×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

One Seattle Plan--Draft for Public Review

Share Your Feedback!
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-

Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click in the margins of the page to add a comment. Select a comment bubble to view comments.

Document is loading Loading Glossary…

Summary

All Hide

One Seattle Plan—Draft for Public Review

Expand

Introduction

The Introduction to the Draft One Seattle Plan provides an overview of the four “key moves” that describe the priorities and policy changes at the center of this Comprehensive Plan update: 

  • Housing and Affordability: Expand housing opportunities across the city. 

  • Equity and Opportunity: Promote a more equitable Seattle as we grow. 

  • Community and Neighborhoods: Focus growth and investment in complete, walkable communities. 

  • Climate and Sustainability: Meet the challenges of climate change for a resilient future. 

The Introduction also includes background information on state and regional policy frameworks, major challenges facing Seattle, and how the Plan was developed and will be implemented. 

something

Growth Strategy

The Growth Strategy element is foundational to the Draft One Seattle Plan our strategy for accommodating new housing and employment growth over the next 20 years. It describes place types that comprise the strategy and a future land use map that shows the locations of future potential residential, commercial, and industrial development. This element also includes goals and policies that guide planning for smaller areas within the city and potential future annexation of land into Seattle 

something

Land Use

The Land Use element provides policy guidance for how the City regulates land use and development consistent with the growth strategy, including sections on each of several types of residential, commercial, and industrial zoning. The element also includes policies that address urban design, historic and cultural preservation, and environmentally critical areas. 

something

Transportation

The Transportation element guides the investments and other actions that shape how residents and goods and services are able to move about the city as we grow. Policy sections address alignment of our transportation system with the growth strategy, expansion of transportation options to meet future needs, multi-purpose use of the right-of-way, and support for the economy and freight mobility. The element also supports the City’s goals for climate change and safety. Finally, the element provides a policy framework for realizing the investments needed as we grow over the next 20 years. 

something

Housing

This newly expanded Housing element articulates the context and vision for future housing abundance and affordability that meets the needs of current and future residents of Seattle. Goals and policies address housing supply and diversity, fair housing access, housing quality and design, residential displacement, resources to increase the supply of income-restricted affordable housing, and responses to homelessness. 

something

Capital Facilities

The Capital Facilities element guides how we plan for, build, operate, and maintain City-owned land and buildings or coordinate with other public entities with facilities that serve Seattle in a way that meets our growth needs and is sustainable, resilient, and equitable. The goals and policies in this element guide the strategic planning and investment, sustainable design and construction, equitable capital facilities, operations and maintenance, and policies for coordinating with other public agencies that provide schools and other buildings and infrastructure that serve Seattle’s communities. 

something

Utilities

The Utilities element guides City decisions about utility services and addresses emerging issues. It includes City-owned utilities for drinking water, wastewater, drainage, solid waste, and electricity, as well as access to internet services. Other policies address the essential coordination with private utilities such as district energy, natural gas, and communications. 

something

Economic Development

The Economic Development element provides policy direction for various ways that the City works to sustain and grow the local economy with an emphasis on promoting equitable access to opportunity. The element includes goals and policies that address support for neighborhood business districts, growth in key industries at the heart of the regional economy, business retention and growth, workforce development, equitable support for small businesses, and growth of our “green” economic sectors.  

something

Climate and Environment

This newly expanded Climate and Environment element includes policies for how the City will address climate change and support a healthy, resilient community. The goals and policies guide strategies to reduce carbon pollution emitted via our transportation system, buildings and development patterns, energy consumption, and solid waste production. 

The element charts a course for advancing healthy, resilient communities in the face of rapid climate change impacts. It aims to: 

  • Expand the role of community-based climate change strategies 

  • Plan for and respond to localized climate impacts such as extreme heat and wildfire smoke, sea-level rise and flooding, more intense storms, and longer dry periods 

  • Protect and restore natural resources like our tree canopy and water systems 

  • Create an accessible and zero-waste food system 

something

Parks and Open Space

The Parks and Open Space element guides how we plan for, build, operate, and maintain City-owned parks and recreation facilities. It includes policies that guide an equitable provision of public space; a variety of culturally relevant and affordable recreation activities and events; and accessible, safe, and inclusive public space. Other policies address partnerships in design, activation and stewardship, and making climate-resilient public space.

something

Arts and Culture

Arts and culture play a vital role in community wellbeing, especially when artists are integrated into community engagement efforts that shape change in our neighborhoods. This element focuses on how we can create culturally relevant spaces throughout Seattle’s neighborhoods; invest in public art that reflects our communities; strengthen our creative economy and mitigate displacement; and provide more opportunities for youth development through arts education. The goals and policies of this element aim to guide growth so that Indigenous and all cultural communities feel a sense of belonging and interconnectedness.

something

Container Port

No changes are proposed for this element. This section provides a link to the currently adopted element and provides space for you to share your comments.

something

Shoreline Areas

The Shorelines Areas element will be updated as part of the Shoreline Master Program update process in 2024-2026. This section provides a link to the currently adopted element and provides space for you to share your comments both on the current element and about the 2024-2026 update process.

something

Community Involvement

The Community Involvement element includes goals and policies that guide how the City involves community members and stakeholders in developing and implementing policies and programs. The policies collectively work to strengthen the City’s goal to conduct equitable engagement, which means prioritizing resources that ensure that communities most vulnerable to the impacts of City decisions understand and are meaningfully involved in the decision-making processes that impact their communities. The element includes a new section highlighting approaches to engagement with the Indigenous community in Seattle and Tribes in the region. 

Glossary

Defines terms used in the draft Plan. Definitions are also available by hovering over glossary terms in this document.

Appendices

The final Plan will include technical appendices that will be completed later in 2024. This section outlines each of the technical appendices and provides space for you to share your comments.

Regional Center Subarea Plans

Subarea Plans for Regional Centers are currently being developed and will be adopted in coming years as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Subarea Plans are intended to meet the planning requirements for regional designation by the Puget Sound Regional Council. This section provides space for you to share your comments about the Subarea Planning processes.

Manufacturing & Industrial Center Subarea Plans

Subarea Plans for regional Manufacturing and Industrial Centers are currently being developed. Completed plans will be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Subarea Plans are intended to meet the planning requirements for regional designation by the Puget Sound Regional Council. This section provides space for you to share your comments about the Subarea Planning processes.

Urban Center Profiles

Profiles of Urban Centers will be included as an appendix to the final One Seattle Plan. The profiles will include data on existing conditions, planned growth, and recent and ongoing area planning. The profiles will support requirements for designation as Countywide Centers by the King County Growth Management Planning Council. This section lists the 23 Urban Centers and provides space for you to share your comments.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the people and organizations that helped shape the draft One Seattle Plan.

Demographic Questions (Optional)

Hide

Please help us understand who's participating by providing some information about yourself before getting started:

Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment


If buildings (condos) are allowed to be four-story blocks in Urban Residential zones, doesn't that block the sun from 2-story (including craftsman) homes that are or are likely to have solar panels? Is this economic loss being evaluated? Shouldn't four-story buildings be grouped with taller, not shorter buildings? This policy privaleges townhouses to the detriment of all other Middle Housing forms. Urn.ban Neighborhood Residential should be limited to 35 feet. Townhouses are not friendly to seniors, people with mobility disabilities and families with toddlers. Because they are 20$ stairs, they are inefficient. They should be limited to Neighborhood Centers and Urban Centers where their height is not an issue.
0 replies
The last CompPlan resulted in a loss of workforce or middle-income housing, since almost all market-rate rental apartments were built for high-income workers and older housing lost to demolition? Continuing on the present course, as this plan does, will exacerbate the hollowing out of our middle class because of the loss of low-income housing and family-size housing affordable to them. Since infill builders will never build rentals (not their business model) and no nonprofits can build at the scale of six units or less, that no affordable rental units are likely to be built in Urban Neighborhoods? And that seniors who live there now, being priced out by rising property taxes, will have no place in their own neighborhoods to downsize, unless stacked flats and courtyard buildings are incentivized or zoned for? What are the recommendations to allow seniors (of all races) to remain in their communities of support? The fingerprints of the Master Builders are all over this plan.
0 replies
This plan is suffused with the supply-side myth, such as in Land Use "All alternatives increase the overall number of units and improve housing affordability." Since no evidence is offered, and no evidence exists, are you willing to remove this false supply-side statement? Are you willing to scrub the Plan of this delusion that simply building more housing creates affordability defined in HB 1110 as less than 60% of AMI for renter households and less than 80% of AMI for owner-occupied units.? Otherwise, won't that prevent us from ever achieving housing equity? (Note: affordable doesn't mean less expensive!) You can't claim to comply with HB 1110 without including its definition of affordability.
0 replies
1) How can the plan recommend paying someone to move under the Tenant Relocation Assistance program as a mitigation, when it actually facilitates displacing someone? Someone who will certainly find no comparable rental housing within their community of support? 2) The plan says: "Overall the action alternative would tend to reduce displacement as the benefit in terms of reduced economic displacement pressure increases production of affordable units offered by the action alternatives outweigh any increased risk of physical displacement." Where is the evidence of this??? Rather, it depends on the tired and disproven theory of trickle-down housing. This, despite the chart that shows 1324 to 1416 units at 50% to 80% of AMI were lost to demolition. 3) New MHA units under Alternative 5 are 17,293, and 2788 renter households were physically displaced. How does this compare with the statement in 2)?
0 replies
I am a renter in Capitol Hill, and I believe that the City of Seattle did not listen to the overwhelming majority’s call for an Alternative 6 vision, which would welcome more neighbors in areas with low displacement risk and high opportunity. Instead the current draft plan will perpetuate a racist history of exclusionary land use. To create a more sustainable, affordable, vibrant city, the plan should allow apartments in Urban Neighborhoods. In My neighborhood, Capitol Hill, in particular, I think that the plan should allow high rises in the central part of Capitol Hill and extend the midrise apartments to the entire neighborhood, including the northern part. If the City of Seattle adopted my above proposed changes, then we would be able to create a more affordable city for everyone.
0 replies
Look at the original Olmsted plan
0 replies
How about require versus encourage and penalize if not provided.
0 replies
Look at the original Olmsted Plan.
0 replies
If park or recreation space were to accommodate housing, commercial or institutional uses as considered by this plan, how is this lost land in a densely populated area replaced. These are the areas that this open space is needed the most.
0 replies
Preserves such as Schmitz, Seward and Discovery Park
0 replies
I support the policy priorities in the Complete Communities Coalition proposal (link). The housing policies in the draft comprehensive plan are not adequate to meet the growing challenge of the housing deficit facing Seattle. We need to cultivate density and expand the housing supply in order to get regional housing costs under control. The Complete Communities Coalition proposal addresses many of the weaknesses of the draft plan.
0 replies
give a bailout to seattle public schools
0 replies
theres a reason it increased - upzone the city
0 replies
upzone the whole dang city
0 replies
more density
0 replies
more housing?
0 replies
we want more housing to reduce rents
0 replies
not enough housing kthxbye
0 replies
Corner stores should not only be on corners. Allow small stores in all parts of the block so more neighborhoods can enjoy a neighborhood cafe or small store.
0 replies
Eliminate parking mandates citywide.
0 replies
Discontinue Mandatory Housing Affordability, which has been shown to decrease the amount housing built.
0 replies
The Seattle Times just reported that the number of homeless is increasing. This completely inadequate Comp Plan will increase homelessness even more. Allow more homes everywhere: taller buildings in Regional Centers, Urban Centers, Neighborhood Centers, and transit corridors. Double the number of Neighborhood Centers. Neighborhood Centers should be larger; increase the boundry to a 1/4 mile. More and higher homes near transit. Allow 2-3 bedroom units in everywhere.
0 replies
The "open space" preserves such as Schmitz, Seward and Discovery Park has to be hands off regarding any type of development. These spaces are sacred and we are so fortunate that they are still with us.
0 replies
Add language that other uses might be considered but not at the loss of greenspace, trees, playfields and playgrounds. We need to keep to the design principles that were set forth in the Olmsted plan over 100 years ago. This is as relevant today if not more so.
0 replies
While I'm stoked to see the city is trying to rezone areas of the city and create actual community centers that the people of Seattle can enjoy, the simple fact is that it needs to be expanded to the original plan for all people living within Seattle to enjoy. Specifically looking at where the community centers are located, there could be way more within South Seattle.
0 replies
Add another policy to protect the continuing loss of the bird population due to window collisions. This should read " Support the City of Seattle biodiversity environmental stewardship goals by codifying design strategies that will mitigate the risk of bird - window collisions". Many other municipalities sin the US has stringent legislation supporting this requirement. Seattle is on a major flyway as well as supporting a year round bird population. So why not Seattle?
0 replies
The protection of the tree canopy needs to take precedence not only in public spaces but on private lands as well.
0 replies
The term flexibility is much to ambiguous. A process should be defined to provide checks and balances to these standards if they are to have any meaning at all.
0 replies
Yes, to all of these statements but these are broad statements. How do we insure that the the preserving the natural environment the highest priority?
0 replies
Allowing housing and limited commercial and institutional use is too open ended of a statement. The City has been pretty good about protecting the parks as designed by the Olmsted brothers over 100 years ago. The needs of the city have changed but that has only increased the need for parks and playfields. Initiative 42 seems to provide such protection but this does not seem to guarantee that these properties can not be developed in other ways
0 replies
The City of Seattle should have a goal of using existing city-owned fiber infrastructure as well as its customer support and billing systems for SCL and SPU to offer a municipal broadband option for customers. Municipal broadband helps drive competition and lower prices and can help drive guarantees for affordability and reliability, particularly for those who have the most challenges getting access.
0 replies
We need more accessible and affordable public transit!
0 replies
Stop building HUGE /UGLY AF apartment buildings. Affordable housing has too many income requirements that only serve higher incomes- they still remain unaffordable. Additionally, they only serve a segment of our population (singles/couples) and do nothing for community building- people do not see their neighbors. If we want more families to remain in the city we need middle housing, If we want to stop displacement- many BIPOC families live cross-generationally- we need to start build housing that allows for families to grow and stay. Also work to build funds towards helping low income people attain home ownership and help them maintain their homes. Apartments do nothing for displacement and community building. This city still remains car-dependent as climate forward as we wish to be. Climate forward thinking is super elitist, account for low/ working class families that need to move in multiple modalities.
0 replies
The plan is to build insufficient housing for the growth that is anticipated. Seattle voted on a billion dollars for a housing levy, and this plan aims far below the scope of change that voters have asked our leaders to imagine and enact. HB1110 needs to be fully implemented in all neighborhoods throughout the city, not just in the urban villages. There is a ring of rich, single family zones that must cede to the needs of the city it surrounds. We need more housing than the plan calls for, period: more affordable family housing, more duplexes, more townhomes, more senior housing, more veteran housing, and more supportive housing. Yes, prior generations and leaders made the decisions that got us into this situation, which is why we have elected strong, competent leaders now who can help Seattle emerge from the current challenges in stronger form. Do the right thing and add more housing.
0 replies
SPS (wrongly) proposes closing 20 of the 70 elementary schools because of dropping enrollment, which is primarily driven by Seattle's housing becoming so expensive that most young families can't afford to live here (see link). You need options for families that aren't just SFHs costing millions and for that to be true we need ABUNDANT HOUSING SUPPLY. You need to partner with SPS on how this city can be a place where people can have and educate their kids without being ultra wealthy. The status quo is dystopic.
0 replies
SPS (wrongly) proposes closing 20 of the 70 elementary schools because of dropping enrollment, which is primarily driven by Seattle's housing becoming so expensive that most young families can't afford to live here (see link). You need options for families that aren't just SFHs costing millions. You need to partner with SPS on how this city can be a place where people can have and educate their kids without being ultra wealthy. The status quo is dystopic.
0 replies
Hi - many people don't or can't rely on a personal car as their primary means to travel - something like 20% of Seattleites don't have a car, myself included. Plan for us, first, for the love of god. How many of you doing this planning have lived in Seattle without a car for over a decade? Have you personally tried to navigate this city relying only on transit and your own body? It is VERY difficult and could be a lot better. STOP PRIORITIZING CARS. We have environmental, health, and social imperatives to make people first environments.
0 replies
THE TOOL FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK IS TERRIBLE! This Konveio tool is very difficult to use. It is sooooo slow to load. The webpage stalled out or completely crashed multiple times on multiple days while I was trying to leave comments. It is difficult to navigate between the pages. It is not mobile friendly, which is hampering folks ability to use it if they don't have access to a computer. Like, how is an unhoused person supposed to be able to participate with this tool? Or someone with accessibility needs? Please do NOT use this platform for engagement again. I am also unimpressed with the marketing and communications to solicit feedback about this proposal. You need to communicate this process in non-jargon terms, more broadly, like on social media to really solicit robust feedback. It feels like you need to be an urban planning expert to follow and engage with this process, and it is very confusing to the average person unfamiliar with the Comp Plan and public engagement processes.
0 replies
How does this plan call out things like "we planned for minimal growth and now it's expensive yadda yadda" and then turn around and plan for even less growth? What are ya'all doing?
0 replies
This role is only continued because policies like this one are proposing to continue it. Don't talk to us about plastic straws and gas stoves until you get this environmental hazard under control.
0 replies
People with large families are an edge case, especially with the extremely high cost of living. Do not plan on everyone using a mode just because someone didn't use birth control. Utilize our limited road infrastructure to move the highest volume people withe the lowest stress possible. Maybe that's a real metro system or maybe it's priority bike routes - but assuming everyone totes 6 kids and a dog to the mountains every day is absurd.
0 replies
What's the equity argument for investing in parking when the average car costs more than a minimum wage salary? Stop this nonsense and focus on walking, biking, and transit.
0 replies
If parking minimums are eliminated we won't have as many people rolling around in cars. Consider the connection between transportation and land use - build the city we want and not the city we have.
0 replies
Aim to reduce reliance on car use in the City. Speed up transit, make biking viable by eliminating gaps and circuitous routes, and stop focusing on maintaining car speeds/wayfinding. Just once in a while - detour cars to prioritize everyone else.
0 replies
The line here lies - it claims to accommodate more housing in all corners of the city but I'm just not seeing that in the maps. Upzone the city to allow enough housing that the price stabilizes.
0 replies
I support the Complete Communities Coalition's revisions and the original housing abundance. This plan does not have enough density, or connection to transit and between neighborhoods. Please plan for our future residents and future city, we want walkable and livable neighborhoods and transit that supports that vision for everyone.
0 replies
What does this mean? This is vague. What constitutes visual clutter? Protecting the public interest?
0 replies
Change this to explicitly support creating car free zones and streets. Cars make public spaces unsafe.
0 replies
STOP CONSIDERING AND JUST DO THINGS
0 replies
This is vague. I like and support this idea in concept but what does "encourage" mean? How? I think it is good to incentivize garden plots, rooftop gardens, green roofs, container gardens, edible landscaping, etc as a part of health, climate resiliency, etc, but I think this could be clearer. Are we trying to go commercial urban food production? Again, what does this actually mean?
0 replies