THE CONVERSATION YESTERDAY,
SO DEEPLY BECAUSE
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS
GO THROUGH
THEIR OWN SEPARATE PROCESS TO
ENSURE THAT THE PROTECTIONS ARE
PUT IN
PLACE. AND OUR DECISION TODAY
IS REGARDING ZONING AND
BOUNDARIES,
RIGHT? AND SO THE
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS
HAVE
THEIR PROTECTIONS
THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE
SEPARATE FROM THIS.
THIS PROPOSAL REALLY
DOES CONNECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
FROM EMERSON ALL THE WAY
DOWN TO FT. STREET, USING
GOVERNMENT WAY
AND 34th AS THE SPINE THAT
CONNECTSCONNECTS
MANY
SMALLER CLUSTERS OF CONNECTED
GRIDS.
SPEAKING TO THE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, I DID NOT
BRING AMENDMENTS FOR
WHITTIER NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
I HAD GONE ON A WALK
WITH THEM AND PROVIDED OPCD MY
FEEDBACK
HOW IT COULD BE MORE NARROW AND
LONG.
THEY TOOK THAT
FEEDBACK AND PUT IT OUT AS THEIR
PROPOSAL,
WHICH IS WHY I HAD NO AMENDMENTS
THERE. SOME NEIGHBORS ASKED FOR
IT TO
BE REDUCED EVEN FURTHER.
OTHERS ASKED FOR
EXPANSIONS, SO WE LEFT THIS AS
THE COMPROMISE.
I HEARD FROM TANGLE TOWN
RESIDENTS.
WE DREW UP THREE
DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE MAPS,
AND WHILE
THERE WAS PLUSES AND BENEFITS
TO ALL OF THEM, AS WELL AS
THE SURVEY RESULTS FOR
TANGLE TOWN, OF ALL OF THE
DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
HAD THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF UNDECIDED.
AND SO TANGLE TOWN RESIDENTS
ALSO REQUESTED THAT WE JUST
REMAIN WITH OPCDs VERSION,
RATHER THAN THE ABC VERSIONS.
AS WELL AS WE DOCKETED OPTION
A FROM THAT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL.
COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU
FOR LISTENING TO ALL OF THAT.
IT HAS SERIOUSLY BEEN MONTHS
AND MONTHS OF REALLY HARD WORK
AND MEETING WITH RESIDENTS
REPEATEDLY.
I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT ON THESE CHANGES.
THERE IS NOT A NET
DECREASE IN -- ACROSS DISTRICT
SIX.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS. BEFORE I RECOGNIZE
YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ, JUST
TO CLARIFY
WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON, WE
HAVE MOVED ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS
FROM COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS,
THAT
IS AMENDMENT 42, 44, 45, 48 AND
49.
A MEMBER MAY REQUEST
ANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO BE
REMOVED
FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
SO JUST A HEADS UP, IF YOU
WANT TO REMOVE ANY OF THOSE FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTE, YOU CAN.
BUT THAT HAS BEEN MOVED AS A
COUNCIL.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU.
SO I'M A LITTLE BIT -- I'M
GOING
TO HAVE TO CATCH UP HERE.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT
I'M PROBABLY GOING TO ASK THE
SPONSOR, AS WELL. SO I'M GOING
TO SPEAK TO 42,
44, 45, 48 AND 49, SO
THOSE ARE THE FIVE.
ALL FIVE OF THESE ARE
ALSO IN THE
DOCKET RESOLUTION ON PAGE EIGHT.
SO FOR ME, MY -- I AM INCLINED
TO SUPPORT -- I DON'T --
I DON'T -- I'M INCLINED TO
SUPPORT THESE TYPE OF ISSUES.
HOWEVER, IT'S WHEN I SEE
A REDUCTION THAT I HAVE A
CONCERN, A REDUCTION THIS THE
FOOT
PRINT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M
INCLINED TO GO,
BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN TALK
LATER ABOUT WHAT
ABOUT÷÷ MEANS IN
THE INTENT AND WHAT I WAS
LOOKING AT CITY WIDE.
BUT FOR THOSE FIVE
MATTERS, WHAT'S DISPOSITIVE FOR
ME,
YES OR NO, IS THAT IF THEY ARE
ALREADY IN THE DOCKET
RESOLUTION, WHICH WE ARE GOING
TO ADDRESS, I BELIEVE ITEM 34,
AS WELL, IN WHICH I'LL JUST
SAY IT IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, WE
GET ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE TO
REVIEW.
SO IF YOU VOTED NO NOW,
THIS DOESN'T PROHIBIT
FURTHER EXAMINATION
VIA THE RESOLUTION SIX MONTHS
FROM NOW.
>> CORRECT. I WOULD NOTE THAT
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT'S IN
THE RESOLUTION
AND THESE AMENDMENTS IS THAT
THE RESOLUTION ALLY INCLUDES
LARGER AREAS FOR STUDY.
IF THESE AMENDMENTS DO NOT MOVE
FORWARD, THEN THE BOUNDARIES
PROPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE WOULD
GO INTO PLACE.
INCLUDING THE FINNEY RIDGE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER RATHER THAN
THE EAST BALLARD NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER.
>> SO THESE AREN'T --
SO THERE'S THE CEPA ISSUE GOING
FORWARD
IF
IT GETS CAPTURED IN THE
RESOLUTION.
AND, AGAIN, PLEASE
CORRECT ME, I WAS TRYING TO DO
MY CHART.
THESE ARE SMALL REDUCTIONS,
IF YOU WILL.
>> SOME OF THEM, LIKE NORTH
FREMONT, ARE EXPANSIONS.
>> WHICH NUMBER IS THAT?
NORTH FREMONT IS NUMBER 48.
SO 48 IS --
>> YEAH.
MAGNOLIA
VILLAGE,VILLAGE, NUMBER 44,
WOULD BE AN EXPANSION.
THE NORTH MAGNOLIA LOOKS LIKE
IT'S ABOUT THE SAME.
AND I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS COUNTED EACH BLOCK, SO
HE'S PROBABLY SUITED TO
BETTER ANSWER THIS OFF
THE TOP OF HIS HEAD THAN I AM.
AND WEST GREEN LAKE IS ALSO
LARGER.
>> WEST GREEN LAKE IS 49.
>> YEAH.
>> THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO
HEAR.
CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT
MORE INFO.
>> YES.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ.
THIS COMPARED TO THE DOCKET,
SO THESE AMENDMENTS BEFORE US
RIGHT NOW AMEND THE BOUNDARIES
THAT
OPCD CREATED.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO THE AMENDMENTS I'M
PUTTING
FORWARD REFLECT
GREATER CONNECTIVITY GRID AND
GRADE.
IT MOVES THE
BOUNDARIES.
>> YES, YOU SHIFT THEM AROUND.
>> WHAT'S IN THE DOCKET
ARE CONVERSATIONS FROM NEIGHBORS
AND
THROUGH THE SURVEY OF OTHER
BLOCKS, JUST OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE
HAVE BEFORE US RIGHT NOW.
SO WHAT IS DOCKETED IS AN
EXPANSION BEFORE --
BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US
RIGHT NOW,
FOR FUTURE STUDY IN CASE
THAT WANTS TO COME UP IN THE
FUTURE.
>> SO MADAME CHAIR, MAY I
JUST --
>> ABSOLUTELY, YES.
>> SO VOTING YES ON THESE
FIVE, BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A
BLOC --
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ,
WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
>> I FORGOT WHAT I
WAS SAYING. THE FIVE, AND THE
REASON WHY
I THINK WHY YOU WALKED IN AND
HAD SOME CHANGES TO MAKE WITH
WHAT
OPC DID ON THE EXPANSION,
IF PEOPLE WERE TO VOTE NO ONON
FIVE, AS YOU SAID, THEY WOULD
GO FORWARD WITH THE OPCD
ORIGINAL
BOUNDARIES.
BUT STILL, EVEN IF THEY VOTED
NO, THESE FIVE WOULD STILL
BE EXAMINED UNDER THE
RESOLUTION?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
ALTHOUGH I WOULD SAY VOTING
NEW ON THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD
WOULD
THAT THE NEIGHBORS DON'T HAVE
AS GOOD OF AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THETHE AREA -- OR WOULD STATE
THAT
OPCD KNOWS BETTER THAN THE
NEIGHBORS.
>> YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE.
SO FOR ME NOW, NOW I
UNDERSTAND IT BUT I GET IT.
SO YOU CAN HAVE BOTH.
>> YOU CAN HAVE BOTH, AND THEN
ADDRESSING THE REDUCTION OF
FINNEY, SO IN ALL OF THESE I
LITERALLY WENT
BLOCK BY BLOCK AND COUNTED THESE
BLOCKS.
SO WITH FINNEY, THERE IS A
SLIGHT EXPANSION TO THE
EAST, WHICH WAS WEST GREEN LAKE,
AND
A SLIGHT EXPANSION TO THE WEST,
WHICH IS EAST BALLARD.
>> GOT IT.
>> SO IT ESSENTIALLY TOOK
THE DENSITY OFF THE TOP OF THE
HILL AND MOVED IT -- YOU KNOW,
WHEN I LOOK AT 65th AND 8th, IT
FEELS MORE CONNECTED TO 15th AND
65th
THAN IT DOES TO FINNEY AND 65th.
>> I GOT YOUR FACTS HERE, I'M
NOT CROSS
EXAMINING YOU. I UNDERSTAND NOW.
THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR, FOR
INDULGING ME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ.
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE,
FOLLOWED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
RINCK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME
I'M SPEAKING THIS MORNING, AND
I
SUPPORT THE POINTS MADE
BY MANY -- THERE'S A
COMMONALITY
IN THE SENSE OF I APPRECIATE
THE MACRO APPROACH FROM OPCD AND
THE MAYOR'S TEAM.
BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, UNDERSTANDING THE DISTRICT
ISN'T
QUITE THERE.
PARTLY THIS GOES -- THERE'S JUST
A LOT.
AND PARTICULARLY IN A CITY THAT
HAS ECAs, THAT HAS RAVINES,
AND ALSO THE SLOPES.
ALL THE PIECES, THERE'S SOME
COMMONALITIES HERE.
AND SO THAT'S THE REASON
WHY I'VE BEEN, YOU
KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGING MY
COLLEAGUES'
OUTREACH AND
UNDERSTANDING OF
THIS. IT ALSO GOES TO MY
AMENDMENTS.
AND FOR ME, MAGNOLIA IS A LITTLE
BIT OF A SPECIAL CASE,
BECAUSE MAGNOLIA WAS PART OF
D-7 AND I HAVE PART OF IT.
I HAVE EAST MAGNOLIA, IF THAT
IS SUCH A THING, LIKE EAST
BALLARD.
THE FIRST THING I WANTED ED ED
TO
ACKNOWLEDGE, THE AMOUNT OF
OUTREACH THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS HAS DONE IS
INCREDIBLE.
MY TEAM HAS BEEN WORKING
CLOSELY WITH HIS TEAM AS IT
RELATES TO
MAGNOLIA.
WE'VE BEEN ENGAGING WITH
MAGNOLIA. THIS IS THE EXCEPTION
TO
THE RULE ON MAGNOLIA, AND I
REALLY
COMMEND COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS' TEAM, AND THE
PEOPLE OF
MAGNOLIA.
THEY REALLY
ENGAGED. I KNOW THIS AREA
QUITE WELL MYSELF.
SO I COMMEND
EVERYONE PARTICIPATING IN THIS.
FOR COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, I AM
DEFINITELY A YES ON THE
MAGNOLIA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS,
THE FREMONT -- ALL THE WORK
YOU'VE
DONE.
THE REASON WHY I'M SPEAKING
IS, THIS WAS KIND OF HINTED AT
IN THE BEGINNING WHEN I
MENTIONED
NUMBER 42.
THIS TIES INTO MY NUMBER 50, AND
ALSO NUMBER
34. SO I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO
THE THREE AS ONE ASPECT OF ALL
THREE
THAT THEY SHARE IS THEIR
EXPANSION, AND PARTICULARLY
WITH NUMBER 34, THE NEED FOR
A SPECIAL EIS.
COLLEAGUES, I SERVE ON THE
TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD
FOR THE PUGET SOUND, AND I'M
NOW PART OF A COMMITTEE THAT'S
REVIEWING THE PUGET
SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL.
THE CITY SHOULD KNOW, BECAUSE OF
THE DELAY, THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO
HAVE BEEN DONE AT THE END OF
LAST YEAR, AND HERE WE ARE
GOING INTO '26.
THIS IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE
THE COMP PLAN IS A TRIGGER FOR
PSRC.
FOR THOSE THAT DON'T
UNDERSTAND, THAT IS WHERE ALL
THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION
DOLLARS
GO THROUGH.
AND FOR THE CITY, IF YOU DON'T
REALIZE THIS, THE
CITY OF SEATTLE IS IN THE
PENALTY BOX.
WE ARE IN PROVISO RIGHT NOW.
ALL PROJECTS ARE PROVISOED
RIGHT NOW, ON THE ATUMP
SSUMPTION THAT WE
PASS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE HAVE ALREADY GONE INTO
OVERTIME, AND IF WE NEED
A SPECIAL EIS AT THIS -- IF
THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOES
FURTHER, WE'RE GOING TO BE
RUNNING AFOUL.
WE'RE GOING TO LOSE ALL
THOSE TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS.
I'VE NOT SEEN A SINGLE OUNCE OF
REPORTING ON THIS, ALTHOUGH I'VE
SEEN REPORTERS IN THE
MEETINGS, THERE'S BEEN ZERO
REPORTING ABOUT THIS.
IT'S A MASSIVE PIECE TO THIS
DISCUSSION, AND IT'S BEEN
A MASSIVE PIECE TO LEGAL, AS
WELL.
I'VE GOT A COUPLE
OF DOCUMENTS FROM LEGAL.
AND SO THIS IS THE REASON WHY --
ONE REASON IN TERMS OF NUMBER
34, I RESPECT AND I
UNDERSTAND COUNCIL MEMBER
RINCK'S
INTENTION WITH NUMBER 34, BUT
NUMBER
34 TOTALLY BLOWS THIS PROCESS
OUT
OF THE WATER IN TERMS OF
NEEDING A SPECIAL EIS, AND IT
WOULD
FORCE US TO RUN AFOUL OF THE
THIS.
SO COLLEAGUES, WE
CANNOT DO NUMBER 34.
BECAUSE OF THAT PRINCIPLE, I AM
REMOVING NUMBER 50.
EACH THOUGH IT'S REALLY
SMALL, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW
NUMBER 50.
BECAUSE IN PRINCIPLE, I CAN'T
SAY WHAT I JUST SAID TO COUNCIL
MEMBER RINCK AND THEN ASK
MY COLLEAGUES TO PUSH
FORWARD NUMBER 50.
THIS ALSO GIVES ME
AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE, AND
I THINK YOU HEARD IT BEFORE
MY CONCEPT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD
VILLAGE.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE VILLAGES IN
THE PLANS, SOME ARE ALREADY IN
DUE TO MY COORDINATION AND
COMMUNICATION WITH OPCD.
THIS WILL GO FOR THE
NICKERSON, IT WILL BECOME A
NEIGHBORHOOD
VILLAGE.
I KNOW THAT'S A TECHNICAL TERM,
OPCD DOESN'T LIKE IT BECAUSE
IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL TERM,
BUT IT ACKNOWLEDGES AN AREA THAT
DOES HAVE THE COMMERCIAL, THE
TRANSIT, THAT AREA WHERE WE
CAN DO THE HOUSING.
SO THERE WILL BE A NEIGHBORHOOD
VILLAGE FOR NICKERSON, BUT
I'M WITHDRAWING OUT OF
PRINCIPLE AMENDMENT 50 DUE TO
THE CONCERNS
RELATED TO RUNNING AFOUL OF OUR
TIMELINES AS ESPECT TO
THE REGIONAL COUNCIL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT NUMBER
42 BE REMOVED.
SO I CAN VOTE SEPARATELY FOR
THIS.
I SUPPORT THE EAST BALLARD,
BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE -- I
CAN'T BE
ONE WAY WITH
THESE AMENDMENTS AND TREAT THE
OTHERS
DIFFERENTLY. SO OUT OF RESPECT
FOR THAT
AND THE MAJOR ISSUE THAT WE HAVE
AS A
CITY, BECAUSE TRULY, WE ARE
IN THE PENALTY BOX WITH THE
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL.
IT'S KIND OF
EMBARRASSING STATING THERE IN
THE MEETING.
WE'RE ESSENTIALLY -- THEY'VE
BEEN EXTREMELY GRACIOUS,
AND THERE'S THIS PROVISO
PROCESS,
AND THERE'S A FEW OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, SO IT WASN'T
LIKE -- THE CITY OF
SEATTLE, WE'RE THE BIG ONE, AND
IT'S
UNFORTUNATE. BUT HERE WE ARE.
AGAIN, IT'S A MAJOR
CONCERN RELATED TO THE
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS
AND
THE OTHER PIECES THAT COME
THROUGH THE PUGET SOUND REGIONAL
COUNCIL.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON 34,
WITHDRAWING 50 AND
ASK FOR 42 TO BE PULLED FROM THE
SET.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE
IS WITHDRAWING AMENDMENT NUMBER
50
AND ASKING NUMBER 42 TO BE
REMOVED FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE
WHEN WE CALL THE ROLL FOR THIS
PACKAGE.
COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WANT TO THANK THE
SPONSOR OF THESE AMENDMENTS FOR
YOUR
CAREFUL WORK, ENGAGING
COMMUNITY AND THINKING
THOUGHTFULLY THROUGH WHAT'S
TIMELY AND WHAT'S
IMPORTANT AND APPROPRIATE.
I KNOW WE'RE TAKING
UP DISCUSSION ON A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS.
I JUST WANT TO HONE BACK
IN QUICKLY ON FINNEY, AND JUST
TO
CLARIFY, BECAUSE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT
NEIGHBORHOODS.
I THINK IN THE PLAINEST OF
TERMS, WOULD WE JUST OUTLINE
WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING
WITH FINNEY RIDGE, AND WHILE WE
WAIT, WHAT DOES -- WHILE WE'RE
WAITING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
TO GO THROUGH WITH THE DOCKET
RESOLUTION, WHAT'S HAPPENING
THERE, AND THEN ONCE WE ARE
DONE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW THROUGH THE DOCKET
RESOLUTION, WHAT IS THE DECISION
POINT BEFORE US AS IT RELATES TO
FINNEY.
>> LET ME STATE AGAIN,
I'LL RESPOND TO YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBER
RINCK, THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SAY COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE, I APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU JUST STATED, BECAUSE IF WE
DELAY, WE ARE GOING TO BE IN
SOME REALLY BIG TROUBLE.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM
OUR LAWYERS THAT, HAVING BOTH
FINNEY AND EAST BALLARD, SO
BEING
ADDITIVE OF EAST BALLARD
PLUS KEEPING FINNEY WOULD
ABSOLUTELY TRIGGER ADDITIONAL
LARGELARGE REVIEW,
AND COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE,
YOU'RE RIGHT.
WE ARE SO LATE THAT WE
ARE TAKING UP COUNCIL BILL
120985, ALL THE BILLS WE ARE
TAKING
UP RIGHT NOW ARE 121 FILL IN THE
BLANKS.
THIS COUNCIL BILL HAS BEEN
WITH US FOR SO LONG THAN IT IS
IN
A DIFFERENT NUMERICAL SET.
THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF --
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY IT, RIGHT?
I HAVE THE CHOICE RIGHT NOW
OF EITHER KEEPING FINNEY OR
CREATING EAST BALLARD,
NORTHWEST GREEN LAKE, AND UPPER
FREMONT AND HAVING EXPANSIONS
THERE. SO THEN FROM THERE,
THERE'S
ALSO
DOCKETED BOUNDARIES FOR FUTURE
STUDY.
AND SO THAT IS THE
CONVERSATION IN THE FUTURE, DO
WE WANT
TO BE ABLE TO ADD A
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER TO
FINNEY. WE CAN DO THAT THROUGH
THE DOCKETING PROCESS, WHILE AT
THE
SAME TIME BEING ABLE TO
AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF
THESE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, KEEP
US
BELOW THE THRESHOLD OF NEEDING A
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS, AND BE ABLE
TO STUDY FUTURE GROWTH IN A
BETTER
WAY.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?
I'M SORRY IF IT DID NOT.
>> IT CERTAINLY DID.
I KNOW WE HAVE THE
DOCKET RESOLUTION IS A NEW TERM
FOR
THE LISTENING PUBLIC.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S CLEAR THAT WE HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE UP
FINNEY ONCE WE COMPLETE THAT
ADDITIONAL
REVIEW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RINCK. COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA,
FOLLOWED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
FOR ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE ADD DIFFERENT, I WILL
SAY THAT I SHARE COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE'S CONCERNS.
IN THE AGGREGATE, IF THERE
IS MORE THAN WHAT WAS STUDIED IN
THE EIS THAT COULD KICK IN A
SUPPLEMENTAL, SO IT'S NOT
INDIVIDUALLY, IT'S ALL TAKEN
TOGETHER.
SO I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THEM.
NORMALLY I WOULD NOT
BE TELLING OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS
WHAT THEY
SHOULD DO IN THEIR DISTRICTS,
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEIR FOLKS
THE BEST.
I WILL SAY I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT IN THE AGGREGATE ALL OF
THESE ACTIONS WE'RE TAKING
TODAY, TAKING THIS INTO A SUP
MEMENTAL,
WHICH WILL THEN CAUSE A DELAY.
FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M NOT
GOING TO BE VOTING FOR THESE,
BUT
I'M GLAD THAT THEY'RE IN THE
RESOLUTION, BECAUSE THEY CAN
BE STUDIED AND THEN WE CAN MAKE
A
DETERMINATION, WHETHER THEY DO
NEED A SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
THEN WE CAN DETERMINE IF WE MOVE
FORWARD
WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL.
SO IT'S NOT THE LAST BITE
OF THE APPLE, IF YOU WILL, NOW.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I DO ECHO THE -- I SHARE
THE SENTIMENT EXPRESSED BY
COUNCIL MEMBERS KETTLE AND
RIVERA.
THAT SAID, I DO WANT
TO SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE
AND RECOGNIZE AND APPLAUD THE
WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY
COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS AND YOUR OFFICE
TO GENERATE THESE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS.
AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE FACT
THAT THERE ARE 115 PLUS
AMENDMENTS OVER THE COURSE OF A
MONTH AND
A HALF IS NOT A BAD THING, IT'S
A
GOOD THING ON SUCH A
HIGHLY COMPLEX PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, THAT'S A GOOD
THING, BECAUSE
IT SHOWS THAT THIS BODY, THIS
INSTITUTION, WE'RE TRYING
HARD TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE
MANY
COMMUNITY -- PIECES OF COMMUNITY
FEED BASHG FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE
HEARING AND
TRYING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
AND PERHAPS NO BETTER EXAMPLE
OF THAT IS THE WORK LED
BY COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS AND
HIS OFFICE.
AS EVIDENCED
BY HIS 27 OR HOWEVER MANY
AMENDMENTS.
SO I JUST WANT TO APPLAUD AND
APPRECIATE THE WORK,
SHARING
SIMILAR CONCERNS ALREADY
EXPRESSED.
BUT THAT SAID, I JUST WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU TO COUNCIL
MEMBER
KETTLE.
I WAS GOING TO ASK AND PUT
YOU ON THE SPOT, BECAUSE YOU
DO SHARE MAGNOLIA AND I'M GLAD
YOU
OFFERED YOUR INSIGHTS INTO THAT.
BECAUSE IT IS A VERY LARGE
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND KIND OF
UNIQUE TO HAVE TWO COUNCIL
DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVES.
I KNOW THAT IF SEATTLE'S
LARGEST NEIGHBORHOOD BY
POPULATION
AND LAND MASS, WEST SEATTLE AND
BY
THE WAY, SEATTLE'S FIRST
NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THAT HAD TWO --
IF THAT HAD SPLIT
REPRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, I HOPE
PEOPLE WOULD BE CURIOUS TO
HEAR THE THOUGHTS ON ISSUES THAT
IMPACT THE BROADER
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BOTH
REPRESENTS.
I APPRECIATE THE WORK
AND THANK YOU,
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE, FOR
CHIMING IN.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> CAN I NOTE YOU MISSED
THE DAN AND BOB SHOW IN MAGNOLIA
AS WE HAVE BEEN REACHING OUT TO
COMMUNITY.
SORRY, CHAIR, I JUST HAD
TO FOLLOW THAT
UP.
>> WE KNOW.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE.
I SEE THREE HANDS ON THE SCREEN.
THERE'S A LOT GOING ON, YOU'RE
GOOD, NO WORRIES AT
ALL. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT GOING
ON.
WE HAVE
A TON OF HANDS, A TON OF
TALKING.
AND JUST A LOT OF
INFORMATION COMING AT US.
ARE THERE ANYMORE
FURTHER COMMENTS JUST FOR THE
RECORD
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE HAS
PULLED OUT -- YES, AND I'LL GET
TO YOU,
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS FOR
THOSE CLOSING COMMENTS.
JUST FOR THE
RECORD, COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE
HAS PULLED OUT
AMENDMENT NUMBER 42.
SO WE ARE GOING TO BE VOTING
ON AMENDMENTS 44, 45, 48 AND 49
AS A PACKAGE.
AS HOW WE'LL DO IT IS DO THE
INDIVIDUAL VOTE, NUMBER 42
FIRST.
AND THEN WE'LL DO THE 44, 45,
48 AND 49 AS A PACKAGE.
COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS
FOR CLOSING COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
MY DEEPEST APOLOGIES ABOUT THE
CEPA
CONFUSION HERE REGARDING
DOCKETING.
THE DOCKETING IS A COMPLETELY
SEPARATE -- EVEN THOUGH IT'S
LOOKING AT THE SAME AREAS, SIT
A SEPARATE PROCESS FROM WHAT WE
HAVE BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IN
A REALLY IMPORTANT WAY.
THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE
DIFFERENT THAN THE BOUNDARIES WE
HAVE HERE
BEFORE US.
SO IN
OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS THAT
HAVE BEEN -- FOR
INSTANCE, WITHIN AMENDMENT 34,
IF AMENDMENT 34 WAS DOCKETED,
THOSE ARE NOT EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, THOSE ARE DOCKETED
FOR FUTURE USE.
WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US ARE
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS CHANGING BOUNDARIES AND
HAVE DIFFERENT MAPS FOR FUTURE
STUDY, WHICH IS IN THE DOCKET.
IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS BEING
TAKEN UP
WITH AMENDMENT 34, BECAUSE -- SO
IF WE WERE TO TAKE JUST IN THIS
AREA, IF WE WERE TO TAKE AN
ADD EAST BALLARD AND RETAIN
FINNEY, WE WOULD BE WAY OVER THE
EIS
THRESHOLD. IF WE WERE TO RETAIN
FINNEY
AND DO EAST BALLARD, WE WOULD
LIKELY BE ABOVE THAT THRESHOLD.
WHAT I -- THESE ARE ALL INNER
CONNECTED.
AND THAT MOVEMENT OF JUST
LESS THAN A HALF A MILE OFF OF
FINNEY TO NORTHWEST GREEN LAKE
TO
UPPER FREMONT AND EAST BALLARD
IS
NOT A NET REDUCTION, IT IS
ACTUALLY A NET ADDITION OF WHAT
WE
HAVE BEFORE US, AND THEN
THE DOCKETING PROCESS IS
COMPLETELY
TO THE SIDE THAT
CONTINUES WITH MY RESIDENTS.
I'VE WORKED WITH SO MANY
NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT
OPINIONS, AND THAT IS THE
NEED FOR FUTURE STUDY IN THE
DOCKET.
THAT DOCKETING IS VERY
DIFFERENT THAN THE EXPERIENCE
WE'RE
HAVING WITH AMENDMENT 34,
BECAUSE
THE AMENDMENTS WE HAVE BEFORE US
ARE THE LINES OF THE
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
TODAY, AND
THESE AMENDMENTS REFLECT
THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH I'VE
DONE
FOR -- SINCE DECEMBER OF LAST
YEAR.
SO
I ASK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT -- WE ARE,
AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON
NUMBER 42, WHICH WAS PULLED OUT,
REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE, AND THEN VOTING
ON AMENDMENTS 44, 45, 48, 49, AS
A
PACKAGE.
IS EVERYONE CLEAR WITH THAT?
AWESOME.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AMENDMENT 42.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA.
>>
NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA.
>>
NAY.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>>÷÷ ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, TWO
OPPOSED, THREE ABSTENTIONS.
>> THE AMENDMENT PASSES.
MOTION CARRIES AND ADOPTED AND
WE'LL NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT
AMENDMENT.
SORRY, WE'RE GOING TO --
I'M JUST READING A SCRIPT.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO VOTE ON
ITEMS
44, 45, 48 AND 49.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK --
OH, EXCUSE ME.
SLZ THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE
ROLL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA.
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON.
>>
ABSTAIN.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE
OPPOSED, THREE ABSTENTIONS.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER ITEM
NUMBER 51 FOR AGENDA -- THE --
WE
WILL NOW CONSIDER AMENDMENT 51.
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND TO SAY,
AGAIN, I HAVE WITHDRAWN.
>> SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMENDMENT COUNCIL
BILL AS AMENDED ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 51. WILL YOU PLEASE WALK
US THROUGH AMENDMENT NUMBER 51.
>> YEAH. THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN
INCLUDES THE MOVE TO THE NORTH.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD THAT I CAN
THAT EXPANSION AREA AND INSTEAD
ADD IT TO THE UPPER QUEEN ANN
URBAN CENTER WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF A COUPLE OF BLOCKS IN THE
NORTHWEST SECTION OF THE
EXPANSION AREA. IT WOULD ALSO
REMOVE A SINGLE BLOCK FACE ALONG
WEST McROTH STREET AND FINALLY,
IT CHANGES THE NAME OF THE UPPER
QUEEN ANN URBAN CENTER TO THE
QUEEN ANN URBAN CENTER.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND
COLLEAGUES, THERE IS A THEME, AS
I NOTED. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE
AS COUNCILMEMBER SAKA STARTED,
IT'S ABOUT LOCAL KNOWLEDGE.
WHILE I RECOGNIZE AND UNDERSTAND
THE BROAD APPROACH WITHIN THE
MAYOR'S ONE SEATTLE PLAN, THIS
AMENDMENT DOES A FEW THINGS
HERE. ONE, IT CHANGES THE NAME
FROM UPPER QUEEN ANN TO THE
QUEEN ANN URBAN CENTER. MY
COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
IS USUALLY THE HISTORIAN, BUT
THE AREA FROM QUEEN ANN DOWN TO
DENNY GENERALLY WAS KNOWN AS
LOWER QUEEN ANN. BUT OVER THE
YEARS, OVER THE DECADES, WE'VE
SEEN INCREDIBLE GROWTH AND
INCREDIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT
IS NOW UPTOWN. UPTOWN IS AN
INCREDIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND
WITHIN THIS CONTEXT, A REGIONAL
CENTER JOINING WITHIN MY
DISTRICT THE SOUTH LAKE UNION
LAKE CENTER AND THE DOWNTOWN
REGIONAL CENTER. THE GREATER
DOWNTOWN REGIONAL CENTER. AND
THIS HAS ALSO BEEN FORMALIZED.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES ARE
ROUGHLY ROY STREET. THERE'S A
LITTLE BUMP. QUEEN AVENUE NORTH.
AND THEN IT STAIRCASES AROUND
THE HILL. SO BASICALLY THIS IS
QUEEN ANN HILL, AND THIS IS WHAT
THIS URBAN CENTER IS FOR. HENCE,
PARTLY FOR THE NAME CHANGE. THIS
NAME CHANGE ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THAT
WE DO HAVE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS
HERE. THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN
BASICALLY TOOK ONE NEIGHBORHOOD
AND WENT ACROSS INTO THE QUEEN
ANN NEIGHBORHOOD. TO FIX THIS
AND TO ADDRESS THE PIECE WAS TO
SWAP TO BRING THE QUEEN ANN
URBAN CENTER DOWN TO THE UPTOWN
REGIONAL CENTER AND TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES AS THEY
ARE. NOW, COLLEAGUES, I HAVE
COORDINATED. I'VE HAD
DISCUSSIONS WITH OPCD TO THE
EARLIER DISCUSSION. OPCD
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE'S NO
ISSUES WITH THIS SWAP WITH THIS
CHANGE OF THIS AREA FROM
REGIONAL TO URBAN CENTER. AND
THEN WE ARE GOOD FROM THAT
PERSPECTIVE. AND I'VE ALSO BEEN
TALKING TO THEM REGARDING THE
REGIONAL CENTERS. THE THREE THAT
I HAVE AS WELL. SO, THERE'S NO,
FROM THAT CONSIDERATION, THERE
IS NO IMPACTS TO WHAT WE ARE
DOING TODAY. IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS,
BY THE WAY, I MENTIONED QUEEN
ANN HILL, THE TIPPOGRAPHY,
SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN RAISED
MORE THAN ONCE. THERE'S A
PARTICULAR ISSUE AS YOU SEE IN
ONE LITTLE BLOCK AND IT
HIGHLIGHTS THE CHALLENGES WE
HAVE WITH THE TIPPOGRAPHY. ONE
OTHER ELEMENT AND THIS IS A
SMALL TWEAK TO THE TOP IS TO
HAVE A TWEAK TO THE NORTHERN
BOUNDARY. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF
THE QUEEN ANN BOULEVARD PARK. AS
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AND OVER
THE LAST COUPLE DAYS, THERE'S A
SLIGHT TWEAK TO THE NORTH TO
SUPPORT THE QUEEN ANN BOULEVARD
PARK. BECAUSE IT KIND OF COMES
DOWN LIKE THE TOP OF A HEART
WITH WEST MCGRAW PLACE. THIS IS
ABOUT, AGAIN, ENSURING THE
UNIFORMTIVE OF THE QUEEN ANN
BOULEVARD PARKS TO ENSURE THAT
AS WE MOVE FORWARD IT'LL BE AN
AMENITY FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. SO,
THESE ARE THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF
THE AMENDMENT NUMBER 51. I DO
WANT TO SPEAK AS WELL BECAUSE I
THINK MY COLLEAGUES KNOW THIS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BY
MEMBERS OF COMMUNITY THAT DID
WANT TO SHRINK THE QUEEN ANN
URBAN CENTER QUITE A BIT.
PARTICULARLY FROM THE EAST AND
THE WEST. COMING IN TOWARDS
QUEEN AVENUE NORTH. AND IN TERMS
OF WORKING WITH COMMUNITY, THE
VARIOUS TYPES OF COMMUNITY AND
THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. I'M SURE
WE ALL HAVE DEALT WITH FOLKS ON
THE VARIOUS RANGE OF THE
APPROACHES TO OUR URBAN CENTERS,
OUR REGIONAL CENTERS AND OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ABOUT THIS
PIECE. BUT I FEEL THAT THE QUEEN
ANN URBAN CENTER DOES DO OUR
GOALS WITH THE DENSEIFICATION
GOALS BUT ALSO DOES IT WITHIN
KEEPING THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER. I THINK THIS WILL BE
GOOD FOR QUEEN ANN. I RECOGNIZE
THE POINTS THAT ARE MADE. BUT
AGAIN, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE
DENSEIFICATION WE'RE DOING IS
KEEPING WITH THE GOALS AND ALSO
GOING TO BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY
THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER,
IF YOU WILL, WILL BE
STRENGTHENED. PARTICULARLY WHEN
WE ADD SOME CHALLENGE VILLAGES.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS
ABOUT CREATING A 15 MINUTE CITY,
AND WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING
THIS. BY THE WAY, THIS DENSITY
INDICATION HAS SO MANY GREAT
EFFECTS. WE SEE THIS NOW WITH
OUR NEW SALT AND STRAW. WE HAVE
A NEW ITALIAN RESTAURANT THAT WE
STOLE OR COPIED FROM MY
COLLEAGUE FROM DISTRICT 3. AND
THE 7/11 IS GOING THROUGH A
MAJOR UPGRADE RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S ALL THESE CHANGES AND
PARTLY IT REFLECTS THE
DENSEIFICATION WE'RE LOOKING
THROUGH WITH THE QUEEN ANN URBAN
CENTER. I HAVE GREAT AMOUNT OF
RESPECT TO ALL THE INPUT I GOT
ON IT. TAKING IN EVERYTHING IN
ITS ENTIRETY, CHOSE TO MAINTAIN
THE QUEEN ANN URBAN CENTER AS IT
IS NOW AND THEN TO EXTEND IT
SOUTH ON QUEEN ANN DOWN TO
UPTOWN. IN A SENSE TO, IF YOU
WILL REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD,
STAND UP FOR QUEEN ANN. I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE THIS NOTE BECAUSE
IT'S BEEN THE TOPIC OF
DISCUSSION WITHIN THE DISTRICT
AND PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE
QUEEN ANN NEIGHBORHOOD. SO,
THANK YOU, CHAIR. COLLEAGUES, I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. ARE THERE
OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 51? ANY
COMMENTS REGARDING 51? SEEING
NONE, THE ONLY COMMENT I WILL
MAKE IS YOU KNOW A NEIGHBORHOOD
IS CHANGING WHEN YOUR 7/11 IS
GETTING AN UPGRADE, AS I HEARD.
INTERESTING FACTS. [ ROLL CALLED
]
SIX IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE'LL NOW
CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, YOU'RE
MOVED TO MOVE IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THE COUNCIL
BILL ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 53.
PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THE
AMENDMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT. NOW FOR SOMETHING
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THE BILL. SO
COUNCIL BILL 120985 MAKES A FEW
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE
TO RECOGNIZE THE NEW CATEGORIES
OF REGIONAL CENTER, URBAN CENTER
AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
GENERALLY JUST REPLACING THE
NAMES OF THOSE CENTER NAMES.
THIS AMENDMENT AMENDS ONE OF THE
PLACES WHERE THE NEW NAMES ARE
BEING USED TO INCREASE
REQUIREMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEW
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS. CURRENTLY,
IN REGIONAL CENTERS AND URBAN
CENTERS, ANY DEVELOPMENT IS
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SIDEWALKS,
CURBS, GUTTERS BECAUSE WE ARE
ANTICIPATING HIGH LEVELS OF
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN THOSE
AREAS. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO
PLACE THOSE REQUIREMENTS ON ALL
LOTS IN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA, AS SPONSOR, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. COLLEAGUES,
AT ITS CORE, THIS AMENDMENT IS
ABOUT IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY
AND WALKABILITY FOR ALL. THIS
AMENDMENT IS ABOUT BETTER
POSITIONING OUR CITY TO TRULY
BRING ABOUT 15 MINUTE WALKABLE
NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL. THIS
AMENDMENT IS ABOUT MAKING
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE
UPGRADES SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST
WELCOMING NEW NEIGHBORS. WE'RE
MAKING SURE THAT THEY CAN EASILY
NAVIGATE THEIR NEW NEIGHBORHOODS
AND COMMUNITIES AND GET AROUND.
UNSEXY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
UNSEXY CURB AND GUTTER AND
RAMPS. MIGHT BE UNSEXY TO SOME
AND SIDEWALKS. BUT, THIS IS AN
AMENDMENT THAT TRULY BENEFITS
ALL. WE TALK ABOUT ENSURING, WE
HAVE THOUGHTFUL GROWTH AND
THOUGHTFUL PLANNING. WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE WE HAVE APPROPRIATE
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THAT.
THIS AMENDMENT DOES EXACTLY
THAT. WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE
UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE A 27%
CURRENT MISSING SIDEWALK NETWORK
ACROSS THE CITY. THIS HELPS
POSITION OUR CITY TO BETTER
ADDRESS THAT. AND I THINK IT'S
A SMART, COMMON SENSE AMENDMENT.
WE'RE ALREADY ADDING DENSITY IN
HERE IN THESE SPECIFIC
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS. LET'S
MAKE IT MORE WALKABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL. SO, I THINK
IT REFLECTS AN IMPORTANT POLICY
CHOICE TO BROADEN THE EXISTING
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING, AGAIN,
SOME FEATURES THAT SOME WOULD
CALL UNSEXY, LIKE CURBS AND
RAMPS, SIDEWALKS, BUT THEY ARE
VERY IMPORTANT AND THEY DO TRULY
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLE'S
EVERY DAY LIVES. ESPECIALLY FOR
AN ACCESSIBILITY STANDPOINT. I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 53? ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CLERK,
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [
ROLL CALLED ]
EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> MOTION CARRIES. AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE'LL
CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING
TO WITHDRAW AMENDMENT NUMBER 111
WITH FULL INTENTIONS, AND AM I
ALLOWED TO ADDRESS IT? MY
AMENDMENT IF I WANT TO? OKAY,
AWESOME. OKAY, I CAN ADDRESS MY
AMENDMENT. OKAY, GREAT. LET ME
BE CLEAR, I HAVE FULL INTENTIONS
OF BRINGING THIS BACK TO FULL
COUNCIL AFTER THE COMMITTEE. SO
I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW IT TODAY.
NOT BECAUSE I CHANGED MY MIND
BUT BECAUSE I FULLY INTEND TO
BRING THE CONVERSATION TO FULL
COUNCIL AS I WORK ON THIS
AMENDMENT. I BELIEVE IT DESERVES
MY COLLECTIVE ATTENTION, AND MY
COLLECTIVE ACTION AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. AND I WILL BE
WORKING WITH CENTRAL STAFF TO
MAKE SURE THIS AMENDMENT IS
TIGHTER. LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH
WHERE I CAME WITH THIS. I'M
GOING TO SAY MY PEACE ON 111 AND
THEN WE'LL JUMP TO 114. LAST
FRIDAY, DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, WE HEARD A NUMBER OF
VOICES. ONE OF THOSE VOICES
STOOD OUT TO ME. IT WAS FROM A
YOUNG WOMAN WHO STOOD
COURAGEOUSLY IN FRONT OF THE
ROOM AND SHE BASICALLY SAID DO
NOT ERASE ME AND TALKED ABOUT
IT. THAT MOMENT WAS MORE
EMOTIONAL AND IT WAS A TRUTH AND
CONVERSATION THIS CITY HAS BEEN
TRYING TO AVOID FOR FAR TOO
LONG. WE HAVE ERASED THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT, AND IT IS A SHELL OF
WHAT IT USED TO BE. NOT BY
ACCIDENT. NOT BY OVERSIGHT BUT
SLOWLY THROUGH A SERIES OF
DELIBERATE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS AND
POLICIES THAT OVER TIME MAY NOT
BE INTENTIONAL, BUT HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
DISPLACED FAMILIES AND ERASED
CULTURAL IDENTITY AND TURNED
ONCE A THRIVING COMMUNITY INTO
SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY ALMOST
UNRECOGNIZABLE. THE FACTS ARE IN
THE FIGURES. I'M GIVING YOU THE
ANTIDOTE OF WHAT THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT USED TO BE AND I'LL
COME WITH FACTS AND FIGURES TO
TALK ABOUT THAT. IN 1970,
SEATTLE HAD THE HIGHEST RATE OF
BLACK OWNERSHIP IN THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY. RIGHT NEAR IN SEATTLE.
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT. 90% BRAKE.
90% BLACK. THEY CARVED OUT A
SPACE TO CALL HOME. A LOT OF THE
FAMILIES CAME FROM THE SOUTH.
GREAT MIGRATION AS A LOT OF
PEOPLE REMEMBER. IT WAS A PLACE
OF PRIDE, RESILIENCE, CULTURAL
BRILLIANCE. OVER THE PAST
DECADE, THE CITY'S APPROACH TO
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
TARGETED SOME OF THESE
COMMUNITIES FOR INTENSE GROWTH.
AND I WANT TO BE HONEST THAT WE
HAVE USED HISTORICALLY RED LINE
NEIGHBORHOODS AS OUR TESTING
GROUND FOR DENSITY, ZONING
CHANGES AND URBAN REDEVELOPMENT
WHILE PROTECTING WEALTHY AND
WHITER NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT
THOSE SAME PRESSURES. IN DOING
SO, WE'VE CREATED CONDITIONS OF
DISPLACEMENT IN GUS GUISE AS
PROGRESS IN OUR CITY. THESE
WORDS ARE HARD FOR PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND. THEY'RE HARD FOR
PEOPLE TO ABSURD. I'VE BEEN
LIVING THIS REALITY. WHEN I HEAR
PEOPLE SAY WE NEED TO BUILD MORE
HOUSING, WE NEED TO PLAN FOR
GROWTH AND THAT WILL HELP WITH
DISPLACEMENT. AT THE COST OF
WHO? AND WHERE ARE THOSE GROWTH
TARGETED? WHEN I LOOK AT THESE
POLICIES I DON'T SEE JUST
ZONING MAPS. I DON'T SEE RED
LINES. I DON'T SEE HEIGHT
BONUSES, FAR DENSITIES. I JUST
DON'T SEE THAT. I SEE PEOPLE
THAT ARE NO LONGER HERE. I SEE
ELDERS FORCED TO SELL THEIR
HOMES BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T
AFFORD RISING TAXES AND FAMILIES
WHO COULDN'T KEEP UP
SKYROCKETING RENTS. I SEE THE
CHURCHES, BUSINESSES, THE
COMMUNITY CENTERS THAT ARE NOW
GONE AND I SEE US HAVING MORE
ENERGY AND PASSION FOR
PROTECTING TREE ROOTS OVER
FAMILY ROOTS. WE TALK ABOUT
GROWTH. HELPING WITH
DISPLACEMENT, BUT WHEN WE ARE
TARGETING IT AND IT'S UNEVEN,
THAT IS NOT RIGHT. GROWTH WHEN
CONCENTRATED IN COMMUNITIES
BURDENED BY HISTORIC DIVESTMENT
IS ANOTHER FORM OF ERASER. WE
ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT
BUILDINGS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PEOPLE. SO SOME HAVE ACCUSED ME
OF WEAKENING THE COME PRESENCIVE
PLAN FOR MY AMENDMENT 111 BUT I
ASK YOU, HOW STRONG ARE ANY
PLANS THAT DOESN'T PRIORITIZE
REPAIRING THE HARMS FOR
COMMUNITY? HOW STRONG ARE PLANS
IF WE'RE NOT MAKING SURE THAT
THESE PLANS REPAIR THE HARMS
THAT ARE UNDER THE DISGUISE OF
EQUITY. THAT IS NOT ABOUT
STALLING. I'M NOT ABOUT
STALLING GROWTH. THIS IS ABOUT
DEMANDING FAIRNESS ABOUT HOW WE
GROW. I'M ASKING OURSELVES WHAT
KIND OF CITY DO YOU WANT TO BE
AND WHO ARE WE GOING TO BELONG
TO? I REMAIN COMMITTED TO
BRINGING THIS TO FULL COUNCIL
AND MAKING SURE I HAVE NUMBERS
AND FACTS AND FIGURES. THAT I'M
NOT SHRINKING GROWTH SO PEOPLE
DON'T THINK I'M WEAKENING ONE
THING. BUT I'M MAKING SURE WHEN
I'M LOOKING AT EVERY SINGLE
POLICY IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN THAT I LOOK AT IT THROUGH
EQUITY AND INCLUSION THROUGH MY
EYES WHAT I SEE. I LIVE THIS
THING EVERY DAY. SO I AM ABOUT
PUTTING EQUITY INTO MOTION, NOT
JUST WORDS ABOUT OUR PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT AND DECISIONS
AND COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE
IT'S RIGHT. I'LL BE REMOVING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 111 FOR
CONSIDERATION WITH THE INTENTION
OF BRINGING IT BACK. AND YEAH. I
WILL STOP THERE. THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA
FOLLOWED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND COMMEND YOUR
COMMENTS RIGHT NOW. I REALLY
APPRECIATE HEARING THOSE. AND
I'M GLAD YOU SO ELOQUENTLY
STATED FACTS AND HISTORY. MORE
IMPORTANTLY IS ORIENTING AND
ANCHORING ON SOLUTIONS AND THE
PATH AHEAD AND HOW WE MOVE
FORWARD TOGETHER. YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I FORGOT THE
EXACT TERMS BUT U YOU SAID THAT
WE'VE USED SOMETHING ALONG THE
LINES OF USING HISTORICALLY
DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS,
PRIMARILY THOSE CONCENTRATED
WITH BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE, AS
TESTING GROUNDS FOR DENSITY.
FACTS. COULDN'T AGREE MORE.
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES
CAN'T CONTINUE TO BARE THE
BRUNT OF OUR HOUSING CRISIS. WE
CAN'T BARE THE BRUNT AND THE
SOUL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADDING
DENSITY. THAT NEEDS TO BE SHARED
MORE EQUALLY AND BROADLY ACROSS
THE CITY IN ALL NEIGHBORHOODS,
INCLUDING MORE AFFLUENT, WITH
LESS BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE. AND
I THINK THAT'S IN LARGE REASON
WHY THE STATE CAME IN WITH THE
REQUIREMENT THAT NOW WE'RE
TRYING TO IMPLEMENT HERE WITH
THIS WHOLE PROCESS. TO BETTER
ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM. AND THAT
VERY SAME CONSTRUCT THAT YOU
JUST POINTED OUT APPLIES WITH
EQUAL FORCE WITH RESPECT TO A
FEW OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT
WE'VE HAD EARLIER TODAY. WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE LATER
TODAY. WE NEED TO, THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO ADD DENSITY,
MORE GROWTH ALLOW FOR MORE
HOUSING NEEDS TO BE SHARED.
IT'S A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.
SO, JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I THOUGHT YOU
WERE GOING TO DROP THE MIC. IT
WAS WORTHY OF THAT, BUT I
APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR
FIRSTHAND, REAL WORLD LIVED
EXPERIENCES AND SAYING WHAT
NEEDED TO BE SAID. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON.
>> I APPLAUD YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. CLEARLY YOU
REMIND US THAT GROWTH FOR
GROWTH'S SAKE WITHOUT REGARD TO
HISTORICAL WRONGS AND THE
CURRENT NEEDS AND WISHES OF
RESIDENTS IN RED LINED AREAS IS
JUST PLAIN WRONG. SO YOU SAID IT
WAY MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I
COULD. I JUST WANTED TO APPLAUD
YOUR WORDS AND FOR SPEAKING
TRUTH. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORDS AND,
YOU KNOW, I APPLAUD YOU. I
SUPPORT YOU. AND ALSO, I WANT TO
SAY THAT AS WE ARE PLANNING FOR
GROWTH AND WE TALK ABOUT DENSITY
LEADING TO MORE AFFORDABILITY,
I'M FROM ONE OF THE DENSEST
CITIES AND THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS
COME WITH BETTER LIVING
CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR.
SO AS WE'RE HAVING THIS
CONVERSATION, I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO SEE THE FOCUS ON MAKING SURE
THAT OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
HAVE ACCESS TO THAT HOUSING THAT
IS GETTING BUILT. BECAUSE WHAT I
SEE A LOT IS PEOPLE TALKING ON
BEHALF OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
AND USING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
TO PROMOTE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING
TO DO, BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY
SEEING IT TRANSLATED INTO OUR
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR ENJOYING
THE BENEFITS OF THAT.
SO, I REALLY THANK YOU AND
RESPECT YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORDS. AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE MORE THAN JUST LIP
SERVICE AS WE'RE ENGAGED IN
THIS PROCESS. NOT JUST FOR US,
BUT FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE
ACTUALLY BUILDING THE HOUSING
AND ENGAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT
THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WANT TO
CHIME IN AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR REMARKS AND THANKING YOU
FOR ALSO CONSIDERING PULLING FOR
TODAY. I KNOW I EXPRESSED TO YOU
MY BIT OF HEARTBURN ABOUT THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE AMENDMENT AT
THIS STAGE. I APPRECIATE YOU AT
LEAST PAUSING FOR TODAY SO WE
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION BEFORE
FULL COUNCIL. I WANT TO EXPRESS
MY APPRECIATION FOR YOU SPEAKING
TO THE REALITIES, THE LAND USE
POLICY OF THE CITY AND THE
IMPACT IT HAS HAD. THIS WAS A
LARGE REASON WHY I STOOD AGAINST
AND VOTED AGAINST THE REDUCTIONS
IN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ACROSS
THE CITY AND HIGH OPPORTUNITY
NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS PLAN IS AN
IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY IN
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE
HISTORICALLY KEPT OUT COLOR. THE
MAJORITY OF THIS COUNCIL, BASED
ON OUR OWN DEMOGRAPHIC MAKE-UP
COULD NOT BUY A HOME IN MANY
AREAS OF THIS CITY THROUGHOUT
OUR RECENT HISTORY. I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NAME THAT.
BUT TO THAT END, THIS IS ALSO
WHERE AMENDMENT 34 COMES FROM.
WANTING TO GROW MORE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE AREAS THAT
HAVE KEPT OUT MANY COMMUNITIES.
AND SO I WANTED TO JUST TAKE
THAT MOMENT TO THANK YOU. I'M
GLAD THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT
MORE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS. I
HAVE QUESTIONS ALSO ABOUT WHAT
PROCESS MAY LOOK LIKE AT FULL
COUNCIL AS WELL. BUT I WANTED TO
AT LEAST TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO EXPRESS WE HAVE A LOT OF
RECKONING TO DO WITH OUR HISTORY
AND LAND USE POLICY. I WANT TO
THANK YOU AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. I'LL HAVE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS WITH CENTRAL STAFF
AS WE NAVIGATE. JUST FOR THE
RECORD, I DO INTEND TO STATE MY
CASE FOR MY AMENDMENT. AND THEN
ALSO BRINGING FACTS AND FIGURES.
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THIS. I
ALSO WELCOME ALL THE URBANISTS,
ALL THE FOLKS THAT SENT ME
E-MAILS IN OPPOSITION. SEND ME
YOUR IDEAS. SEND ME WHAT YOU
THINK IS A GREAT SOLUTION AS
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. MAKING
SURE WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT AND THAT WE
CAN PUT SOME OF THAT PRESSURE
AND SOME OF THAT GROWTH IN
DIFFERENT AREAS THAT HAVE NOT
ALWAYS BEEN, THAT HAVE NOT
EXPERIENCED GROWTH. AND WE'VE
HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT
YESTERDAY THAT WE WILL NOT BE
HAPPY UNTIL 23rd AND UNION OR
UNTIL OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN
THE CITY LOOK LIKE 23rd AND
UNION. THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO
NOTE. AND SO, ANYWAY, I WELCOME
YOUR FEEDBACK. I WELCOME YOUR
SOLUTIONS. WE ARE IN THIS
TOGETHER. THIS IS NOT ONE VERSUS
THE OTHER. BLACK COMMUNITY
VERSUS URBANISTS OR ANY OF THAT.
SEND ME YOUR SOLUTIONS TO MAKE
SURE WE GET THIS RIGHT AND GET
THIS FORWARD. I JUST WANTED TO
THROW THAT OUT THERE. IS THERE
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THAT'S AN
OLD HAND I'M ASSUMING? YES,
AWESOME. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120985
AMENDMENT NUMBER 14.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120985 AS
NUMBER 114. THIS IS MY
AMENDMENT. SO, SPEAKING OF
WHICH, I HAD PRESENTED THREE
AMENDMENTS THAT CAME OUT OF.
WELL, ACTUALLY FOUR AMENDMENTS
THAT CAME OUT OF FRIDAY'S
HEARING. THIS IS ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WAS IMPORTANT.
THIS CHANGE IS CONTINUING THE
NAME OF THE CENTRAL DISTRICT IN
THE CD OF THE HISTORIC LINES SO
THE JUDKINS AND CHANGING THAT TO
THE SOUTH DISTRICT URBAN
DISTRICT. ONE CHANGE, AND I KNOW
IT'S A SMALL VERBAL CHANGE. I
DON'T LIKE TO DO VERBAL CHANGES
BUT IT'S CHANGING THE SOUTH
FROM THE FRONT OF CENTRAL
DISTRICT TO THE SOUTH OF CENTRAL
DISTRICT. IT WOULD READ CENTRAL
DISTRICT SOUTH. THAT IS A SIMPLE
CHANGE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
AMEND AND BRING TO THAT FOR THE
READING OF IT. COLLEAGUES, THIS
WAS A REQUEST FROM THE COMMUNITY
TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT IN THE CD NO
MATTER WHAT. REGARDING THE
BOUNDARIES. ANY URBAN CENTER
THAT IS BROUGHT THE THERE. I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. IT'S A
SYMBOLIC GESTURE, BUT IT MAKES
SURE THAT LEGACY CONTINUES TO
LIVE ON. THANK YOU. AND I'LL
ENTERTAIN ANY. OH, WILL YOU
EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT. SORRY. I
WAS JUST GOING TO CALL A VOTE.
>> AS THE SPONSOR DESCRIBED,
THIS WOULD CHANGE JUDKINS PARK,
THE NAME TO CENTRAL DISTRICT
SOUTH.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
COMMENTS REGARDING THIS CHANGE?
OKAY. AWESOME. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER 114? [ ROLL
CALLED ]
EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. AND
JUST TO CLARIFY, IT IS READ
CENTRAL DISTRICT SOUTH. I MADE
THAT AMENDMENT, THAT VERBAL
CHANGE. I WANT TO CONFIRM WITH
THE CLERK. NO, IT WAS NOT.
THAT'S FINE. WE'LL FIGURE IT
OUT. DO I HAVE TO REVOTE? I DO.
>> IF THE INTENT IS TO CHANGE
THIS NAME OF SOMETHING WE JUST
VOTED ON, THEN TECHNICALLY IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS WE CAN
RECONSIDER IT AND THEN AMEND IT.
>> ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS?
AWESOME. CAN WE RECONSIDER IT. I
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VERBAL
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IT TO
CENTRAL DISTRICT SOUTH. SO I
WOULD LIKE TO PUT THE SOUTH NOT
IN THE NORTH OF THE NAME BUT
ACTUALLY IN THE SOUTH OF THE
NAME. IS THAT FOR THE RECORD, IS
THAT OKAY? AWESOME.
>> THEN WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL
VOTE OR IF THERE'S NO
OBJECTIONS THEN IT CAN BE
ADOPTED.
>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTIONS, IS
THIS OKAY THAT THIS IS ADOPTED?
AWESOME. SEEING NONE AND HEARING
NONE, THAT IS ADOPTED. THANK
YOU.
>> ONE LAST ROLL CALL TO ADOPT
114 AS AMENDED.
>> ROLL CALL TO WHAT AMELIA
SAID. THANK YOU [ ROLL CALLED ]
EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> AWESOME. THE AMENDMENT
CARRIES. AND THE AMENDMENT, THE
MOTION CARRIES AMENDMENT IS
ADOPTED. WE'LL NOW CONSIDER THE
NUMBER AMENDMENT. THOSE ARE ALL
THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. AND
NOW WE ARE TAKING ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 34. WE WERE GOING TO TAKE
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 50, BUT
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE HAS REMOVED
THAT FROM CONSIDERATION FOR
TODAY. CORRECT? YES. AWESOME.
SO, COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL
MEMBER 120985 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 34.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND THE BILL ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 34. LISH, WILL YOU GO
AHEAD AND DO A DEEP DIVE?
>> VERY BRIEFLY. THIS ADDS EIGHT
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ACROSS
THE CITY. ALCI WOULD BE ADDED IN
DISTRICT ONE. BROAD VIEW IN
DISTRICT 5. DAWSON IN DISTRICT
2. GUESS WORKS IN DISTRICT 4.
LOYAL HEIGHTS IN DISTRICT 6.
NICKERSON SOUTH CANAL IN
DISTRICT 7. ROANOKE PARK IN
DISTRICT 3 AND FINALLY, A
SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN
DISTRICT 4.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, AS SPONSOR OF THIS
AMENDMENT, GO AHEAD AND
RECOGNIZE IT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. COLLEAGUES,
WE'VE MADE IT. WE'VE MADE IT
TO THE SPICEY AMENDMENT 34. SO,
JUST TAKING A STEP BACK, DURING
THE SCOPING PROCESS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE COMP PLAN, THERE WERE 43
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS INCLUDED.
IN THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE BEFORE
US TODAY JUST CONTAINS 30.
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS,
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PUBLIC
COMMENT. AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD
OVERWHELMINGLY IS THE
FUNDAMENTAL NEED FOR MORE
HOUSING IN THIS PLAN TO MEET THE
URGENT NEEDS. THIS IS SUPPORTED
WITH DATA. WE KNOW FOR THE
RESEARCH COMING OUT OF THE
UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON,
HOMELESSNESS IS A HOUSING
PROBLEM. AND THIS MOMENT
REQUIRES BOLD ACTION TO GROW
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ACROSS THE
CITY TO ADDRESS THE
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. THIS
AMENDMENT WORKS TO ADDRESS IT BY
BRINGING BACK EIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN
THE ORIGINAL SCOPING OF THE EIS.
THESE EIGHT CENTERS WERE CHOSEN
DUE TO THEIR HIGH OPPORTUNITY
INDEX SCORES COUPLED WITH LOW
DISPLACEMENT RISK. THESE
NEIGHBORHOODS ALREADY SERVE AS
ANCHORS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
COMMUNITIES HOSTING SCHOOLS,
SMALL BUSINESSES, TRANSITS,
LIBRARIES, PARKS, CHILD CARE,
SENIOR LIVING FACILITIES, PLACES
OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND SO MUCH
MORE. I, ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF
MY TEAM, TOOK MULTIPLE DAYS TO
BIKE TO EACH OF THE PROPOSED
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, SPEAK WITH
NEIGHBORS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
AND OTHERS ABOUT WHAT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS WOULD MEAN
FOR THEM. THEY HIGHLIGHTED THE
DESIRE FOR MORE NEIGHBORS AND
WITH MORE NEIGHBORS BRINGS IN
MORE STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS. MORE
CUSTOMERS TO SMALL BUSINESSES.
MORE PEOPLE TAKING TRANSIT
RATHER THAN DRIVING AND MORE
FAMILIES AFFORDING TO LIVE IN
SEATTLE. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
SCHOOL ASPECT. A NUMBER OF THEM
CONTAIN OR BORDER SCHOOLS NOT
TOO LONG AGO SLATED FOR CLOSURE.
I KNOW THE SCHOOL CLOSURE THAT
IS WERE DISCUSSED LAST YEAR
ROCKED OUR COMMUNITY. CAUSED A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CONCERN FOR
THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY AND HOW
WORKING FAMILIES CAN AFFORD TO
STAY HERE AND WHAT KIND OF
FUTURE WE'RE PROVIDING FOR OUR
KIDS. I WANT TO UPLIFT THAT LAST
NIGHT EVERY MEMBER OF THE
SEATTLE SCHOOL BOARD SIGNED A
LETTER SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT. THE RATIONAL WAS
CLEAR. MORE HOUSING MEANS MORE
STUDENTS AND A WAY OUT OF THE
SCHOOL CLOSURE CRISIS. I'LL
QUOTE THIS SECTION OF THE
LETTER. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK'S
AMENDMENT WOULD ADD MORE MIXED
USE, FAMILY FRIENDLY HOUSING
NEAR EXISTING SCHOOLS AND
TRANSIT. THESE CHANGES ARE
NEEDED AND URGENT. MANY OF THESE
CENTERS HAVE SIGNIFICANT OVERLAP
WITH SCHOOL BUILDINGS
UNDERENROLL AND HAD SCHOOLS THAT
WERE CONSIDERED FOR CLOSURE LAST
YEAR. BUILDING MORE AFFORDABLE
HOMES NEAR SCHOOLS STRENGTHENS
NEIGHBORHOODS, REDUCES
DISPLACEMENT AND WILL BE A BIG
STEP IN ENSURING EVERY CHILD IN
SEATTLE CAN ATTEND A WELL FUNDED
SCHOOL CLOSE TO HOME.
COLLEAGUES, WE ALL RECEIVED THAT
LETTER THIS MORNING. ON A FINAL
NOTE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DESIGNATION
DO NOT SET THE ZONING FOR THE
PROPOSED CENTERS. WE'LL TAKE UP
SPECIFIC ZONING CHANGES IN THE
COMING YEAR OR TWO. SETTING THE
DESIGNATIONS GIVES US THE OPTION
TO PURSUE MORE HOUSING AS WE SEE
FIT IN THESE CENTERS. MANY OF
THESE CENTERS ALREADY EXIST
UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ARE PLACES
WITH DIVERSITY OF HOUSING
OPTIONS LOCATED AROUND A LOCALLY
COMMERCIAL CORE. NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS GENERALLY REPRESENT THE
CORE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PROVIDING
SHOPS, GROCERY STORES,
RESTAURANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES
RESIDENTS NEED TO ACCESS ON A
REGULAR BASIS. THEY PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS
EVERY DAY NEEDS WITHIN A SHORT
WALK OR BIKE RIDE WITHIN THEIR
HOMES. ALLOWING MORE HOUSING CAN
INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES TO LIVE
IN COMPLETE CONNECTED
NEIGHBORHOODS, STRENGTHEN LOCAL
BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND HELP
PEOPLE REDUCE RELIANCE ON CARS.
I'LL CONCLUDE BY SAYING WHILE
SOME OF THE CENTERS MAY NOT HAVE
EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE LISTED IN
THIS DEFINITION, WITH THE RIGHT
INVESTMENTS AND WHAT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DESIGNATION
AND THE PRIORITY THAT COMES
ALONG WITH THAT, THEY CAN AND
WILL GROW THEIR AMENITIES AND
GROW NEW ONES. I URGE YOU TO
VOTE YES TO OPEN UP THE AMAZING
NEIGHBORHOODS TO MORE
INVESTMENT, ACCESSIBLE AND YES,
MORE NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS
REGARDING, YOU SAID IT, SPICEY
34 AMENDMENT? THOSE WERE YOUR
WORDS, NOT MINE. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. IT'S INTERESTING
TO SEE THE LISTING OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS AS PART OF
THIS AMENDMENT. I JUST WANTED TO
TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT
WITH RESPECT TO DISTRICT 7, I
SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A GREAT
AMOUNT OF WORK. IT'S THE ONE
DRY AREA. PROPER LAND IN
FORMERLY A MARSH. WE HAVE THAT
IN DISTRICT 7, WHICH I SUPPORT.
AS YOU KNOW AND STATED I SUPPORT
A NICKERSON NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
AS WELL. SO I RECOGNIZE
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK YOU HAVE
THIS HERE. WE WILL BE MOVING
FORWARD ON THE NICKERSON
NEIGHBORHOOD ACCEPTABILITIER
THAT WE HAD. IT'S WITHDRAWN BUT
WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THAT. IN
THE MEANTIME, AS YOU NOTED WITH
THE ZONING, TO KIND OF CREATE
THE NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE IDEA.
THEY'RE JOINING A FEW OTHERS
THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH
OPCD ON AND MY TEAM. ANYWAYS, I
JUST WANTED TO NOTE I'VE ALREADY
MADE CLEAR MY DECISION OF THE
AMENDMENT. I JUST WANTED TO
STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD. MY
SUPPORT FOR BASICALLY MY
DISTRICT 7, OUR DISTRICT 7
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SETTLE. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA AND
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> I WANT TO SINCERELY THANK
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR BRINGING
IT FORWARD. SPICEY? I LOVE
SPICEY. MY FAVORITE. KEEP MY
SPICE TURNED UP. I DO SINCERELY
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. AND I REALLY DO
MEAN THAT. PEOPLE WHO KNOW ME
KNOW THAT I MEAN WHAT I SAY AND
I SAY WHAT I MEAN. IT RAISES
IMPORTANT ISSUES. KIND OF TO A
POINT WE TALKED ABOUT, ABOUT 5,
10 MINUTES AGO. IN TERMS OF WE
NEED TO SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF GROWTH ACROSS OUR CITY. I AM
OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT,
PRIMARILY WITH RESPECT TO ALL
BUT THE ELKI PROPOSAL. ON THE
GROUNDS WE TALKED ABOUT IT. I'LL
TALK MORE LATER BECAUSE I HAVE
AN AMENDMENT ON THE ELKI. THE
WELL INTENDED BUT STILL SORT OF
LAST MINUTE NATURE OF THIS
PROPOSAL AMIDST A MULTIYEAR
STAKE HOLDER COMPREHENSIVE
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WITH
COMMUNITIES. SO, I DO NOT
SUPPORT THE CONSIDERATION OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN ELKI AND
I WILL DISCUSS IT LATER WITH MY
PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON THE
RESOLUTION. BUT, I AM REALLY
GLAD THAT YOU INITIATED THIS
CONVERSATION. BECAUSE THIS IS
IMPORTANT NOW MORE THAN EVER.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR
LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
SORRY, I LOST MY PLACE REAL
QUICK. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AS I SAID
EARLIER, BECAUSE OF THIS. THIS
WILL NEED ADDITIONAL SEPA
REVIEW. BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M
AFRAID OF DELAYS. I'M GLAD IT
IS IN THE RESOLUTION. I VERY
MUCH SUPPORT IT BEING IN THE
RESOLUTION, BUT I'M NOT GOING
TO VOTE FOR THIS TO BE HERE NOW
BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
DELAYING THIS PROCESS. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD.
IT BRINGS US BACK DOWN TO GROUND
TO WHERE WE STARTED IN THIS
ENTIRE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PROCESS. I SAY THAT BECAUSE
SPEAKING TO NEIGHBORS IN LOYAL
HEIGHTS, THEY WERE PART OF THIS
PROCESS, BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS SO
LONG AGO. I COME BACK TO THE
FACT THAT THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A
LONG PROCESS THAT FOLKS MAY NOT
BE PAYING ATTENTION. I DO
BELIEVE THAT OVERALL WE NEED TO
BE STUDYING EACH OF THESE
CENTERS. AS I MENTIONED IN MY
APPARENTLY CONTROVERSIAL EAST
BALLARD AMENDMENT IS IF WE WERE
TO DO BOTH LOYAL HEIGHTS AND
EAST BALLARD IN DISTRICT 6,
DISTRICT 6 WOULD BE TAKING ON
MORE DENSITY THAN ANY OTHER IN
THE CITY AND WE HAVE TO REMAIN
BALANCED IN THE CITY. I'M FULLY
SUPPORTIVE OF DOCKETING ALL OF
THESE AMENDMENTS. I'LL BE
VOTING NO TODAY. APPRECIATE ALL
THE WORK YOU'VE DONE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS REGARDING? THAT'S AN
OLD HAND, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
NO WORRIES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE I DON'T MISS ANYONE.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED FOR CLOSING COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES FOR
YOUR REMARKS. AND FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF AN OPPORTUNITY
TO GROW MORE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
IN OUR CITY. AS WAS MENTIONED,
THIS IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE
DOCKET RESOLUTION, SO WE WILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY
THIS AND TAKE ANOTHER BITE AT
THE APPLE, SO TO SPEAK IN THE
FUTURE ONCE WE HAVE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DONE. I
STILL THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
BRING FORWARD TO TODAY. BECAUSE
OF THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT IT
PRESENTS. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
PUT IT WELL. THIS HAS BEEN A
LONG PROCESS. AND WE KNOW THAT
WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE TOUCH POINTS
WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS. FOLKS
HAVE LIVES. THEY'VE GOT LIVES.
SOME PEOPLE GOT TO GO TO WORK.
THEY'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT COMP
PLAN EVERY DAY LIKE WE ARE. WE
ARE EATING, SLEEPING, BREATHING
COMP PLAN AND HAVE BEEN. SO,
AGAIN, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
AMENDMENT. WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT CREATING MORE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY IN OUR CITY. I KNOW
I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE FACT
THAT THIS CITY HAS NOW GROWN IN
POPULATION TO MORE THAN 800,000
AND I HOPE WE HAVE MORE
NEIGHBORS COME IN TO THE CITY
AND HAVE AN AFFORDABLE PLACE TO
LIVE. I STILL ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE
CONTINUED DISCUSSION WITH EACH
OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT HOW
TO ENSURE WE HAVE MORE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY IN VIBRANT,
CONNECTED COMMUNITIES ACROSS OUR
CITY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, IS
THAT AN OLD HAND?
>> YES.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, ANYTHING
I HAD PUT IN THE RESOLUTION WAS
BASICALLY I INCLUDED THOSE IN
THE RESOLUTION DUE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS
I HAD. SO I'VE BEEN VOTING NO
OR AB STAINING STUFF. I PUT IT
IN THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE OF MY
KNOWLEDGE THERE. I WANTED TO
FLAG THAT. AND THIS IS IN THE
RESOLUTION. SO, CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL ON ITEM NUMBER, ON SPICEY
ITEM 34. [ ROLL CALLED ]
ONE IN FAVOR, SEVEN OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS. THE MOTION
FAILS AND THE AMENDMENT IS NOT
ADOPTED. AND AS I'M LOOKING,
THAT WAS OUR LAST AMENDMENT. FOR
DISCUSSION TODAY. ARE THERE ANY
FINAL COMMENTS ON COUNCIL BILL
120985 AS AMENDED BEFORE WE
PROCEED TO A FINAL VOTE?
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. THIS IS
YOUR TIME FOR FINAL COMMENTS,
COLLEAGUES.
>> REALLY I JUST NEED A POINT OF
CLARIFICATION. SO, IS NUMBER 50
WITHDRAWN OR WILL IT COME BACK
LATER?
>> SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE WITHDREW
ITEM 50 FROM THIS.
>> THANKS FOR THE CLARITY.
>> AND ITEM NUMBER 111 HAS BEEN
WITHDRAWN WITH ME STATING MY
INTENTIONS TO BRING IT BACK TO
FULL COUNCIL SO NO ONE IS
SURPRISED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ARE WE GOOD
ON THAT? OKAY. AWESOME. THESE
ARE YOUR FINAL COMMENTS,
COLLEAGUES. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
FINAL COMMENTS REGARDING COUNCIL
BILL 120985 AS AMENDED BEFORE WE
PROCEED TO THE FINAL VOTE? OKAY.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL BILL
120985 AS AMENDED. [ ROLL CALLED
]
EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE BILL
PASSED AS AMENDED. CENTRAL
STAFF, WILL YOU PLEASE GIVE US
AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE
NEXT STEPS ARE NECESSARY WHEN
THIS WILL BE SENT TO CITY
COUNCIL MEETING?
>> I'M GOING TO ASK MY
COLLEAGUE TO COME UP AND
DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS.
>> AWESOME.
>> THERE'S NOT MUCH OF A
PROCESS TO DESCRIBE HERE. AS A
STARTING POINT, THE COUNCIL'S
PROPOSAL HERE COMING OUT OF
COMMITTEE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL. SO THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL WAS SUBJECT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE
COUNCIL HAS A DIFFERENT
PROPOSAL. SOME ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS LIKELY
REQUIRED FOR THE COUNCIL'S
VERSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. THIS IS TRUE NOT JUST FOR
THIS BILL BUT ALSO TRUE FOR
HOUSE BILL 1110 IMPLEMENTATION.
THAT'S THE NEXT BILL THE
COMMITTEE WILL BE CONSIDERING
THIS AFTERNOON. SOME ADDITIONAL
WORK HAS TO BE DONE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF CEPA. EXACTLY WHAT
THAT WORK LOOKS LIKE REMAINS TO
BE DETERMINED. THE COUNCIL WILL
BE CONTRACTING WITH BURKE AND
ASSOCIATES, WHICH WAS THE FIRM
THAT DID THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK
ON THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL. THEY
WILL DO SOME THRESHOLD ANALYSIS
AND WILL DETERMINE WHAT
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE COUNCIL UNDERSTANDING THE
IMPACTS THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CHANGES MADE TODAY. OUR
EXPECTATION, ALTHOUGH THIS IS
NOT A FORE GONE CONCLUSION IS IT
COULD BE AN ADDENDUM TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
THAT ADDENDUM COMES WITH
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT. AND SO THE
COUNCIL SHOULD EXPECT THAT
CONSIDERATION OF BOTH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BILL 120985
AND THE HOUSE BILL WILL NEED TO
WAIT UNTIL THE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IS DONE. JUST TO SORT OF
SET REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. THAT
IS LIKELY A MONTH OR MORE AWAY.
FULL COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING
THIS BILL. NOT NEXT WEEK, BUT IN
PROBABLY SOME TIME IN OCTOBER OR
EARLY NOVEMBER.
>> THANK YOU, KETO. JUST FOR THE
RECORD, EXCUSE ME. LATE OCTOBER
OR EARLY NOVEMBER FOR THIS BILL.
POTENTIALLY.
>> YEAH. THAT'S SORT OF WHAT WE
THINK IS A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION FOR US GETTING THE
INFORMATION THE CONSULTANTS
WOULD NEED TO THEM FOR OPCD TO
DO SOME WORK THEY'LL NEED TO
PUT INTO THE MODELS THEY USE FOR
THE INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND ALSO FOR US TO ACCOMPLISH
THE PROCEDURAL STEPS THAT ARE
NECESSARY FOR AN ADDENDUM,
ASSUMING THAT IS THE DOCUMENT
THE CITY NEEDS FOR THE CEPA
PURPOSES.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU, KETO. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING
NEXT STEPS? REGARDING THIS BILL
BEFORE WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2? THANK YOU
COLLEAGUES. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP
POUNDING AWAY. WE HAVE RECESS AT
1:00, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO
GET THROUGH AS MUCH OF THIS AS
POSSIBLE. WE HAVE A LOT TO GO
HERE. DOES ANYONE NEED A 5
MINUTE RECESS OR BREAK? I'M
LOOKING LEFT AND RIGHT. YEAH?
OKAY. SO CAN WE TAKE A 10 MINUTE
RECESS. IS THAT TOO LONG? UNTIL
12:30. PERFECT. WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS TO 12:30
BEFORE WE GO TO ITEM NUMBER 2
INTO THE AGENDA. OKAY. AWESOME.
THANK YOU.
[ ROLL CALLED ]
SIX PRESENT.
>> LET THE RECORD REFLECT.
>> SORRY. SEVEN.
>> SEVEN PRESENT. THANK YOU.
PLEASE, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA IS
EXCUSED UNTIL SHE COMES. WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM 2
INTO THE RECORD.
WE'RE GOING TO NOW CONTINUE OUR
DISCUSSION ORNAMENTS FOR COUNCIL
BILL 012993 STARTING WITH
AMENDMENTS LISTED FOR INDIVIDUAL
VOTES. AND THEN WE HAVE
AMENDMENTS THAT MIGHT HAVE
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. SO SAME
PROCESS WE DID FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BILL. AND WE
WILL NOW JUMP RIGHT INTO THE
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT NUMBER 54.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120993 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT NUMBER
54.
>> SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THE BILL AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT NUMBER
54. CENTRAL STAFF, PLEASE
PROVIDE YOUR OVERVIEW OF THE
AMENDMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO, A UNIT
SUBDIVISION IS WHERE THERE'S A
GROUP OF LIKE TEN HOUSES WHERE
EACH PROPERTY IS SUBDIVIDED INTO
ITS OWN LOT. BUT IT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEET ALL OF THE
ZONING STANDARDS. SO, ANY
CHANGES TO THE BUILDING WOULD
NEED TO OCCUR IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION PROJECT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CURRENTLY
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, WHICH
ARE ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPLE
DWELLING UNIT ON A LOT. FOR
EXAMPLE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
WITH A BACKYARD COTTAGE. ARE NOT
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO BE THEIR OWN UNIT LOT
IN A SUBDIVISION. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD CHANGE THAT TO ALLOW
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO BE
SUBDIVIDED AS SEPARATE LOTS AS
PART OF A UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER, FOR
THE RECORD, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
IS HERE. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK,
YOU'RE WELCOME TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THIS
EXPLANATION. IT PROVIDES
ADDITIONAL PATHS TO NOT JUST
HOMEOWNERSHIP BUT LANDOWNER
SHIP, TOO. IT WOULD BE IT
ALLOWED TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM
OTHER UNITS ON THE LOT. I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. ARE THERE OTHER COUNCIL
MEMBERS THAT HAVE OTHER REMARKS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. I JUST WANTED TO
NOTE, WE'RE GOING INTO A
SECTION RELATED TO ADD DO'S
WHERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT
WE REALLY SUPPORT THIS AREA
WITHIN THE COMP PLAN PROCESS AND
HB1110 BECAUSE IT REALLY GOES TO
A WAY TO DENSIFY BUT DO IT IN A
WAY THAT'S RIGHT FOR VARIOUS
NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT IT'S ALSO
RIGHT IN TERMS OF BEING AN
ANTIDISPLACEMENT TOOL. AN
OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID THAT
DISPLACEMENT YOU SO ELOQUENTLY
SPOKE TO EARLIER. I THINK
GENERALLY WE SHOULD BE LOOKING
TO SUPPORT THESE FURTHERMENT OF
ADOS AND DADOS IN OUR CITY AND
STRIKING GIVEN THE PAST HISTORY.
THE OWNERSHIP PIECE IS KEY TO
IT. AND AS COUNCILMEMBER RINCK
WAS JUST SPEAKING TO. THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT. IT ALSO
HIGHLIGHTS, TOO, SADLY THAT THE
STATE NEEDS TO FIX THE CONDO
LIABILITY LAW. MAYBE WE CAN GET
OIR, MAYBE WE AS A COUNCIL CAN
REALLY ADVOCATE FOR OLYMPIA TO
WORK ON THE CONDO ISSUE. BECAUSE
THE CONDO MARKET IS REALLY
HURTING. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE
WHERE, YOU KNOW, FOR EVERY
ACTION THERE'S A REACTION. AND
BECAUSE OF THE INACTION ON THE
CONDOS AND GETTING US IN A
BETTER PLACE RELATED TO THE
CONDO MARKET, ADO AND DADOS TAKE
A MORE IMPORTANT PLACE IN THE
DISCUSSION. JUST WANT TO THANK
EVERYONE FOR THEIR
AMENDMENTSLATED TO IT TO INCLUDE
THIS ONE. COUNCILMEMBER RANCK,
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. ARE THERE ANY MORE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 54? AWESOME.
COLLEAGUES, JUST SO YOU ALL
KNOW, AS I STATED BEFORE, IF
ANYTHING I HAVE IN THE
RESOLUTION I EITHER VOTE NO OR
ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE, THAT'S
HOW I'M VOTING. I THINK I'VE
BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. I'M
BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT AS
WELL. OKAY. SO COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS 54.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
REMARKS ON 54. JUST ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU ALL.
>> YES. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL FOR AMENDMENT
NUMBER 54. [ ROLL CALLED ]
FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE'LL NOW
CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS, TO MOVE
AMENDMENT 55.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO
MOVE COUNCIL BILL 120993 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 55.
>> SECOND. IT'S MOVED TO AMEND
THE BILL. CENTRAL STAFF, PLEASE
ADDRESS IT.
>> IT WOULD INCREASE THE SIZE OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN ONLY
CERTAIN AREAS. THOSE AREAS ARE
LOTS LOCATED IN A LOW RISE ZONE
AND IF THE LOT IS LOCATED BEEN A
FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A
CRITERIA FOR THE LOT TO NOT BE
PURCHASED FOR VALUE. IN OTHER IN
OTHER WORDS, SOLD OUTSIDE A
FAMILY TRANSACTION. FOR LOTS AND
PROPERTIES THAT QUALIFY WHERE
THE THREE CRITERIA, THE MAXIMUM
SIZE IS RAISED FROM 1000 SQUARE
FEET TO 1500 SQUARE FEET.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RANCK. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I DON'T
THINK THERE'S TOO MUCH MORE TO
ADD. THIS WAS A REQUEST FOR
COMMUNITY. THIS WOULD INCREASE
THE MAXIMIZE SIZE FOR LEGACY
HOMEOWNERS AND LR ZONES NEAR
TRANSIT. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I NOTE THAT SOME
CONSTITUENTS HAVE RAISED
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT
WITH RESPECT TO BLACK LEGACY
HOMEOWNERS, BUT I DO HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS FOR CENTRAL STAFF, IF
I MAY. FIRST OFF, WILL
INCREASING THE SIZE OF ADU'S TO
THE SAME SIZE AS A TOWN HOME. SO
1500 SQUARE FEET VERSUS THE
CURRENT SIZE OF 1000 SQUARE
FEET, WILL THIS POTENTIALLY ADD
UNNECESSARILY OR UNINTENDED
INCENTIVE FOR RED THAT TIRE OR
SPECULATORS TO TAKE OVER
PROPERTIES NOW THAT HAVE HIGHER
VALUES LURING WITH HIGHER PRICES
FOR THEIR PROPERTIES? I'M
MINDFUL OF THE LEGISLATION WE
JUST PASSED A COUPLE DAYS AGO TO
ADDRESS PREDATORY HOME BUYING.
>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT THE
REQUIREMENT THAT IT NOT BE
PURCHASED FOR VALUE WOULD
PRECLUDE SOME PERCENTAGE. THERE
WOULD NEED TO BE TITLE RESEARCH
TO ENSURE THE TRANSACTION HAD
NOT OCCURRED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN
A LOOPHOLE WOULD NOT BE
POTENTIALLY FOUND, HOWEVER.
>> THANK YOU. IT LEADS ME TO ANY
NEXT QUESTION. HOW SPECIFICALLY
IS THE TERM VALUE, FOR VALUE
DEFINED? WHAT DOES IT MEAN? WHAT
IF A BUYER HAD BOUGHT THE HOME
WITHIN THE PAST 20 YEARS THAT
WAS POTENTIALLY UNDERVALUED? OR
UNDERVALUED? IS THAT A
PERSPECTIVE LOOPHOLE FOR
PREDATORY BUYER TO KIND OF JUMP
IN?
>> POTENTIALLY. I DO THINK THAT
THE WAY THAT IT'S DRAFTED
ATTEMPTS TO GET AS CLOSE AS
POSSIBLE TO THE INTENT OF LEGACY
HOMEOWNERS. HOWEVER, THERE IS
ROOM FOR SOME GRAY AREA HERE
THAT MAY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY
STAFF THROUGH, FOR INSTANCE, A
TIP OR OTHER DIRECTOR'S ROLE
REGARDING WHAT KINDS OF
TRANSACTIONS AND WHAT KINDS OF
PERCENT VALUE WOULD NEED TO BE
UNDER A THRESHOLD. THERE WOULD
LIKELY NEED TO BE FOLLOW ON WORK
TO ENSURE THEY HAVE CLEAR
GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT WOULD COUNT
AS VALUE.
>> THANK YOU. NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS.
>> OKAJIMA. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. ARE THERE
OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS
AMENDMENT? COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. IT IS AN
INCREASE IN CERTAIN ZONES, SO
IT'S NOT TREATING ALL THE SAME.
ARE THERE LEGAL CONCERNS WITH
THAT?
>> THIS AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO
LOW RISE ZONES ONLY. AND I
DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SPEAK TO
LEGAL CONCERNS, PERSONALLY, AS
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I THINK IN
GENERAL, THE AMENDMENT, YOU
KNOW, TREATS DIFFERENT OWNERS
AND DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
DIFFERENTLY. AND THAT MAY BE THE
KIND OF THING THAT LAWYERS BRING
UP.
>> YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT?
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED FOR ANY CLOSING
WORDS.
>> I'LL SAVE US SOME TIME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. CLERK, WILL
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [ ROLL
CALLED ]
FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED, TWO
ABSTENTIONS.
>> AWESOME. THE MOTION CARRIES.
MOTION CARRIES AND WE WILL NOW
GO ON TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
OR NOT THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THE
NEXT AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR
AMENDMENT NUMBER 56.
>> AWESOME. COLLEAGUES, WE'RE
IN THE ADU PORTION OF OUR
MEETING. THANK YOU. I'M GLAD
THEY'RE GROUPED TOGETHER TO
STAY ON ONE TOPIC. COLLEAGUES, I
MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120993 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
56.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120-9993.
NUMBER 56. CENTRAL STAFF, WILL
YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THE
AMENDMENT.
>> SURE. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REMOVE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
OF CALCULATIONS OF FLOOR RATIO.
YOU'LL SEE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
THE BILL THEY'RE DIFFERENT
PLACES IN THE CODE THAT REFER TO
FLOOR RATIO AND ENSURING IT IS
NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE FAR
LIMITS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK AS SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. COLLEAGUES,
ADU'S ARE CURRENTLY EXEMPT SO
THIS AMENDMENT INTENDS TO KEEP
IT GOING. SIMILARLY TO
YESTERDAY, THEY REPRESENT ONE OF
THE MOST AFFORDABLE WAYS TO
HOMEOWNERSHIP. WE SHOULD
CONTINUE TO DO IT. THERE'S A
LOT OF BENEFITS. I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT ON THIS AMENDMENT. THANK
YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 56?
>>
JUST NOTING THIS IS IN THE
RESOLUTION. AND THAT SHOULD.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL ROLL
[ ROLL CALLED ]
FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT ADOPTED. WE'LL NOW
CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU'RE NOW
RECOGNIZED. I'M SORRY. NUMBER
57.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120993 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT NUMBER
57.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND THE BILL AS PRESENTED
FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 57. CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 57 WOULD
INCREASE THE SIZE OF ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS ONLY IF THEY
CONTAIN THREE OR MORE BEDROOMS.
SO FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UP
TO TWO BEDROOM THE SIZE MAX AS
TRANSMITTED OF 1000 SQUARE FEET
WOULD STILL APPLY. WITH THREE OR
MORE BEDROOMS, THE SIZE CAP
WOULD RAISE TO 1200 SQUARE FEET.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, AS SPONSOR OF THE BILL,
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU. THIS WOULD ALLOW
FOR LARGER ADU SIZES IF THEY
ACCOMMODATE THREE OR MORE
BEDROOMS. WE KNOW MORE FAMILY
SIZED HOUSING IS NEEDED. THEY'RE
MORE LIKELY TO BE AFFORDABLE.
IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. THIS
AMENDMENT OFFERS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DO JUST THAT. I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 57? ANY
QUESTIONS? ONCE, TWICE? SOLD TO
THE CLERK. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. [ ROLL CALLED ]
FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED AND
ONE ON TENSION.
>> MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE'LL NOW
CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND 120993 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT NUMBER
58.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120993
AMENDMENT 58. CENTRAL STAFF.
>> AMENDMENT 58 AND I DO WANT TO
POINT OUT THIS IS THE FIRST IN
THE BATCH THAT HAS BEEN UPDATED
SINCE YESTERDAY TO REFLECT NEW
BASE CODE THAT SHOWS HOW THE
CODE WILL LOOK AFTER THE VOTES
THAT TOOK PLACE AS PART OF THE
CHAIR'S PACKAGE. SO THIS WAS
PRINTED OUT FOR YOU AS A HARD
COPY. IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC HERE IN CHAMBERS AND
E-MAILED THIS MORNING. THERE'S
NOTCHINGS TO THE SUBSTANCE, ONLY
THE BASE NODE. THAT'S TRUE FOR
THE NEXT COUPLE AS WELL.
AMENDMENT 58 EXCLUDES ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS FROM BEING
COUNTED TOWARDS MAXIMUM DWELLING
REGULATIONS. THE CODE LIMITS
BUILDING MASS, SIZE, TYPE,
AMOUNT IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT
WAYS. SO WE'VE TALKED
PREVIOUSLY ABOUT FLOOR RATIO.
THIS IS ABOUT MAXIMUM DENSITY.
UNITS PER SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A
LOT. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY
COUNT PRINCIPLE DWELLING UNITS
TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWING
THEM TO BE BUILT IN ADDITION TO
THE MAXIMUM DENSITY.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, AS SPONSOR, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU. THIS WOULD
CONTINUE THE PRACTICE OF
EXEMPTING ADU'S FROM THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF UNITS ON A LOT.
ALLOWING FOR MORE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY. I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT
OR COMMENTS?
>> CHAIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> I AM GOING TO ADMIT I'M
HAVING DIFFICULTY BECAUSE WE'VE
HAD A NUMBER OF THESE MEMOS SENT
OUT WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS. ARE
WE WORKING OFF, WHAT DATE IS THE
MEMO WE'RE WORKING OFF? WHAT
DATE WAS IT SENT? WAS IT THE
16th? HAS THERE BEEN ONE SINCE?
>> YOU HAVE HARD COPIES OF
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
UPDATED BASED ON THE VOTES YOU
TOOK YESTERDAY.
>> CORRECT. SO I'M USING A
PACKET. THE PACKET HAS A DATE OF
SEPTEMBER 15th AND I'M SEEING
ATTACHED AS 16th. I'M TRIPLE
CHECKING THAT THERE'S NOT A
NEWER MEMO TO BE WORKING OFF OF
SINCE SEPTEMBER 16th.
>> YOU HAVE A PAPER COPY ON THE
BAR THERE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
>> I'VE GOT IT.
>> THAT HAS BEEN UPDATED THIS
MORNING TO REFLECT THE VOTES YOU
TOOK YESTERDAY.
>> THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE
CHART. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE
CHART. THE LIST.
>> YEAH.
>> WHERE'S THE MOST RECENT.
WHAT DATE IS THE MOST RECENT
LIST FROM?
>> THE MOST RECENT LIST IS THIS
ONE, DATED SEPTEMBER 16th.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. ARE THERE
OTHER, EXCUSE ME, ARE THERE
OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 58? OTHER
AMENDMENTS REGARDING 58.
>> YEAH, IT'S NUMBER 58 VERSION
2.
>> OH, SORRY. CORRECTION. THIS
IS AMENDMENT NUMBER 58 VERSION
2. JUST ONE SECOND. COLLEAGUES,
THIS IS 58 VERSION 2. SO YOU
SHOULD HAVE VERSION 2 IN FRONT
OF YOU. THIS IS AMENDMENT 58
VERSION 2 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU HAVE
THE LAST WORDS.
>> I DON'T THINK I HAVE
ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD. I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT,
COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU. SO, WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 58 VERSION
2. [ ROLL CALLED ]
FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE'LL NOW
CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT. WE
HAVE FOUR MINUTES BEFORE OUR
INTENDED BREAK. SO WE'RE GOING
TO MOVE. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK,
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO
MOVE COUNCIL BILL 120993 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 66
VERSION 2.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND THE BILL AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 66. CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS ANOTHER
ONE UPDATED THIS MORNING TO
REFLECT YESTERDAY'S VOTE.
YESTERDAY THE COUNCIL VOTED TO
REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT
CORNER STORES BE LOCATED ON
CORNERS ON STREETS OR ALLEYS.
THIS AMENDMENT BROADENED THE
COMMERCIAL USES ALLOWED IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
FROM RESTAURANTS TO EATING AND
DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS AND
REMOVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CAP OF
2500 SQUARE FEET AND REMOVE THE
REQUIREMENT IN THE TRANSMITTED
LEGISLATION THAT BUSINESSES MAY
NOT BE OPEN BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. COLLEAGUES,
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD EXPAND ON
WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE CONSENT
PACKAGE ON CORNER STORES BY
REMOVING ARBITRARY HOURS,
REQUIREMENTS. THE GOAL OF HAVING
THESE STORES IS TO HAVE AN
INCREASE IN ACCESS TO BASIC
NECESSITIES. LIKE BREAD, EGGS,
MILK OR IN MY CASE, WHEN YOU RUN
OUT OF TOOTH PASTE AT 10:30 AT
NIGHT. BEING ABLE TO WALK DOWN
THE BLOCK AND PICK UP U
SOMETHING. I THINK WE'VE ALL
BEEN IN THAT SITUATION BEFORE.
MAYBE IT'S JUST ME. THE
PURPOSE, WE'RE TAKING A BOLD
STEP BY OPENING UP MORE
COMMERCIAL USES ACROSS MORE
AREAS OF THE CITY. LET'S FULLY
EMPOWER THAT BY OPENING UP FOR
MORE HOURS AND MOVING BEYOND
JUST RESTAURANTS TO ALLOWING
BROADLY EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENTS AS WELL. I'M
THINKING ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITIES
TO OPEN UP MORE GROCERY STORES,
SMALL SCALE GROCERY STORES AND
WITH THEM SPREAD THIN, ALLOWING
SMALL STORES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
WOULD CUT DOWN ON LATE NIGHT
TRIPS ACROSS TOWN. WITH THAT, I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. CHOOSING TOOTH PASTE AS
AN EXAMPLE FOR 10:30 AT NIGHT.
>> I'M GOING TO SKIP FROM TOOTH
PASTE TO DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENTS. WE CANNOT HAVE
IN OUR RESIDENTIAL ENTITIES LIKE
THIS OPERATING TO TAKE CARE OF
THE ISSUES. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR
TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SAKA SEES.
WE CANNOT HAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
AND OUR NEIGHBORS BE IMPACTED
THIS WAY. SO, YOU KNOW, THE
EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENTS AND AFTER 10 THE
TO 6:00 A.M. BEING TAKEN OUT IS
A RECIPE. TO BE FRANK, IT'S A
RECIPE FOR DISASTER ON THE
PUBLIC SAFETY FRONT. I
APPRECIATE SOME OF THE OTHER
INTENT, BUT EATING AND DRINKS
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS A RECIPE
FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY DISASTER.
JUST TO BE BLUNT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I SUPPORT
GROCERY STORES AND BODEGAS, WE
CERTAINLY HAD MANY IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD GROWING UP IN THE
BRONX. I HAVE EQUAL CONCERN TO
MY COLLEAGUE IN TERMS OF EATING
AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIALS THAT
ARE GOING TO BE OPEN WITHOUT ANY
LIMITATIONS AS TO TIME. I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS
PARTICULAR LEGISLATION. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS
REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 66?
NO. I WILL SAY, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I WILL SAY I
BELIEVE THIS AMENDMENT WORKS
WELL IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS AND
MIGHT HAVE SOME CHALLENGES IN
OTHERS TO BE HONEST. I KNOW THAT
WE IN THE CHAIR'S PACKAGE PUT
AN AMENDMENT AND I THINK IT WAS
A PRETTY GOOD COMPROMISE. AND I
APPRECIATE YOU CONTINUING TO
PUSH US FURTHER AND FURTHER. SO
THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 66 [ ROLL CALLED ]