Try again.

Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone.

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

It's 206 p.m.

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

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Foster.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Council President Hongsworth.

Councilmember Saka.

Here.

Chairlin.

Here.

Chair, there are seven council members present.

I'd like to note that Councilmember Juarez and Councilmember Strauss are excused from today's meeting.

We will now consider the agenda.

If there are no objections, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

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

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

Okay.

Uh each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public commentary will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered in-person speakers will be called first, after which we will move to remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

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

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

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

Laura Lowe.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm here today as the advocacy and policy manager for Habitat of Humanity for Humanity, Seattle King, and Kidtaz Counties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's why this update matters so much.

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

By scanning the scope of the supplemental EIS, the city will understand how height bonuses for affordable housing will work, plus those benefits should be able to stack with other public interest bonuses.

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

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

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

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

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

Hello, thank you for being here today to listen to us.

But do you hear us?

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

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

You have received how many?

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

But the mayor holds a secret meeting about the comp plan and only invites the master builders and the developers who stand to make a profit from the most dense housing.

Housing that we all want if it's affordable and importantly, healthy near trees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Seattle erect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Howard Greenwich.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm Howard.

I'm Howard Greenwich.

I'm the research director for Peter Sound Sage.

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

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

Um, so that's uh, you know, that's kind of our, there's been our fight, and um our work has been citywide, uh, but mostly focused on Southeast Seattle.

Um, so really appreciate you, Councilmember Lynn, your leadership and values uh here representing District 2.

I'm here to support the resolution and the mayor's taller, denser, faster concept, uh, but with some caveats.

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

Uh we'll send you a letter about that soon.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Hello, my name is Jessica Dixon, and I'm in um district six, and uh thanks very much for um this today, this opportunity.

Um, today the majestic Dayton Cedars in Greenwood uh were cut down.

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

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

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

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

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

Um they were just piles of sawdust.

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

People filed by to say goodbye.

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

I brought a picture.

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

Quote, I wish Seattle City Council passes laws to protect trees by one requiring alternate site layouts at the beginning of projects with trees.

Use shared exterior walls in all middle housing.

Three, save trees that are greater than 30 inches in diameter.

Four, save trees that are over 50 years old.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we've got date.

Two major pieces of state legislation, HB 11, 10, and 1491 arrived after public input and decisions were made about which plan alternative and growth strategy would be followed.

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

So what's our growth strategy now?

Can we take a moment to reassess?

Look at the big picture.

It seems we've lost the narrative.

Go back to the numbers.

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

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

But HB 40 1491 is telling us we need a stronger corridors approach.

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

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

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

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

The American Enterprise Institute says between one and two point five percent.

That's really not there that much.

And I think we're asking too much for from upsoning.

I think it's a bit of magical thinking.

I think we look need to look harder at social housing.

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

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Dave Gloger, and I live in District 5.

Last year council passed interim legislation for HB 1110 and the first phase of the one Seattle plan.

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

But that doesn't seem to be happening.

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

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

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

That's hardly middle housing.

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

More often than not, that it was a modest price starter home.

Just wrote a first-time homeowner by homeowner, home buyer is looking for.

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

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

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

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

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

I ask why.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

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

I'm also T5 resident.

We are in support of this resolution and taller dancer faster.

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

Zoning capacity alone does not produce housing.

The supplemental EIS should consider how utility and right of way requirements currently make small and middle scale projects infeasible, including Seattle City light undergrounding thresholds, S dot street improvement permit timelines, and Seattle Public Utilities Waterman Extension Requirements.

We look forward to continued partnership to ensure that a city can both plan for and realize the growth set forth in the comprehensive plan.

Because everyone deserves a place to call home.

Thanks.

Thank you.

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

Hello and good afternoon.

Thank you, council members, for the opportunity to comment.

My name is Caroline Villanova, and I am the director of government relations at Seattle Park Foundation.

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

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

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

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

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

We have heard from many of our 140 grassroots community groups throughout the city that this is the case.

And we request agency and elected leaders sit down and have direct dialogue with communities that will be impacted by the changes to zoning in their neighborhoods.

And we're happy to assist the city in reaching those people.

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

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

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

Thank you.

Next up we have Sandy Shuttler followed by Jasmine Smith and Orley Rose.

I'm the 12 persons one today.

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

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

Their numbers will be added to the 6,923 trees removed since 2024.

Over half were healthy trees removed for construction.

70% had trunks over a foot in diameter.

We will be sending you green factor amendments.

We've worked on with MBAX and FutureWise.

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

But incentives are not enough.

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

New York City just released their urban forest plan.

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

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

This is the future that we want to step into.

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

Thank you.

Not used to this mic.

My name's Jasmine Smith.

I am the uh director of local advocacy at FutureWise and a resident of Lower Queen Anne and co-chair of the Complete Communities Coalition.

From tiny towns of 800 to cities of 800,000 and anywhere in between.

Futurewise beliefs that the elements of a strong, resilient community are all the same.

You should have a healthy home where you can afford to live, where you can walk, bike, roll, and ride transit to get to where you need to go and access the local food from local farms and love the stunning lands that uh we share with wildlife, which may look different for a city of Seattle's size, but the mission is clear.

The fourth large uh the fourth fastest growing city in the country, and the ones serving as refuge uh for people escaping climates, both environmental and social.

We have to build taller, denser, and faster.

We need to have the fullest picture of the environmental impacts and uh how we're also able to improve things for the environment by having uh transit oriented development and walkable communities, and do so in a way that's green for our Emerald City and continue to grow that transit-oriented development in a way that we're accommodating both Seattleites from yesteryear that have had to move as well as the ones that live here today, and the ones that want to come back, and the ones that want to join us and live in this emerald city.

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

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

Thank you.

Next up, Orley Rose.

Yeah, okay.

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

Oh, I my name is Ara Lee Rose and I live in the Third District.

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

So I got uh FOIA from the EFF, and they determined Contera Ultra Broadband is indeed spying on us.

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

They spa on multiple of us at once, and with this equipment, they release plutonium radiation, ionizing radiation.

Do you know what ionizing radiation does?

They learned in the 50s it controls people.

So I just want to tell you the FOIA is out.

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

I've been a part of the muckle shoot.

I grew up here.

I love it here.

I love this land.

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

I love this land.

I really do.

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

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

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

So I'm presenting it to you.

There's actual evidence out now.

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

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

My time is done.

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

And that's all I have to say.

I'm sorry I'm mad at you.

Obviously, you guys weren't here.

You need to do something about it.

It's been two years.

I've been coming back here.

I finally got the proof.

I mean hardcore proof.

Move your asses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's our last in-person speaker.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

How can we trust today's public comment?

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

Using no racial slurs or discriminatory language.

Howard Gale voiced his opinion.

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

Civil disobedience.

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

You should write an apology.

And council must amend the rules that allow irritable and vindictive members to ban people for statements they don't like.

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

Thank you all and have a good day.

Next up we have Carter Nelson.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair Lynn and members of the committee.

Carter Nelson on behalf of NAP Washington State, the commercial real estate development association, representing industry professionals delivering much of the market rate multifamily housing the city needs.

Thank you for your continued leadership and focus on housing.

We're encouraged by the mayor's taller, denser, faster proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Ruth Williams.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello, good afternoon.

Uh, I'm with Hello.

Good afternoon.

I'm Ruth Williams speaking as a resident of D5 concerning resolution 32183.

How is this resolution going to limit expense and displacement now?

In what way is it sustainable?

Free removals and excessive payment.

Well, exacerbate heat island effects, poor air quality, damage to our riparian management zones, and to both fresh and marine receiving water bodies.

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

And our resident workers in continued peril.

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

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

Success is going to require a new kind of creativity.

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

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

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

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

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

We have a new mayor.

Let's try some new ideas.

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

Thank you.

Next up we have Irene Wall.

Good afternoon, Council members.

This is Irene Wall, D6.

I urge you to reject resolution 3203.

It is premature to sweep even more of the city's stable neighborhoods into this upzoning frenzy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has this brought down the cost of housing?

No.

We need a rational plan that focuses on livability, promoting home ownership over rental unit, protecting the environment, and incentivizing new housing where current zoning is underutilized.

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

Next up we have Trish Stanley.

Sorry.

Hi.

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

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

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

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

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

So my question is what does the mayor and council want to see?

Do they want to see walkable neighborhoods or do they want to see scrawl along arterial?

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

So much of this zoning might not get built.

So the city should think carefully about where they want to develop it the most.

Arterials or centers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do they want walkable centers or sprawl?

And do they want smooth flowing arterials?

Thank you, Trish.

Next up we have Peter Manning.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello?

Hey, good afternoon, uh City Council.

Uh my name is Peter Manning.

Uh I am president of the Black Excellence in Cannabis.

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

Now, how can you have a conversation about us without us?

Is the question?

Katie's coming off.

I supported Katie Wilson in the beginning.

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

I have a question for this mayor.

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

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

Are we not Seattle lights?

Are we not human beings?

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

The same gentrification we dealt with in the central district.

Now you're inflicting that same thing on us in the South there.

And Katie, we are not gonna have it.

Thank you very much, City Council.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have David Haynes.

David, please press you on it.

All right, thank you, David Aines.

The uh landlords on the council sabotage the integrity of the comprehensive plan, self-dealing with conflicts of interest that have undermined the efforts to alleviate the oppressive supply and demand squeeze and the lack of quantitative housing, of which, because of the restrictions put on the comprehensive plan by the landlords on the council, two of the landlords were literally not even elected by the people, and yet the ethics board, who's been browbeat by certain council members who were more concerned about all of their self-dealing, has pretty much capitulated their responsibility and needs to be held accountable for the fact that we need to purge all of the restrictions and the sabotaging weaponizing policies that are purposely kept on purposely making people live in the worst locations throughout more neighborhoods, acting like you're doing people a favor, forcing them to repeat the history of living in what would be considered a modern third world inner city on the side of the bus parking lot and the train horn honking and screeching its brakes with no noise abatement walls echoing through your cheap, low-quality building that's no higher than four to six stories because most of the politically connected nonprofits are unqualified to go any higher than that, and it also helps the landlords who are self-filling on the council, sell their real estate.

Like if you own a $700,000 second mortgage and you're trying to flip it, all you got to do is sabotage the comprehensive plan and make sure nobody builds back anything better, that everything's kept under six stories, and you all are cheating the next 20 years of working class renters and home buyers out of a better choice of home and real equity, and we're changing the whole thing with racism and perversions, as if that can distract from the fact that we're still backstabbing the integrity of the comprehensive plan.

All those undermining efforts of Bruce Harrell and Jenny Durk.

Thank you, David.

Next up we have Ruby Holland.

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

Those proposed thus far are grossly and grossly inadequate and untrue.

Consisted of ways to scab us out of our lot like Harold did.

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

Please embrace HB 1110 for a sustainable environmental friendly growth.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Mike Asia.

Yes, good afternoon.

Uh my name is Mike Kasai, longtime Seattle resident with Emerald City Collective and Shockers Kids.

Um I echo uh Mr.

Manning's uh statement.

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

He was a military police army.

My grandmother, my dad came from East Texas.

He came in the early 60s.

Black people could not buy homes, etc.

That was up, they were uprooted and it was taken away.

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

This is about black, not African American.

This is about black descendants of slaves.

We were here first.

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

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

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

I'm speaking as a black man, I'm speaking for the black men and women of the city.

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

She had the black business small business round table.

That was two months ago.

There ain't nothing came up about about it.

I have a location, I'm still waiting for funding from the city of Seattle.

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

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

It's time to ban encampments.

Enough is enough.

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

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

It's about black.

Thank you.

Next up we have Patrick Taylor.

Hi.

My name is Patrick Taylor.

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

I'm a designer focused on housing and former forest ecologists and calling in to support the man's marriage plan to go denser, taller, and faster.

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

More housing means cheaper housing.

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

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

Please study the widest range of options.

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

The process is exhausting.

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

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

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

People want to be with their families, their friends, watching reality TV.

Anything but being here while waiting to testify at another public meeting.

Now's the time for leaders to lead.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Aaron Polk.

Aaron, please press the star six.

I don't know if you hear me now.

Hear me now.

Yes.

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

My name is Aaron Tellick and I serve as a legislative aide with FMS Global Strategies and that we build back better alliance.

I'm here to stand today with the concerns raised by our President CEO, Paulo Filmers Arginas regarding transparency, inclusion, and meaningful community participation in the Seattle's comprehensive plan process.

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

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

CIA has a long history of redlining, displacement, and exclusion.

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

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

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

We are here to speak for ourselves.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Paula Filmora Sardinas.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Paula.

Good afternoon.

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

Seattle has a well-documented history of redlining displacement and discrimination against black communities and other residents who've been historically marginalized.

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

It's unfathomable to me and to my community that as diverse city of Seattle proclaims itself to be.

Individuals in positions of power would be holding closed door meetings, making secret decisions that impact generations and families while denying meaningful access to this process.

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

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

There aren't adequate renter protections.

You are promoting urban squall.

Today we didn't come to ask you politely for inclusion, those days are passed.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

That concludes our speakers.

Okay, thank you all.

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

Uh will the clerk please read item one into the record.

A resolution relating to further advancing the goals of the One Seattle Plan, conference of plan, directing the Office of Planning and Community Development to develop proposed changes to zoning and development standards.

Thank you.

And once ready, can you please introduce yourselves?

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Jeff Wentland.

I'm the land use policy manager at the city's Office of Planning and Community Development.

Hi, Michael.

Yes, it is on it.

Good afternoon, Council members.

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

H.B.

Harper, Central Staff.

I'm Alex Hudson.

I serve as the Senior Policy Advisor on Transportation and Livability in the Mayor's Office.

Thank you so much.

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

Thank you.

Okay.

Good afternoon, council members.

We have some slides to uh give you an overview of this proposed joint resolution.

And uh I'll take you through that.

Uh and we'll have comments by multiple members of the panel up here.

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

Um there's a lot of planning terminology in here.

Um apologize for that.

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

Um so the background here is that uh last December you all um adopted a new comprehensive plan.

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

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

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

We're gonna talk a lot about that today.

I'm gonna show some maps as we go.

Umops, let's see here.

Okay, so we had initially been thinking of um four phases to implement the new comp plan with zoning changes, so four major phases was what the planning office was thinking we would do.

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

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

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

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

So you accomplish that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That phase would have implemented the state's TOD bill, HB 1491, as a later step that is due for cities at the end of 2029.

We were thinking we might have gotten it done around the middle of 2028.

So this was the plan before, and what we want to talk to you today about is how we want to update this plan for the next phases and go taller, denser, faster, and really expand opportunities for housing even more.

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

Yes, thank you.

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

One, increasing the availability of abundant and affordable housing.

We know that Seattleites are facing and trying to survive in a severe housing affordability crisis, and by addressing uh the constraints around supply quickly, we can begin to uh bend the trend on that by adding zoning capacity for all kinds of new housing.

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

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

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

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

Yeah, thank you, Alex.

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

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

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

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

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

We need to look at those implications.

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

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

You know, we study the impacts in a range.

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

Um, so I'm gonna talk a little bit about our current thinking that's also reflected in the resolution about what would be included in the range.

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

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

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

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

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

So first we have neighborhood centers.

Um, and just a quick reminder: um, you can see them on the map to the right in blue.

These are the 30 new neighborhood centers you adopted in the new complan.

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

Um they generally are three to four minute walk from the business district.

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

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

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

So, just as a baseline, we know that we will look at those.

You've already asked us to study, and as a part of taller dense or faster, we would also like to potentially look at even more neighborhood centers and bring the number up to somewhere in the ballpark of 50 total neighborhood centers citywide in great places that would make sense for a neighborhood center across the city.

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

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

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

Um, the comprehensive plan you adopted, expanded six centers and added the Pinehurst uh center.

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

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

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

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

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

These are also the TOD bill areas.

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

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

The map on this slide is showing you what that looks like for BRT station areas, where we've done some math, and the areas in green on this map already meet the state's minimum density level, the areas in orange do not.

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

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

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

There are additional frequent transit routes that aren't shown here.

This map also doesn't show light rail stations.

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

So I know many council members here faced significant um hurdles that uh were difficult to jump when it came to the comprehensive plan amendment process last year, due to the fact that environmental review had not contemplated uh the concepts that council members were bringing forward.

Next slide, one.

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

And then section two is really where much of what you just heard is found.

And this um section has the council directing OBCD to study land use and zoning changes in these areas, the walking distance, frequent transit, those centers that we discussed, new and expanded neighborhood centers again, including those from the resolution in December, as well as there are very small number more that were studied in the 2022 EIS scoping report.

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

Not necessarily for decision making.

And additionally, transit station areas, as uh Jeff just discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so the strategies that we have here are around engaging communities who are at risk to be consulted and advise and guide the city's approach to this work, that alternatives will incorporate different approaches to address displacement pressure, so creating options for you as the decision makers and legislative body around what that will look like, and of course, to be incorporating more than just um process and alternatives, but actual mitigation measures uh including the use of zoning tools uh for your discussion and recommendation, um and so lastly, just uh some thoughts on the timeline.

Um so right now we're kind of working together, we're all on the same team working together to kind of figure out what the scope of study should be.

We're defining that.

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

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

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

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

There will be maps, there will be lots of discussion of anti-displacement strategies, there'll be measures, you know, about uh environment protections and trees, and the public will have a really big window to um comment on that and weigh in, especially early next year.

Um, after the city releases a final uh supplemental environmental impact statement, our office would develop the zoning proposal, and mayor Wilson's goal is that that zoning proposal could be brought to you and potentially adopted by the end of 2027.

I know that doesn't sound super fast, but um these things do take time and uh we want to make sure to have good quality engagement as we go.

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

Thank thank you very much for this overview and colleagues.

I'll just uh state a couple comments before we uh get started here.

Um, you know, a few things for me uh was that with four phases, um, it was just really confusing.

Um, and so I think part of this is also just trying to simplify um for the public um what the next phase is, and so you know uh we have the taller dents or faster.

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

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

There were limits on what we could do because of the prior environmental study.

Um there are limits in what we can do in phase two because of that prior environmental study, and so some of uh the ideas that um colleagues might want to include might need to be um a part of this phase, the next phase, and so uh that's also just part of this idea of teeing up as we work on phase two what the next steps will be.

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

Councilmember Kettle.

Uh thank you, Chair uh Lynn.

Um thank you everyone for the uh presentation and the comments.

Um Chair, I do yes, the four phases, you know, having some type of understanding and and also you know, keeping the eye on the prize too, because there's other issues out there too, like MHA, there's a lot of things that impact the ability to develop and build affordable housing to the public commenters.

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

Um and looking at the briefing, I just I do want to make one uh administrative note.

Um, thank you for the slide numbers I've signed now on behalf of council member Juarez, but the uh number one it is the one Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

So the title uh slide should reflect one Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

And I say that because that's been adopted by the council, and I recognize there's history with One Seattle, but it is our one Seattle too.

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

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

Um, although uh I will note the clerk and the agenda did have one Seattle comprehensive plan just for the record.

Um, secondly, uh, you know, I appreciate this.

I will say, as someone who has three regional centers in his uh district, plus I have a couple other areas of uh strong interest, which I've already met with uh OPCD in terms of reviews.

You know, there's a lot of work to be done in those areas, and so you know it's important that that work not get sidelined.

Um I think we can proceed on that uh, you know, as well.

And so I think that's something uh uh is important to note.

Um separately as you walk through the briefing neighborhood centers.

I did want to recommit uh to the idea of a Nickerson um neighborhood center.

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

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

Uh separately uh I note the number 50, that's a big number.

And uh I just wanted to say I've had discussions like in our D sub neighborhood council, we've had like the urbanists there and and Street Alliance and other groups, and one of the things I I said repeatedly, and I know neighborhood center is a term, but I said, you know, we should have an idea of like neighborhood villages, which I know technically is not a term, Mr.

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

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

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

Uh and I think it it's also a chance for the neighborhoods and so forth to kind of absorb and and you know and see again which ones and I'm I'm still looking to do.

I've had discussions with OPC about having like many like having neighborhood villages within district seven, which wouldn't be like a formal thing, but using neighborhood commercial as a way to kind of create those little neighborhood villages.

And so I I say that because 50 is a big number, it's going to create uh some type of response, and I just throw that out there that I'm still committed to the neighborhood village idea for those that had conversations with me in the past, um, in terms of uh at least in in my district.

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

Um, the last thing uh chair that I just wanted to note is um this Sound Transit 3 experience is uh really driving home the idea that land use, what we're doing here, and transportation are two sides of the same coin, is unfathomable, it's a failing to not get the the BLE, the Baylard uh extension to Ballard, the namesake of the line.

Um, and there's really a disconnect of I said many times between what the state's doing through Sound Transit on one hand with ST3 and then through PSRC and so forth with the complan.

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

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

It's been coming up again and again recently.

Um, and steep slope streets are a problem.

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

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

You are climbing, and so this kind of goes to the EIS.

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

And again, I'm raising this because it goes to the idea of transportation and land use working together because I'm uh there's issues that have been popping up that come out.

Um, by the way, with not much uh notification, by the way, from the executive, but uh you we have these pieces that that are coming, and it's better to address the issues now versus later when because of we didn't work through that, we have even bigger problems.

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

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

Um, these are the things that we need to understand and have some finesse at the local level, and so uh so with that um chair, thank you very much, and just a few points.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Uh Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

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

Oh, yeah.

Thanks just to get the timeline up there.

Um I appreciate the question.

I think uh that it's a it's a it's a hard one to answer accurately, it's hard to predict the future.

Um, obviously, the council sometimes has unexpected priorities, and then we have, of course, our expected times like during budget where uh you know we have significantly reduced capacity to handle anything else.

So I certainly think this is a possible timeline.

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

I would hope that it wouldn't push far into 2028, if so.

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

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

Yeah, I would just want to echo that's a really good point because as you all know, we do have to do additional noticing when council amendments go outside the scope for what the public might be aware of.

And so I think that certainly adds months to our timelines, as as you all are well aware.

Thank you for that.

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

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

And I I know from the previous uh process, I and I I state my support for studying what's possible because it was challenging to be in a position where we were really constrained on what our options were, and I want to give this body options to be able to put forward um policy ideas.

There were ideas on the table from anti-displacement measures to additional ideas for for bonuses or bringing online new neighborhood centers, and we weren't able to move forward with those in phase one, and so um by allowing us to study, it really just gives us as a legislative body more policy options and choices.

Um with that, those are that's just my question for today.

And thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Council Member Rivera.

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

Um I will say this is my first time.

Um uh having awareness of the specifics of this taller, faster plan, um, uh taller denser, faster plan.

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

Um I am from the largest city in this country, the largest city by double the next second largest city in the country, and um uh which is New York City, and I love that I grew up in New York City.

I grew up in an apartment and I had a very happy childhood.

Now I have a home, a single family home where my kids are growing up, so I see the benefits um of both, and then the the challenges of both, and um I loved my I love my beloved uh beloved New York City um as much as I love my adopted new city where my kids uh were born and are growing up in.

So I want to say that because sometimes when we make comments on behalf um uh of you know in our response to what we're seeing, um uh I don't want people to uh make the comment that somehow I don't agree with growth that is not the truth that could not be furthest from the truth since I'm from a huge city that I very much love.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I want to do better.

I want to make sure that people have access to the information ahead of time, and if they want to provide feedback ahead of time, they can.

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

We have to do better.

We just do.

I mean, we want to hear from everybody, all sides, both sides, because in this case, there seems to be two camps, and that's great, but we need to hear from people.

Otherwise, we're gonna keep getting attacked for not giving information ahead of time, and then we get accused for doing it on purpose, even if that's not the case.

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

So I'm just gonna say that.

Um, and you know, there is a lot here.

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

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

There are pieces I appreciate my colleague council member Kettle's um points that he made.

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

We need to because more growth means more infrastructure than we have today, and I think that's an important aspect, and it shouldn't be an afterthought, it should be a very um uh active piece of this uh joint resolution, as well as amenities like um libraries and parks uh as well as emergency services like fire and and um uh uh police as part of all of this.

So um uh so I do feel, you know, I am not up the frame of mine of slowing things down at the same time you could go so fast that you're not incorporating um a feedback in a way that then will on the back end, and to Councilmember Kettle, you mentioned this a little bit just about if we don't do the front end work, then we're in a deficit on the back end.

So I hope that we will have the opportunity, Chair, to really have um robust conversation and opportunity to give feedback on the joint resolution on the front end, because while I understand that this is a resolution is not binding, this is our intent, it does go to what is going to the supplemental EIS, and then later I understand there'll be opportunity to give public comment on what comes out of the supplemental EIS, but then people will feel at that time like they did with last year's process that they're giving feedback on the back end and not in the front end, and I don't want that, that does not feel good to me.

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

Um, and I and I think we when we work together, we get better outcomes.

I'm just gonna keep saying that because I think it's true, and so um I just hope we have the opportunity to do that with this joint resolution, and there's a lot more I can say, but I will I know we're running out of time, it's late.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Bear, Council President Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Chair Lynn, for uh bringing this um important piece, and thank you, Mayor's Office, for being here and OPCD and HB and everyone.

I just had a quick question.

There was um the um inside the resolution uh about anti-displacement.

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

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

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

Sure.

Thank you, Council President.

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

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

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

That was one piece.

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

Uh so that's the start of providing with the information you need as you take on that one piece of legislation, but more broadly, OPCD does have a number of bodies of work that we are doing around anti-displacement, including developing and advancing newer emerging tools, um, homeowners supports uh for legacy homeowners is one area that we're working on.

We are uh leading a citywide effort uh that produced a new dashboard of uh more sort of urgent measures of displacement risk.

Uh and there's an interdepartmental group that is meeting regularly and identifying where the gaps are and getting the word out to people who are in need of uh the tools that we do have and that are looking at the data data to see what we can do to have a more effective suite of anti-displacement tools.

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

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

Yeah, no, absolutely, and uh and a part of the EDI work I know is through a lot of the nonprofit um folks, and I think council had did an amendment to include small businesses in that that was written by uh council member more and supported that um because we know some of our our immigrant and our communities of of color, you know, they build a lot of their foundation on small businesses.

Um, and so uh we'll link back with you all on that update and would love to get a commitment from you all that more meetings that you have include um and I'm gonna go, I just made off the top of my head Mount Zion Church, Tabernacle Church, Fame, Art Noir, Africa Town, Wanawari, Black Legacy Homeowners, King County Equity Now, Urban League of Seattle, Bird Bar, Black Pastors Group, Langston, Green Home Design, Case 21, Resource Equity, Urban Impact, Parents for Student Success, those are a lot of the groups that we have interaction with when we were talking about the um comprehensive plan, and I know they would like to be included.

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

Um so they feel like included and incorporated in these um uh in these decisions that are are being made, and I know that you all uh care about that as well, um, but just wanted to say being very intentional about that.

You can kind of see the disparity, what it looks like, the perception uh from the outside, um, people not feeling like they're uh incorporated.

So just wanted to say that I just wrote that list off the top of my head.

More than happy to send a record, send that, or more than happy to put those groups in the resolution, so we can cross them off and make sure that we're including them as well.

So thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And um kind of to council member rink's point earlier, um, you know, I think part of the difficulty uh council faced last time, um that I joined at the very end of the last process was um due to um the the scope of the study, there uh council's options were pretty limited.

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

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

Um but you know, this process has taken so many years, um, and that's and we heard some of that today about the exhaustion.

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

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

And you know, we've had turnovers in administration, we've had new state laws, whether it's 1110 or the TOD bill, um, and so this has been a complicated uh and difficult process.

Um, but I do um just want to note for the record that um, you know, part of this discussion is to make sure that this next state uh phase that we do provide early input, especially uh what we are hearing about the the importance of anti-displacement.

Uh, we heard the importance of um, you know, speaking to our environmental values um to make sure um that we study these, and I do also just want to note for the record that a study alone does not um just because we study something doesn't mean that that uh that we're gonna choose to proceed with that option.

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

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

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

Um I do just want to note that uh again, faster is a relative term here.

Um none of this has been fast.

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

There will be um, and we heard today the importance of ongoing public engagement, um particularly with communities that um are facing uh displacement uh pressures that um have been ongoing for many many many many years with that um I want to thank you all.

Um we will be having further discussions um uh with the mayor's office with OPCD on the next steps, and and unless there's further questions or comments, um go ahead, Councilman.

Sure, I just also want to provide some context because of this.

Every 10 years we engage in this exercise, but in the in between times, about every couple years we have updates.

So I don't think this is out of the realm of what we over time have done.

Just um it may be that there's more now than we've done in the past, but it is true that every 10 years we do the bigger comp plan, and on between years we do all the zoning and all the things that you know every couple years they're updates.

So it's not irregular, is what I'm trying to say.

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

So that's really my source of frustration, more so than, like I said, um uh what we're gonna study or not study.

We just need to be forthcoming and and make sure that we're including you know, uh Council President super appreciate all the organizations that you mentioned that is really important, and in terms also of the anti-displacement, we have you know a lot of retirees and other folks that are being impacted and um all across the city, and folks just need to be all of that needs to be part of this plan.

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

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

And I'll just uh respond and say that um at least in my lifetime, I think uh this has been the most um significant sort of zoning exercise, comprehensive plan exercise, uh in sort of recent history, and so even though this has taken many years, um, given the the scope of the change, um it is understandable um why we um needed to and why we need continue to need to do significant engagement, um, but also just why this has taken so long.

Um, you know, to do this level of um changes to uh uh um our cityscape uh to our built environment, the planning work around it, um it just takes time.

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

Um so thank you uh again.

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

And um if there's no further business, um I'm gonna close out this meeting at uh 344.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.