Changes to comprehensive plan eliminate neighborhood approval with upzones.

by Susanna Lin
​
​There has been a lot of discussion about HALA, but a far broader change to Seattle land use policy is coming up in the form of a new version of the Comprehensive Plan.  The City is required to draft a Comprehensive Plan which acts as a roadmap for urban planning over a 20 year period.  We have reached the end of that 20 year period for our first Comprehensive Plan, so Mayor Ed Murray has undertaken to write another one, which will be the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan.  The Mayor’s office has released the final draft, and a public hearing was held on the Comprehensive Plan on June 27th at 6:00 PM at City Hall.
Which tree is better for the environment?
 
The Comprehensive Plan is a massive document.  It is 575 pages and its details could never be covered in one blog post.  You may read through it here, or if you prefer there is a hard copy at the Wallingford Public Library.
 
The Comprehensive Plan includes a set of Neighborhood Plans.  According to people involved in the initial drafting 20 years ago, it was a four year operation in which residents were really given a chance to shape the policy and it included an extensive vetting process with neighborhoods. It served as a lovely example of true neighborhood engagement.
​
The Neighborhood Plan lays out a fairly specific vision of how and where development should occur within the neighborhood, and the Comprehensive Plan made a binding commitment to that vision.  In particular, areas zoned Single Family Residential could be upzoned (for example to Multifamily Residential) only where the Neighborhood Plan provides for it.

---

​If you have been following these housing discussions, you may have heard that Neighborhood Plans are still in the new draft of the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and remain unchanged.  Well, technically yes.  But the problem is, the requirement that upzones must be approved in the Neighborhood Plan has been removed from the Mayor’s proposal (specific land use elements included at the end of this article).  The “bridge” between the Neighborhood Plans and the procedures for upzoning is gone.   An important implication is that for the next twenty years that this plan is in place it would legally be much easier to upzone Single Family zones, even outside of the urban villages.  Perhaps City Hall will start with upzoning inside the urban villages, but will it stop there?
 
Another element in the Comprehensive Plan may be used to justify upzones of Single Family zones by bringing them within urban village boundaries if they are near good transit.  GS 2.12 reads: “Include the area that is generally within a ten-minute walk of light rail stations or very good bus service in urban village boundaries.”  This would allow any area within a ½ mile of “very good bus service” to be considered part of an urban village. Improved transit and bike lanes to decrease our dependence on cars would reduce our carbon footprint and is a positive change.  However, we must also address reality when speaking about cars.  The Mayor’s plan continues to aggressively limit parking in an effort to force us out of our cars.  His plan includes regulations on parking to “lower construction costs,” they consider imposing parking maximums in urban villages and centers, allowing fewer parking spaces for businesses and allowing “market forces” (i.e. at the developer’s discretion) to decide on how much parking to provide in buildings inside urban villages and centers.
 
Decreased reliance on cars is a good thing.  But a car-free Seattle is not realistic for all situations or for all people.  It is the working poor and the elderly and the handicapped that will be most hurt by vanishing street parking.  The decrease in available street parking that we are already seeing in Seattle is due to policy decisions by the City that allow developers to build buildings with little or no on-site parking.  If compounded with upzones, it would only get worse.  The “green” policy that this administration is pushing the hardest is no cars, but this happens to be the only “green” policy that increases the developer’s profits.  If developers do not have to include parking on site, they increase their profit margins by having more square footage to sell.  Improvements in transit and safe bike lanes should be encouraged.  But reasonable on-site parking requirements for new developments should also be mandatory.  It is the balance of the two that makes our City more livable.
 
The expiring Comprehensive Plan included environmental protections without references to “lower construction costs” that are absent in the Mayor’s version.  Noticeably missing is the “no net loss of tree canopy” goal of the previous version (E23).  LU39, LU40 and LU41 regarding tree retention, and protection of significant trees, and the indiscriminate removal of trees are all discarded in the Mayor’s plan. Instead of actual protections to maintain our tree canopy, the Mayor uses vague, general language such as “foster healthy trees, vegetation and soils,” and “promote care and retention.”  There are many beautiful, old trees that would likely be cut down and replaced with saplings if the upzones are passed.  Which tree do you think is better for the environment?  What kind of neighborhood do you want to live in?
 
When the neighborhoods, who are intimately aware of their own special strengths and needs, share in the decision making process, they can help preserve Seattle’s unique quality of life.  This Mayor’s desire to make all the decisions downtown can only lead to erosion of the neighborhood character and a city that is a less desirable place to live.