WEDNESDAY: Your chance to speak at City Council’s public hearing on proposed rezoning and other Comprehensive Plan changes

If you have something to say about the proposed city rezoning plan and other components of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Wednesday night brings the City Council‘s major public hearing about it. Various groups around the city have gone public with support and opposition, but this is the one night that councilmembers are convening to listen to as many individuals as want to speak. You can either go to City Hall to comment in person, or sign up to do it online; the agenda explains how. The hearing starts at 5 pm Wednesday (February 5); here’s the official notice, with a summary of what the city considers the plan’s toplines. You can find both the full proposed plan and its Environmental Impact Statement linked from this page.

40 Replies to "WEDNESDAY: Your chance to speak at City Council's public hearing on proposed rezoning and other Comprehensive Plan changes"

  • Belvidear February 3, 2025 (12:33 pm)

    What does it mean to be in a proposed expanded urban center?

    • Jon February 3, 2025 (2:31 pm)

      It means we are all going to experience changes to the way things have been for the last century of Seattle’s housing (limitations) and transportation priorities.
      There will be loud protests from traditional homeowners, but we  have  created the housing crisis we now face.  
      And neighborhood groups, consistent in their opposition to change, never offer any solutions.  
      We are beyond the catch-phrase era of “none will be affordable,” “greedy developers,” “toaster homes,” “ugly boxes,” “scraped sites” and other derogatories.  
      Increased density can be achieved with increased canopy.

      The future can and should be more equitable.  

      • Al King February 3, 2025 (6:43 pm)

        Jon. Our problem is knowing that what the proponents want, and claim will do wonders always ends up doing none of that. The future should be more equitable but why do plans like this end up only benefitting developers and builders?? Please provide proof that communities have truly benefitted from developers and builders being given a blank check and exemptions from all restrictions

      • Rob February 4, 2025 (12:08 am)

        Those are a lot of bumper sticker slogans with no meaning.  Increased canopy is physically contrary to increased density.  Show us reputable studies or facts to the contrary.  And please stop villifying neighborhood groups and “traditional homeowners” (whatever that means), we have funded (by majority vote) housing levy after housing levy…property taxes fund an enormous amount of what’s been proposed and done.  They are not the enemy here.

        • Ann February 4, 2025 (3:32 pm)

          Property owners in Seattle have overwhelmingly supported housing levies and other levies that support public schools, libraries, public safety, transportation, the Port of Seattle, etc. I applaud you, Rob, for reminding neighbors and advocates that homeowners are not necessarily NIMBYs but genuinely concerned about issues such as water quality & quantity, the need for thorough environmental review as contrasted with SEPA exemptions, and the recognition of other deleterious effects of increases in impervious surfaces. Public testimony aims to bring these concerns to decision-makers and seek the city to mitigate them if possible.  At a time when we need to remember that we live in a democracy, it is okay to have disagreements in public policy, and we should work to avoid demonizing differences in positions.

          • WS Urbanist February 4, 2025 (4:21 pm)

            While environmental concerns are important, they’re often better addressed through modern urban planning and green building practices rather than limiting density. Higher-density development can actually lead to more efficient resource use and reduced per-capita environmental impact. SEPA exemptions typically apply to smaller developments that are less likely to have significant environmental impacts. These exemptions help streamline the process for much-needed housing without compromising environmental standards. We should be cautious about using environmental arguments as a proxy for opposing increased density, as the benefits of compact, well-planned urban development often outweigh the perceived negatives. A balanced approach addressing both housing needs and environmental considerations is crucial for Seattle’s sustainable growth.

    • South Admiral February 3, 2025 (3:25 pm)

      I think it means that this will allow housing to get way taller and wider in these areas.   And maybe allow for shops on corners?  I’m not 100% sure on that one.  

    • Alex February 3, 2025 (3:26 pm)

      Go look at the maps.   For Endolyne Fauntleroy, it means hundreds of single family homes are proposed to be rezoned to allow for 5 story apartment buildings with 5 foot setbacks on 5,000 square foot lots.  As the neighborhoods transition, single family homes will sit next door to a 5 story buildings.   There are some who say existing homeowners have no solutions and that is incorrect.   I can get behind multiple ADUs on a 5,000 lot as well as townhomes as long as they stick with the current 30 feet height allowances.    Thousands of homes across the city are proposed for replacement with 5 story apartment buildings.   That means the remaining stock of single family homes will become more expensive and future opportunities for families to create wealth will stop at the point in time the property is sold and developed into an apartment building.   That opportunity to build equity will be transferred to REITS and other property management firms,

      • South Admiral February 3, 2025 (4:14 pm)

        Thank you for that explanation.   That was helpful.  

      • Your neighbor February 3, 2025 (5:10 pm)

        It includes 4000 sqft lots on Fauntleroy Way too. 

      • AJ February 3, 2025 (6:23 pm)

        That’s a depressing read.   The thought of a 5 story apartment built on the lot south of me is depressing.   Say goodbye to any sunlight.

      • JustSarah February 3, 2025 (7:33 pm)

         I can get behind multiple ADUs on a 5,000 lot as well as townhomes as long as they stick with the current 30 feet height allowances.   

        This is the path to less green space. If you want to preserve green space and trees and increase density, height is the way to go. 

        Thousands of homes across the city are proposed for replacement with 5 story apartment buildings. 

        This statement is kind of misleading. Homes are not “proposed for replacement,” they’d be upzoned, allowing for replacement with a building up to that height. 

    • WS Guy February 4, 2025 (4:36 am)

      In all the areas shaded in the expansion area or labeled “LR”, 50’ apartments can be built.  In all the other areas (“NR”) it’s going to move up to 40’.  

      What will actually happen is that developers will pick off lots in those areas where the current house is small, poorly maintained, and/or has a good view.  They will tear down and build them up to the maximum permitted.  

      Given the vast land area upzoned you’ll see these large buildings sprinkled around in various neighborhoods, looking way out of place.  

      On streets where more of these structures start to appear, existing homeowners will stop maintaining their homes as they recognize that the next owner will tear it down anyway.  After a few decades of transition your street will resemble the canyons of Columbia City, although possibly more crowded since CC streets are generally lined with 30’ boxes.  

      Given the poor economic climate for real estate in Seattle right now, it could be a few years before this kicks off.

      • WS Urbanist February 4, 2025 (4:27 pm)

        It’s important to consider the bigger picture. The only thing constant in this world is that it will change. Cities naturally evolve over time, and what may look “out of place” today will likely become the new normal tomorrow. Just as the current houses were once new additions to the neighborhood, future developments will gradually integrate into the urban landscape. The focus on aesthetics overlooks the critical need for housing in Seattle. Prioritizing the visual homogeneity of neighborhoods over providing homes for people is a questionable stance, especially in a growing city facing a housing crisis. While change can be uncomfortable, it’s necessary for the city to grow sustainably and provide housing for all its residents, not just those who can afford single-family homes in prime locations.

        • WS Guy February 5, 2025 (2:44 am)

          Yes, as I mentioned the transitional period ends once the street has become like the canyons of Columbia City.  Treeless and dystopian.  Walls and windows in every direction, the sidewalks shrouded in shadows.  All the charm of a hotel hallway or corporate apartment building.  You locate your pod #301C amid all the others. Maybe you put a wreath on the door to mark it as unique as you struggle to maintain your individualism.  But hey the city needs to grow, right?

          • Bbron February 5, 2025 (9:53 am)

            Kinda missing the big picture of having more community, but that makes sense for someone who’s only idea of individualism is how their house looks. If you dislike living around people, there’s plenty of space in the US. let communities that want to be dense do their thing; hoarding land with SFH where people want to live isn’t sustainable.

          • WS Guy February 5, 2025 (3:51 pm)

            Oh yes, I will most definitely leave within the next few years.  This is known in the comp plan as “cultural displacement” – when your taxes force you out, your community is colonized, and you no longer feel welcome.  The bigger problem is the recent tendency of state governments of inflicting their values on everyone top-down.  If I can let you transform Seattle into a cardboard and crime-filled version of Tokyo, then other localities should not have SFH banned by fiat from above.  Please tell me why the people of Asotin (or Gig Harbor for that matter) need to follow guidelines set by urbanist state legislators from Seattle.

          • The King of Cans and Jars February 5, 2025 (1:10 pm)

            Yes, the dystopian hellscape of Columbia City. Make sure that the plague hordes don’t drag you away to the rendering pits when you go to get pasta con le sarde from La Medusa. Seriously, some comments are beyond parody.

          • WS Guy February 5, 2025 (4:03 pm)

            I’m sure it’s nice that you can afford dining out at $40 a plate, but that’s not an option for some of us. Let’s remember that the charming three block one-story commercial strip of CC is (1) a protected historic district, which WS does not have and (2) surrounded by faceless canyons of midrise buildings where your all your windows but one face the blank walls of your neighbors.  The pro-density movement here would not be so revolting if there was any style or thought put into the communities they build.  An old European city center with wide avenues and pocket parks is beautiful and livable; same for a Scandinavian city; totally unlike what gets built here.  It’s all about wealth extraction and maximum number of pods-for-people here.  And I think you know it.

          • WS Guy February 5, 2025 (4:33 pm)

            The more I reflect on your comment the more I see the self-parody in it.  La Meduse is in the 1-story protected area of CC.  It is being protected from the urbanist density mob, it is NOT a result of it, and that is why you like it and can cite it as your reason that CC is nice.

          • WS Urbanist February 5, 2025 (4:56 pm)

            Seattle’s current density is only 8,791.8 people per square mile, far lower than other thriving, livable cities like Boston (14,362.6 people/sq mi), Amsterdam (14,558 people/sq mi), and Paris (54,415 people/sq mi). Dense, urban environments don’t have to be “dystopian” or devoid of community when designed thoughtfully.

            Dismissing all higher-density development as soulless “hotel hallways” is an oversimplification. Well-designed apartment buildings and mixed-use developments can actually foster stronger community connections than isolated single-family homes. Residents have more opportunities to interact, share resources, and participate in local life since they’ll be able to walk through their neighborhood instead of being isolated and alone in their car.

            Those who prefer a less dense, more insular living environment will always have options outside the city. But for those who want to be part of a thriving, connected urban community, upzoning and thoughtful density can enhance, not erode, the vibrancy and cohesiveness of neighborhoods.

          • WS Guy February 5, 2025 (9:30 pm)

            I’m not against density per se.  I’m against how it’s implemented here.  The only project that I know of that added density to West Seattle and made the community better is the project to the SE of California and Charleston.  The one that is home to Olympic Coffee if you know that one.  

            What we normally get is a rack of generic 3 story townhomes and zero lot line boxes.  With no thought to the impact on everything else 

            Those cities you cite became that dense over hundreds of years.  They grew around old city centers with charm.  This allowed for an organic interweaving of livability infrastructure.  But because our urbanists need it all NOW NOW NOW, feel that the most extreme positions are needed to own the NIMBYs, and the developers want to extract cash… we shove thoughtless density into the pipeline exclusively.In other words, what you are selling is not what we are getting.  

            Maybe it would be better if you moved to Boston or Alexandria where these wonderful walkable neighborhoods already exist rather than throwing that “move to where you belong” logic onto people that already live here.

          • WS Urbanist February 5, 2025 (10:45 pm)

            I grew up in West Seattle and remember the Charleston Cafe that was torn down for that project – and I agree, it’s a great example of thoughtful development. You make a fair point about organic growth in older cities, but we’re in a different situation now. We’re trying to undo decades of artificial housing restrictions and redlining that have created our current crisis. This housing plan actually revives the 30 “urban villages” (now called neighborhood centers) that were promised to Seattleites 30 years ago – so in a way, this is the organic growth we’ve been waiting for.
            I live near the Junction now and love its walkability, but I’m one of the lucky ones. So many other West Seattleites I grew up with have been priced out completely. I want our neighborhood to be a place where you don’t need either a big inheritance or a tech salary to own a home. The urgency isn’t about ‘owning the NIMBYs’ – it’s about making sure our community stays diverse and accessible to everyone who wants to call it home.

          • WS Guy February 6, 2025 (4:42 am)

            There is no crisis.  This is an imaginary issue predicated on the falsehood that you end with, which is that everyone (on planet Earth?) who wants to live within the geographical bounds of West Seattle must be enabled to do so.  We will not house 7 billion people in the 37 square miles of West Seattle.  So clearly some equilibrium must be reached, and that is an arbitrary goal.  It is the induced demand problem but applied to urban development: you can never have enough roads because more roads attracts more cars… same with housing.

            True equilibrium occurs when as many people want to leave as want to arrive.  Wanting to arrive means it is more desirable, costs considered, than the place you would be leaving.  Given a net positive arrivals, the desirability has to be reduced in order to reach equilibrium.  The quantity of housing units has nothing to do with it… except that thoughtless density, which is a precursor to lack of infrastructure, cramped housing, lack of mobility, crime, etc.  This will reduce desirability so in an indirect sense it will seemingly “solve the problem” not by supply but by creating misery and cutting demand.

            I would further add that the city of Boston is just 47 square miles whereas Seattle is 142.  West Seattle is more comparable to a suburb of Boston and by that density measure we are already more dense than, say, Waltham.  You can apply the same to Amsterdam (62 square miles) because if you draw a boundary around that city to encompass the same area as Seattle, you’d find that West Seattle already exceeds that in density.

          • Arbor Heights Resident February 6, 2025 (11:53 am)

            WS Guy maybe you’ve been living under a rock, but there is a massive decades-long housing affordability crisis which is plaguing Seattle, leading to the homelessness crisis among other bad effects. It’s telling that you have to jump to ludicrous hyperbole (7 billion people? Lol) to defend your anti-housing position. Seattle’s growth is a rising tide which lifts all boats, as more residents and businesses move in and density increases, more amenities and options become available and more efficient land use results in higher tax revenues which can be reinvested in things like infrastructure. West Seattle has received 2 rapidride lines since 2012 and numerous upgrades to roads, schools, and parks. Before you know it we’ll have a light rail connection as well, in the Junction, and area which has been hugely improved by replacing low-density land uses like parking lots and car-oriented retail with mixed-use developments which added 2 grocery stores, a fitness center, and numerous spaces for small shops and cafés. You can also see they kept the same number of Street trees and the city built Junction Plaza Park, with more plans to build another park on 40th street. I’ll take that over this nebulous “neighborhood cohesion” you’re so preoccupied with.

          • WS Guy February 6, 2025 (5:10 am)

            On the subject of the urban villages.  When those were rolled out (in the 90s) there was a strong neighborhood focus in Seattle.  In exchange for upzoning each neighborhood was promised investment in their infrastructure along with a cohesive, locally developed set of neighborhoods guidelines.  A department of neighborhoods existed that would further ensure that each UV would be unique and locally influenced. This could have been the thoughtful development that you advertise, but it’s not what happened and it is not the case that this comp plan revives this organic concept.  

            The junction’s neighborhood plan was summarily ignored and the livability funding never arrived.  Every time the city set a density target we exceeded it; every time they set a green space or jobs target we missed it to the point that those targets kept getting redefined and later removed.  All we got was 8 story megaboxes and the loss of neighborhood cohesion.  We have never been wanting of zoned capacity since those days and it’s false to claim that we somehow fell into an urgent deficit.

          • WS Urbanist February 6, 2025 (12:26 pm)

            There’s no denying we’re in the midst of a severe housing affordability crisis in Seattle, including West Seattle. As someone who grew up here, I’ve witnessed firsthand how this crisis has affected our community, pushing out long-time residents and making it increasingly difficult for newcomers to find homes. Despite these challenges, I’ve also seen our neighborhood transform in positive ways. The Junction, for instance, has blossomed with new grocery stores, vibrant apartments, and bigger community events – it’s more alive and welcoming than ever. To continue with the Boston analogy, these changes in West Seattle remind me of Cambridge, MA, where my sister lives: a walkable, diverse community that balances growth with livability. It’s just across the Charles river from Boston (not so different from being across the Duwamish here). I believe our neighborhood’s evolution shows we can grow thoughtfully, creating space for new neighbors while enhancing what makes West Seattle special.

            As for resources to back up the conclusion about the affordability crisis, here are some reliable sources:
            1. The City of Seattle’s Office of Housing provides data and reports on housing affordability: https://www.seattle.gov/housing/data-and-reports
            2. The National Low Income Housing Coalition’s “Out of Reach” report provides state-specific data on housing affordability: https://nlihc.org/oor
            3. The Washington State Department of Commerce has resources on housing affordability: https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/

            These sources should provide you with ample data and analysis to support the existence of a housing affordability crisis in Seattle and the broader region.

        • WS Guy February 6, 2025 (9:29 pm)

          I’ll say this: 20 years ago I had your point of view.  I was involved in WS land use and development over many of those years.  I was anti-car, biked, bused every day, pro-walkable neighborhoods, etc.  But over those years as I watched how things played out I lost confidence that my (now your) vision would ever be achieved here.  The forces at work in our city will not produce Cambridge-on-the-Duwamish.  All we get is garbage density, shoddy and low aesthetic development, lots of negative externalities, and prices are not lower.  

          This latest comp plan is the worst step yet.  It’s not even pretending to value livability.  And no, I don’t think there’s a housing “crisis”.  I think that’s just a narrative used to fortify the package of policies that the leaders want to rush into for other reasons.  I don’t hear the people of Bellevue or Normandy Park wailing about a housing crisis, and their costs are higher than ours.

          But, I do like your optimism and would even be interested to hear from you firsthand how it could be achieved.  It’s been an interesting chat although not fair to Tracy to keep using her blog as a chat room.   I’d be happy to take it offline sometime, maybe Uptown Espresso.  Cheers.

  • BJG February 3, 2025 (4:14 pm)

    Jon you are correct. There will be opposition as you have described because what you call “catch-phrase(s)” are the realities of the recent development in West Seattle. If density could be achieved with “increased canopy” there is no evidence of it so far. The future is looking, cheap, ugly, and built to maximize profit, not livability.

    • Foop February 3, 2025 (5:16 pm)

      Building up preserves the canopy better than building out. Dadus and townhomes and splitting a lot in two to build two townhomes hurts the canopy far more then building denser, taller, smaller footprint buildings to meet our housing demands

      • Rob February 4, 2025 (12:17 am)

        Smaller footprint buildings on smaller lots preserves less open space and less canopy, as the term “density” directly describes.  Tell us that Avalon Way SW has all this canopy and open space you promise.

    • Rob February 4, 2025 (12:10 am)

      Spot on

  • Scott Berkley February 3, 2025 (5:39 pm)

    Join us beforehand for a rally to support more housing options! https://futurewise.salsalabs.org/feb5-rally/index.html

  • K February 3, 2025 (6:30 pm)

    It means increased density is allowed.  It does not mean the density is required.  If you end up next door to a 5-story building, it is because your neighbor had a different vision of the neighborhood than you, and sold their property to someone who would build such a building.

    • WS Guy February 5, 2025 (2:51 am)

      That’s a load.  People don’t sell their homes in order to implement their vision for the neighborhood.  They cash out to the highest bidder.

  • Zoomy February 3, 2025 (6:55 pm)

    What’s the plan to improve infrastructure with all of this increased density?  

    • K February 3, 2025 (7:41 pm)

      It’s part of the comprehensive plan, if you care to read it.

      • Mike February 3, 2025 (8:36 pm)

        To keep up with proposed density increases, excessive runoff storm water due to loss of soil and roots (paved and roofed), electrical, sewage, water, etc., the costs to build up infrastructure for this is beyond what most people can fathom.  Our current infrastructure is outdated, falling apart and failing.  Additional living spaces only taxes that further and it’s imperative to build the appropriate new infrastructure to support the additional living spaces.  The city and county need to coordinate and build another treatment plant, add new substations, replace existing sewer and water pipes (many in West Seattle are over 70 years old).  Who’s going to pay for it?

        • K February 3, 2025 (10:13 pm)

          They already are and we already are (plus some grant money).

  • Darren February 3, 2025 (7:35 pm)

    Some areas of West Seattle have already been through this. Around 2007-2010, we jokingly referred to California Ave as DST- Death Star Trench. I was against it but I lived. I still don’t prefer living jowl to jowl as someone commented 15 years ago but it’s not the end of the world. This recent proposal will probably go forward but definitely make your opinion known.  SPS listened to public opinion and cancelled school closures/consolidation so maybe it will be successful with this rezone.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.