Seattle is grappling with significant changes in its Comprehensive Plan proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell, termed the “One Seattle Plan.”
After almost a year of delays, the city council is preparing to review amendments to this 10-year plan, which dictates the future of housing, transportation, and infrastructure development in the city.
Just this week, council members presented 107 proposed amendments after months of deliberation, marking the first opportunity to modify the plan.
The Comprehensive Plan sets forth guidelines on where and how Seattle will develop, especially concerning the city’s sizable renter population.
Notably, it designates areas for new housing and infrastructure while imposing constraints on housing density across various neighborhoods.
Updates to this plan occur every decade, shaped by the prevailing political climate and leadership.
The Harrell Administration has faced criticism for its hesitance to allow increased housing density in traditional single-family neighborhoods.
Early drafts of the plan aimed to significantly boost density but were abandoned after calls for a more measured approach emerged.
The final draft demonstrates some improvement, albeit still falling short of what many council members advocated for during their 2023 election campaigns, as highlighted by critiques from the city’s Planning Commission.
Several proposed amendments focus on expanding designated “neighborhood centers”—areas within 800 feet of frequent transit stops where apartment buildings may be constructed for the first time in decades.
Despite some attempts to limit these centers’ size, the overall trend leans toward increasing the designated areas for potential density.
In fact, a recent proposal dwindles the number of neighborhood centers from an initial 48 to 30 in Harrell’s latest draft, but ongoing pressure from homeowners continues to create significant changes.
Council members such as Dan Strauss and Bob Kettle aim to enhance housing availability by proposing new centers and expanding existing ones.
Strauss’s proposal for East Ballard and Kettle’s for North Queen Anne/Nickerson represent attempts to cater to community demands for more housing amidst growth challenges.
Rinck, another council member, has proposed expanding neighborhood centers to eight new areas across each council district to ensure thriving communities.
This push for more housing is accompanied by proposals for density bonuses and incentives for various housing forms, aiming to streamline development processes in Seattle’s residential zones.
For instance, Kettle’s amendment eliminates an “amenity area” requirement, allowing more space for housing by freeing it from any designation as open space typically reserved for yards.
Additionally, Sara Nelson’s amendment seeks to prevent environmental reviews under the State Environmental Policy Act from hindering housing development.
Other amendments from various council members would provide developers with bonuses for building stack flats and affordable housing, aiming to enhance the diversity of housing options available.
Moreover, there are notable proposals aimed at addressing mandatory parking requirements, which some believe hinder urban development.
Rinck’s ambitious amendment envisions the complete removal of citywide parking mandates, allowing developers flexibility concerning parking in their new projects.
This would not preclude the inclusion of parking spaces but would stop developers from being obligated to include them in their designs.
Another approach would reduce parking requirements to comply with upcoming statewide reforms aimed at minimizing unnecessary parking mandates.
In contrast, there remain concerns about balancing new housing with maintaining neighborhood character and existing trees, which often become contentious issues during urban planning discussions.
Amendments addressing tree preservation have emerged, which would impose new restrictions on developments that threaten existing trees.
These proposals could challenge the growth narrative, as some amendments may require developers to submit comprehensive alternative plans if any trees on the site face removal, regardless of their size or condition.
This regulatory shift raises concerns over development viability and the continuous housing crisis in Seattle.
While such amendments aim to preserve nature, they risk complicating the already burdensome housing development processes, leading to potentially increased costs and restrictions.
In historic districts or residential zones, proposed changes seek to limit where new housing can be built—a concern echoed by council member Maritza Rivera, who has suggested reducing neighborhood center boundaries to reflect vocal resident oppositions.
Indeed, Rivera’s amendments significantly shrink the Wedgwood center, marking a 40% reduction, reflecting fears among current homeowners regarding sudden changes in neighborhood dynamics.
Similarly, Joy Hollingsworth’s proposed amendments aim to reduce density in areas with substantial opposition, showcasing the continual tension between homeowners and renters in Seattle.
Additionally, amendments to allow corner stores and new businesses in residential neighborhoods have sparked amendments to amend existing restrictive proposals.
The mayor’s initial restrictions proposed for corner stores, limited to literal corners and stringent operating hours, faced substantial backlash leading to varied amendments focusing on removing barriers for small businesses.
These changes signify shifting priorities toward encouraging more vibrant, mixed-use neighborhoods—despite potential regulatory hurdles that could arise.
Balancing homeowners’ interests with renters’ needs is no easy feat in Seattle’s ever-evolving urban landscape.
While there are encouraging proposals to expand housing opportunities, the pushback and search for compromise demonstrate the complex dynamics at play as the city strives to meet its housing and growth needs.
Ultimately, the outcome of these proposed amendments could shape the future of housing in Seattle, determining how and where people live in this rapidly changing urban environment.
image source from：publicola
