DEVELOPMENT: New plan, recurring concerns surface at online community meeting for 2345 Hobart SW

| Development | West Seattle news

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

The online public meeting for a development proposal at 2345 Hobart Avenue SW (backstory here) was meant for comments on the latest proposal for the site.

But the proposal was so new, city reps weren’t fully acquainted with it, admitted planner Joe Hurley, presiding over the meeting. A project manager for the proposal surfaced during the meeting, as a commenter, to talk about it. When the public meeting was scheduled, the plan had a duplex and a stand-alone house. Now the latter has been removed, and only the duplex remains.

All the same, neighbors are concerned that any development on the site, much of which is in an Environmentally Critical Area, will threaten the stability in the area. They requested a meeting to get their concerns more conspicuously onto the record as the Department of Construction and Inspections reviews the proposal to decide whether to allow part of the project to get an Environmentally Critical Area exemption.

Hurley said the public meeting was the result of nine comments calling for one, mainly concerns about slide risks and inadequate analysis of the site.

The project manager promised a “detailed stormwater analysis” was planned, and that the project would include repairs of the “Hobart washout.” She said the duplex that’s now the only building planned on the site is similar to what’s been approved for a neighboring site; both are owned by the same family, which she notes lives in the area. She suggested the site’s zoning meant they could build more than they’re seeking to. She also said the site holds some “unhealthy” trees but that rather than being removed, they’ll be “snagged” so their roots remain to aid with soil stability. Finally, she said the plan would have two offstreet-parking spaces for each unit (that too had been a concern, more cars than spaces could lead to onstreet parking in an area where the road is already narrow).

One commenter wanted clarity on the percentage of the site’s ECA that could potentially be built over; the meeting’s purpose was to record comments, not answer questions, so that went unanswered.

Others who spoke included a lawyer for some of the property owners, who said they understood that the city couldn’t place an “undue burden” on a property owner by ordering that an entire site be left undeveloped, but, they asked, would allowing one unit instead of two be enough to relieve that burden?

A nearby resident also cited a policy saying that granting an ECA exemption shouldn’t be “injurious” to those nearby, and she thinks this would be – putting her and neighbors at risk. That was echoed by another neighbor, who said the project could be at best an inconvenience but at worst do harm.

The concerned neighbors also got some support from regional tree advocate Sandi Shettler, who called out a deficiency in the site report, saying it didn’t list the existing trees’ species.

Though they didn’t all speak, the meeting drew more than 20 attendees, according to the counter on the video software.

Next step, the city will continue reviewing the project and will make a decision on the exemption request, with the decision open to appeal.

ECA October 19, 2025 (11:26 am)

This is very sad to see such NIMBYism leading to concessions.

The ignorance of the “concerns” is astounding.

Virtually all of the concerned live in homes built in the ECA Slide area before such a designation was created. These hypocrites reside in homes that were not designed for the hillside and could not meet current standards. Some are 100 year old beach shacks lacking foundations.

If anything the new homes will protect the hillside due to the rigorous permitting requirements (as noted the plan include and updates to the utility infrastructure).
I grew up in the 1950s in Fauntleroy in a home that is now defined as in an ECA, as do hundreds of other West Seattleites.

When DCI changed the ECA Code, we were told it was only a technical rule change that would not be of concern.
The biggest change is allowing ignorant parties to run up costs, deny property owners their rights, demand changes they have no right to, and delay homes being added.
As their attorney told them, tax paying property owners have the right to reasonable use of their land. And that is what this is.
Shame on them.
Even Sandi Shettler couldn’t find a tree to hug with her minor comment about the deficiency of tree species, (no mention of old growth cedars, firs and madrone because there are none).
The tree species as well as a restoration plan with designated idigenous species for all disturbed areas is a required part of the process.
Also part of the required permitting is that “detailed stormwater analysis” for both during construction and permanently.

New construction in ECAs requires technical reports from geotechnical, structural and civil engineers that were unheard of when most of Seattle’s hillsides were developed.
The developer is additionally required to sign and record an outrageously worded liability document!

For the citizen who was that had not read about ECA Steep Slope, basically the maximum coverage is 30% of the Steep Slope.
It gets quite complicated delineating the slope that exceeds 40% and the Steep Slope Buffers.

The project in question was already well below the maximum of 30% intrusion into ECA. Now due to these changes removing one house, even less development footprint, so the maximum becomes academic.