Seattle City Council limits residents’ ability to challenge new zoning

Housing advocates declared victory at Seattle City Hall this week, saying a new law limiting challenges to the city’s plans guiding growth will lead to more residences in more places, following a close vote and heated public testimony Tuesday.

The 5-4 vote removed the easiest option for Seattle residents to contest changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which dictates where growth can and should go over the next two decades, and other land-use legislation. For years, residents have had a fairly easy route to delay zoning changes, putting the burden on the city to defend its plan, without requiring too much money or legal knowledge.

The vote to raise the bar for residents gave Councilmember Eddie Lin his first significant win on the council, but it came with attacks on his motive for the legislation, which deals with many of the same issues he faced as an attorney both in and out of government.

Supporters described his bill as a safeguard against people seeking to abuse the state’s environmental rules — and the levers of democracy itself — to stop density and guided growth, and accused detractors of not caring about the future of Seattle residents or the Earth’s climate.

Those opponents fired back, saying Lin’s bill was antidemocratic by blocking an avenue for residents to question the decisions of powerful policymakers and developers.

In the end, a simple majority won the day. Most council members called for more civility in policy discussions, and praised Lin for his calm and studious approach to the contentious bill.

Obstruction or accountability?

Lin, a land-use attorney who once worked with the city’s office of housing, grew support for his plan by shepherding it through the council’s land use committee that he leads, and in a public campaign to explain the bill, which he said would lead to housing being built more quickly in Seattle, one of the most expensive places to live in the U.S.

“I just want to make it clear: I respect all your voices,” he said. “We are all going to have to come together … to address things like housing affordability and the environment. We’re not going to get there just yelling at each other.”

Lin’s bill focused on what he considered unnecessary delays to the city’s Comprehensive Plan by raising the benchmark on challenges to the overall plan, limiting administrative appeals from citizens and businesses.

While Lin’s bill hampers the ability to challenge zoning changes and updates to the plan, individual projects allowed under the bill can still be contested.

Another big change is the venue for appeals. Once Lin’s bill becomes city law with Mayor Katie Wilson’s signature, anyone seeking to challenge zoning changes or updates to the plan can no longer appeal through the city’s hearing examiner for a $120 fee. Instead, they’ll need to contest the plan either at King County Superior Court or the state Growth Management Hearings Board, which both come with more stringent requirements, and higher costs.

The plan, required under the state Growth Management Act, is intended to guide growth and the day-to-day decisions of elected officials and city staff through a detailed series of goals, objectives, policies and actions. It’s rife with dense, bureaucratic language about the ins and outs of city-building that, over time, translate to real-world Seattle and its homes, roads and businesses.

A lot can happen over 20 years. Just look where Seattle was in 2006 — with no light rail, a very different South Lake Union and nearly 250,000 fewer residents.

The plan update is already years behind schedule. Its delayed introduction in 2024 by then-Mayor Bruce Harrell was followed by the council approving its first phase in 2025, which allows new density in residential neighborhoods and draws boundaries for greater development along transit corridors and in new neighborhood centers.

The second phase will enact the actual zoning rules to allow that new density, but that too has been put off as residents and organizations challenged the city’s analysis of the environmental impact of the proposal.

Under the new rules of Lin’s bill, those appeals would be curtailed. Yet the ones already in action — like the so-called “orca appeal” filed by environmental advocate Jennifer Godfrey — must be resolved before the council can take a final vote. That led Lin to delay even considering the plan’s second phase in his committee.

Now, Lin said, the process should be more swift, after his bill removed the ability for people to appeal changes to the plan, which is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act and thus requires the city to write reports outlining the environmental impacts of proposed changes.

With the bill’s passage, Seattle’s rules to appeal its Comprehensive Plan will be aligned with King County, Bellevue and Everett. Other places, like Spokane, still have an easier appeal process.

In a statement, Wilson said she looked forward to signing the bill, saying more housing “is essential to a future in Seattle where all of us can afford to live, work and raise a family in healthy, sustainable neighborhoods.” As she noted, Lin’s bill could help spur her “Taller, Denser, Faster” approach to growth.

Democracy, the military and Trump

Lin’s bill brought out stiff opposition and ardent support. More than two hours of public testimony saw a parade of speakers, both in person and virtually, limited to a minute each.

The testimony didn’t appear to change any council members’ positions, but many pointed to them to either support their view, or call for cooler rhetoric.

Council President Joy Hollingsworth successfully amended the bill to require shorter, accessible summaries of environmental review reports, which can stretch to hundreds of pages. Still, she ended up voting against the bill while asking her colleagues and the public to tone it down.

“Oftentimes we miss the policy discussions and we go straight to the character assassinations,” Hollingsworth said. “It’s just unfortunate.”

Councilmember Rob Saka, who introduced a last-minute amendment to declaw Lin’s bill, saw a number of public speakers support his amendment before it was roundly defeated by the council in a 8-1 vote.

“Seattle can build more housing without asking the public to surrender … an important measure of accountability,” he said.

Saka, along with Councilmember Bob Kettle, described their military service to help buttress their positions. Saka said he served in the U.S. Air Force to defend democracy, going so far as to quote the First Amendment and the right it gives citizens to “petition their government for a redress of grievances.”

Lin pointed out that neither the state or federal constitution, let alone a state rule, required the city to offer an appeals process to its planning processes, and that the state’s own lawmaking isn’t subject to environmental review.

“So the largest democratic body in our state doesn’t do any (environmental) review for any of their legislation,” he said.

Kettle voted for Lin’s bill after his amendment to standardize environmental reports passed 9-0. He said Lin’s bill was a “reflection of failure of a convoluted process that has reduced confidence in our system,” but dwelled on the tone and discourse around the bill.

Pointing to his service in the U.S. Navy during the Kosovo war — as well as the recent shooting at the Bite of Seattle and the Iran war — Kettle urged people to change the way they described their political opponents.

Lin, too, spoke about the current state of politics and the distortion of rhetoric, noting that it was the two elections of Donald Trump that first led him to join city government as a lawyer in 2017 and then to run for City Council in 2024.

“We’ve heard a lot about democracy,” he said. “We all believe in the importance of democracy. Our democracy is not perfect. I believe that is pretty evident by who is president today.”