As the Seattle City Council delves deeper into Mayor Bruce Harrell’s proposed One Seattle Comprehensive Plan, questions are being raised regarding the recent alterations to the city’s housing capacity strategy, particularly in affluent neighborhoods.
The city’s Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) had initially aimed to enhance housing options in traditionally exclusive areas. However, there has been a significant reduction in the proposed expansions of housing opportunities within 14 growth centers across Seattle.
Michael Hubner, the long-range planning manager at OPCD, spoke to the city planning commission about the considerable changes that took place prior to the plan’s final transmission to the council. He sought to downplay the impact of these reductions that emerged in response to community pushback from neighborhoods like Magnolia, Green Lake, Madrona, and Fauntleroy.
Hubner indicated that the revised boundaries in urban centers such as Queen Anne and Admiral saw a reduction of approximately a dozen blocks. Most neighborhood centers experienced minor adjustments, with only a few blocks being dropped from their proposed scope, a change reflecting ongoing community concerns.
“These reductions don’t jump off the map; they’re relatively minor,” Hubner commented during his presentation. “While I don’t have exact figures on acreage or percentages, I would characterize it as a small adjustment in the context of our plan’s overall goals.”
According to Hubner, feedback collected during the comprehensive plan’s public comment period last fall influenced the adjustments. He noted that certain factors played a significant role in the decision-making process, including environmental conditions like slopes, the presence of historic resources, infrastructure limitations, and accessibility to transit and essential amenities.
Nonetheless, this scaling back of neighborhood center boundaries has sparked criticism from various members of Seattle’s planning commission, who feel the changes undermine the objective of expanding housing options citywide. Their concerns echo earlier calls for increasing the size and number of neighborhood centers and enhancing capacity along frequent transit routes.
Commissioner McCaela Daffern articulated her disappointment, stating, “Some of these revised neighborhood center zones are located in areas lacking multifamily housing and urban villages. If we are serious about providing everyone with the chance to reside in their desired neighborhood, these centers should be our starting point.”
Daffern emphasized the importance of even the smallest adjustments with respect to the city’s housing equity values, suggesting that each block serves as a symbol of progress toward creating inclusive and diverse neighborhoods.
Other commissioners raised questions on the criteria utilized for the boundary reductions and highlighted a void in compensatory solutions for the lost housing capacity.
Commissioner Rose Lew Tsai-Le Whitson expressed a desire for the city to consider expanding the plan elsewhere if reductions were to be made. “If we are going to shrink these neighborhoods, it would be prudent to expand in different areas to maintain overall capacity,” she noted.
Furthermore, the distinction between geological hazard areas and other critical regions was a point of contention for Tsai-Le Whitson. She posited that approximately many challenges associated with geological hazards are manageable, indicating that a blanket approach to development limitations may not be necessary.
Cecelia Black, a community advocate with Disability Rights Washington, echoed similar sentiments regarding the influence of steep slopes on accessibility. In a recent op-ed for The Urbanist, Black argued that increased density across neighborhoods would enhance accessibility for all residents.
“Higher density in hilly areas could lead to improved accessibility,” Black remarked, emphasizing that well-distributed density ensures ease of access to vital services and amenities.
On the council side, some members echoed concerns over the overall handling of neighborhood centers. District 5 Councilmember Cathy Moore expressed frustration about the decision to keep the Maple Leaf neighborhood center on the table despite considerable community opposition.
Moore stated, “I specifically requested that Maple Leaf not be designated as a neighborhood center on two occasions, and my requests were denied. This treatment feels dismissive toward our community’s legitimate concerns.”
In response, Christa Valles, Harrell’s Deputy Director of Policy, emphasized that the administration had engaged with various interests throughout Seattle to create a balanced plan, even if it diverged from the expectations of some community members.
“We’ve made concerted efforts to listen and have arrived at a different conclusion based on our findings,” Valles explained, defending the planning strategy.
However, Moore will not partake in the final vote on the Comprehensive Plan, having announced her impending resignation effective July 7, with a successor set to be appointed by the remaining council members before the month concludes.
District 4 Councilmember Maritza Rivera also raised questions about the thoroughness of the research conducted around proposed neighborhood centers, particularly regarding the contentious Bryant center on NE 55th Street.
While the city council grapples with these reflections and concerns, the ultimate decisions regarding the boundaries of neighborhood centers are now poised for a vote anticipated this September, ahead of zoning modifications slated for the following year.
The dialogue surrounding the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan reflects a broader tension between the priorities of urban growth, environmental concerns, and community sentiments, a dynamic that will continue to evolve as the council navigates these critical housing issues.
image source from：theurbanist
