In a marathon day debating dozens of amendments to Seattle’s growth plan on Thursday, the Seattle City Council punted on adding or expanding neighborhood growth centers, citing worries over appeals and legal advice from the Seattle City Attorney that expansions may require additional environmental study. Proposals to end parking mandates citywide and allow businesses in Neighborhood Residential zones to operate past 10pm fell by the wayside, in the face of centrist opposition.
On the other hand, a handful of new tree preservation requirements that builders portrayed as onerous and impractical did earn the Council’s stamp of approval.
Mayor Bruce Harrell’s growth plan proposes adding 30 neighborhood centers, but an earlier draft from his planning department proposed nearly 50 before the mayor’s team intervened. Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck (Citywide Position 8) proposed restoring eight neighborhood growth centers the mayor’s office cut from the plan in Amendment 34. That would have created centers in Broadview, South Wedgwood, Loyal Heights, Gasworks, Nickerson, Roanoke, Dawson, and Alki. However, her colleagues rejected that approach, with none joining her to support the idea. Instead, the proposals will be studied, and could return next year.
Rinck's Amendment 34 went down in flames in a 1-7 vote. It would have restored eight neighborhood centers across the city. Worries over outreach process and appeal risk won the day. Background here: www.theurbanist.org/2025/08/01/r…
— The Urbanist (@theurbanist.org) September 18, 2025 at 12:21 PM
[image or embed]
Adding and expanding neighborhood centers had been a rallying cry for housing advocates and an advocacy priority for the Complete Communities Coalition. The Urbanist is a member of that coalition, along with broad swath of groups including the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Development Consortium, House Our Neighbors, the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, and several others.
Councilmember Dan Strauss (District 6) did push some neighborhood center border alterations that were largely neutral. He used a fairly esoteric docketing move to queue up the border expansions he pledged to fight for in future planning updates while reducing the risk of delaying the plan for now. Strauss succeeded in adding a new “East Ballard” neighborhood center, but the amendment dropped Phinney Ridge from the neighborhood center plan. He argued this trade was necessary to reduce the risk of delay from appeals, but some questioned this logic.
The northern part of Phinney Ridge’s main commercial strip was already in an “Urban Village” it shares with Greenwood. Hence, Council’s action will actually entail removing a growth center that already exists, albeit in a limited, skinny form.
The Urbanist reached out to the Seattle City Attorney’s Office to offer them an opportunity to shed some light on their legal interpretation, but citing attorney-client privilege, they declined to do so. Some housing advocates have pondered if legal risk is being used as a scapegoat for councilmembers more worried about political fallout.
Rinck’s proposed eight centers were studied in the City’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) since they were in the earlier draft of the plan, as was Strauss’s East Ballard addition. Opponents have raised concerns over the City expanding housing growth beyond what was studied in the EIS. It’s not clear the additions would have actually done that. But councilmembers citied the worries as sufficient to oppose the idea, for now.
A majority of Council saw no process or legal risk worries in shrinking several proposed neighborhood centers in size. Councilmembers shrank the center borders of Fauntleroy, Morgan Junction, Madrona, and Ravenna. However, a majority of councilmembers did balk at the most aggressive cuts proposed to the plan, which had been District 4 Councilmember Maritza Rivera’s amendment cutting centers in Bryant and Wedgwood roughly in half.
Some other key amendments so far: Shrinking Fauntleroy Neighorhood Center (Saka): passed Shrinking Morgan Junction NC (Saka): passed Shrinking Madrona NC (Hollingsworth): passed Shrinking Bryant NC (Rivera): failed Shrinking Ravenna NC (Rivera): passed Shrinking Wedgwood NC (Rivera): failed
— Ryan Packer (@typewriteralley.bsky.social) September 18, 2025 at 10:56 AM
[image or embed]
Council President Sara Nelson (Citywide Position 9) abstained from all votes changing growth center boundaries, saying she was not well informed on issues in those neighborhoods. Councilmembers Debora Juarez (District 5) and Bob Kettle (District 7) and voted with the pro-housing side on some amendments, but not consistently throughout, hence the variety of outcomes. On Rivera’s big housing cuts to Bryant and Wedgwood, District 3 Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, who chairs the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan, ended up swinging the outcome simply by abstaining, leading to a 3-3 deadlock.
The pro-housing coalition in these center boundaries votes has been Rinck, Strauss, and Debora Juarez, who represents D5 after Cathy Moore resigned earlier this year. A hugely consequential resignation since Moore was a huge critic of growth. www.theurbanist.org/2025/06/02/m…
— The Urbanist (@theurbanist.org) September 18, 2025 at 10:51 AM
[image or embed]
Nelson did feel informed enough to vote against adding new neighborhood centers, or even studying it to docket for a later year in the case of Alki. On Frday, District 1 Councilmember Rob Saka sought to block a study and docketing slot for the proposal, but failed in a 4-4 vote, with District 2 Councilmember Mark Solomon abstaining. Rinck, Strauss, Hollingsworth, and Juarez backed the idea.
Next year, with a different makeup of council, the result could be different if the Council does indeed bring back this topic. Solomon will be gone, with both District 2 contenders portraying themselves as pro-housing. Urbanist-endorsed Eddie Lin in particular has emphasized bumping up housing opportunities with zoning changes.
“Our plan should allow for much more growth!!!” Lin wrote in his Urbanist questionnaire. “The reason we are facing unprecedented housing costs and homelessness is because we majorly messed up the last Comprehensive Plan by underpredicting growth. And if we make the same mistake again, we will have 10 more years of increasing housing costs and homelessness.”
Lin led the August primary election by a wide 18-point margin over Harrell transportation adviser Adonis Duckworth. Urbanist-endorsed progressive nonprofit leader Dionne Foster had an even more commanding lead over Council President Sara Nelson, grabbing 58% of the vote for the citywide Position 9. Like Lin, Foster has pledged to more growth centers to the plan. Rinck is cruising to reelection with 78% of the primary vote.
Neighborhood bodegas and bars rejected
A different council may also be opened to allow late-night establishments like bodegas, bars, and all-night cafes outside of designated urban centers. Rinck proposed the idea, but the amendment was shot down with gusto, with Councilmember Robert Kettle dropping the “public safety chair” card.
After Alexis Mercedes Rinck offered an amendment expanding the types of allowed corner store uses to include eating and drinking establishments, Bob Kettle railed against the idea as a "recipe for a public safety disaster." "We cannot have our neighborhoods and our neighbors be impacted this way."
— Ryan Packer (@typewriteralley.bsky.social) September 18, 2025 at 2:15 PM
[image or embed]
“It’s a recipe for disaster on the public safety front, I just want to be clear,” Kettle said. “And I appreciate the some of the other intent, but eating and drinking establishments in Neighborhood Residential areas is a recipe like safety disaster, just to be blunt.”
When you want to be a Bodega Baddie but the Seattle City Council rejects your amendment to create more corner stores. ☹️
— AMR – Alexis Mercedes Rinck (@alexis4seattle.bsky.social) September 18, 2025 at 9:53 PM
A different council might give more consideration to the idea that a bodega could belong in any neighborhood. Today’s council chose to treat areas that are currently predominantly single family homes as completely incompatible with such uses. State-mandated zoning reform allows multiplexes to be added in these single family areas, with the final ordinance approve ultimately exceeding the state minimum in several key areas. Seattle had to use an interim ordinance to meet the state’s deadline for those middle housing reforms.
Rivera’s tree stand
A controversial last-minute tree protection overhaul earned the greenlight from a slim 4 to 3 majority. While four councilmembers put their stamp on the change, builders warned the reform would be hugely disruptive and add a burdensome new layer of red tape to housing starts.
Rivera’s latest version would give architects just 30 days to come up with new plans based on tree retention stipulations, which could be quite challenging, particularly for larger, complex projects. While intended to make it seem project delay would be minimal from this policy, it could end up being a poison pill due to the design costs and uncertainty added.
language added since Friday adds 30 day shot clock for design team to completely redo the project post building permit submittal What if their Master use permit is already approved? have design review approval? locked in contractors? Gotten fixed bid contract? have holding and financing costs?
— Matt Hutchins AIA CPHD (@matthutchins.bsky.social) September 17, 2025 at 9:08 PM
[image or embed]
Two members being absent turned out to be pivotal to passing Rivera’s reform. Council President Sara Nelson disappeared during the vote — she had been in Council Chambers earlier in the day. District 2 Councilmember Mark Solomon was absent for the entire day of votes Thursday.
A temporary appointee filling in following the resignation of Tammy Morales, Solomon cited “bringing the Comprehensive Plan over the finish line” as his first priority in his application for the position, and pitched himself as a seasoned caretaker who could focus on the job full-time, rather than need to campaign to keep the seat. Solomon’s Chief of Staff told Tom Fuculoro of the Seattle Bike Blog that he had been attending a conference in Vancouver, Washington Thursday, an event that had been scheduled long in advance.
Rivera authored Amendment 102, giving the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) Director new powers to require builders redesign projects to save trees, and expanding the City’s definition of a tree preservation area. Councilmembers Rob Saka (District 1), Debora Juarez (District 5), and Joy Hollingsworth (District 3) joined Rivera in backing the proposal.
“We’re just trying to ensure that the area tree needs to survive is adequately reflected,” Rivera said. “Hopefully, this incentivizes the preservation of the tier two trees that we’re losing across the city. Everyone, renters and homeowners alike, should be able to reap the environmental and public health benefits of a healthy and mature tree canopy, improved air quality, storm water filtration, shade that reduces the heat island effect, dampening the urban noise from traffic.”
Strauss warned that expanding tree protection area could end up with the unintended consequences of fewer trees preserved, since it makes it harder to design the building around the expanded protection area. Strauss also argued that the tree policy discussion was being rushed and that they should have broken it out from the Comprehensive Plan votes so they could have received a fuller hearing. He ended up voting against Rivera’s proposal.
“Do we leave the code as it is with a zone so large every tree species will be successful at the expense of trees that need less space? Or do we reduce the zone to an area where almost all trees will be successful and reduce the number of trees removed? There’s not a clear answer to this question,” Strauss said.
Addressing criticisms that tighter tree rules would block housing projects and limit housing density, Rivera repeatedly brought up her New York roots.
“We got to operate on facts here, not fear,” Rivera said. “And nobody’s trying to, least of all me, trying to prevent density when I grew up in New York. I’m proud to to have grown up in New York. I loved every minute of it, even though I grew up in a tight apartment. Doesn’t matter. You can be happy.”
Rivera rewrote her amendment this week, meaning councilmembers (and the public) only had a few hours to review the final version. She argued she got the compromise right and adequately addressed the housing delay concern, although many in the development industry did not appear convinced.
“I was listening to folks and I was trying to address this delay concern, which we are not to we’re not trying to cause delay,” Rivera said. “Everyone has to compromise. That’s what life is about. So we all need to give a little.”
While councilmembers dwelled on appeal risk from adding or expanding growth centers, their sweeping overhaul of tree policy could also end up in litigation.
Accessory dwelling unit incentives passed, then rescinded
On Thursday, Council passed three amendments (54, 56, and 58) from Rinck that added density incentives for accessory dwelling units (ADU). With nearly three hours of tree debate, Council failed to make through their entire slate of amendments, as had been their goal, and rather than continue as scheduled at 2pm Friday, Council spent several hours in executive session, presumably with City lawyers. Just before 4pm they went back into regular session and rescinded those amendments.
Rinck said she would docket those amendments, with the intent to pass them next year after the proposals could go through their own separate environmental review.
The City likely faces a legal challenge no matter what ends up in the final ordinance, likely to be approved before Thanksgiving. A cadre of neighborhood groups appealed the environmental review on the plan earlier this year, with those challenges quickly dismissed, in large part due to new state reforms intended to make it harder to challenge updates to housing regulations intended to spur development. Even though those dismissals were fairly straightforward, two of those appellants are still seeking to invalidate the review in the state court of appeals.
Council passes on broader parking reform
Another Rinck amendment that was roundly rejected was her proposal to end parking mandates citywide. Rinck couldn’t get another vote for Amendment 7. Strauss abstained. Reasons to resist the idea were all over the place. Rivera argued Seattle’s transit was insufficient to support ending parking mandates. Other cities in Washington state that have ending parking mandates include Port Townsend, Spokane, Bremerton, Bothell, and Shoreline. Seattle clearly has more expansive transit options than all of those cities.
Rinck pointed to recent news that Seattle leads the region in ditching cars and forming car-free households Seattle’s population grew by about 80,000 between 2017 and 2023, but added just 3,300 cars in that timeframe. “I represent 20% of Seattle households that now live car free,” said Rinck, noting she doesn’t own a car.
Rinck argued ensuring the supply of ample housing should be a higher priority than the supply of ample parking. She pointed to research showing the parking mandates were driving up the cost of housing.
“Parking mandates are just that: Mandates an arbitrary number with no scientific backing, that harms our ability to build housing that’s affordable,” Rinck said. “In an EcoNorthwest study we received in February, the findings concluded the addition of off street parking, on average, increases the median price of attached housing by $26,000 to $116,000 depending on if parking is a surface spot or a garage. And for rental properties, the cost of parking, construction and the maintenance are built into the rent, whether you’re parking there or not.”
On Friday, Rinck had better luck with a more modest parking reform brought forward as Amendment 85, which implemented new statewide parking reform standards ahead of the deadline in early 2027. While not a end to parking mandates altogether, the state standard will cap parking requirements to one parking stall per two housing units, also known as a parking ratio of 0.5. The state also requires that cities exempt affordable housing, senior housing, child care facilities, smaller apartment units (below 1,200 square feet), small commercial spaces (below 3,000 square feet), and commercial spaces in mixed-use buildings.
The parking reform vote was 5 to 2, with Strauss and Hollingsworth abstaining and Rivera and Nelson voting no.
Seattle was an early pioneer in ending parking mandates in designated urban centers with reforms in 2012 and 2018. However, getting over the hump to ditch mandates citywide has proven elusive, even as this has become more common among U.S. cities.
Doug Trumm is publisher of The Urbanist. An Urbanist writer since 2015, he dreams of pedestrian streets, bus lanes, and a mass-timber building spree to end our housing crisis. He graduated from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington in 2019. He lives in Seattle's Fremont neighborhood and loves to explore the city by foot and by bike.
