A Seattle City Council committee voted unanimously Wednesday to advance a stopgap housing plan that will allow up to six units per property across the city.
The bill now goes to the full council for approval where, if approved, it would represent one of the most significant changes to housing density in Seattle in at least the last decade.
The vote was not entirely the council’s choice: State lawmakers mandated the policy for most local jurisdictions during the 2023 legislative session as an effort to increase the state’s housing supply and slow the ever-climbing cost of living. Local officials are required to approve a compliant policy by the end of June.
The entire legislative process has highlighted both the broad agreement around the need to add new housing, as well as the tensions between city politicians who are more likely to be confronted by vocal constituents and state elected officials impatient at the lack of progress to build more housing by local governments.
The bulk of the policy is predetermined by the state, a new reality for cities like Seattle. The narrow lanes that have been left to the city have become friction points among various advocacy groups and the general public.
Wednesday’s bill is temporary. In the coming months, members will consider Mayor Bruce Harrell’s permanent changes, for likely approval in October. In addition to added density in residential neighborhoods, Harrell has proposed the creation of 30 “neighborhood centers” — allowing small apartment buildings near the city’s commerce hubs, such as Maple Leaf and Madison Park.
Delays in the city’s legislative process — due to hearing examiner appeals and a late proposal from the mayor’s office — put the city’s back up against the June 30 deadline for complying with state rules. In turn, the council opted for a short-term measure before it doubles back to finish its final policy later this year.
The bill green-lights development of at least four units on every lot in the city. That can go up to six if two of the homes are affordable or when a property is close to a major transit stop.
The law further regulates the total square footage allowed on each lot, how far back from the road the homes should be and how much of the total lot can be considered developable.
Although the bill is temporary, it nevertheless attracted hours of public comment in several public hearings earlier in the week, split between those pushing for the council to do everything it can to encourage new town homes, dwelling units and stacked flats, and those concerned about the impacts of more densely developed lots.
Much of the final plan deliberations later this year will be repetitive of what the council just did with its temporary legislation. For that reason, the usually verbose council largely held its tongue Wednesday, apparently saving its speechifying for a later date.
“We still have a great deal of work ahead,” Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth said.
Seattle already allows at least three units on most properties, in the form of accessory dwelling units. How much additional development the city might see with the increased density depends on a host of factors, including the state of the broader economy as well as more technical details regulating the types of buildings each lot can host.
The main tension point within Wednesday’s legislation surrounded setbacks — how much yard each new development should contain.
Several council members, particularly Cathy Moore, have said added density could hurt the city’s tree canopy. Many private properties are home to large cedars or sequoias that advocates like Tree Action Seattle say voluminous development could displace.
For that reason, Moore initially pushed for maintaining 20-foot front yards — the city’s current standard — rather than the 10 feet proposed in the temporary legislation. She revised that to 15 feet for any development under three units on advice of the city’s lawyers, adopting the state’s “model” code for setbacks.
“We need to build more housing and we need to preserve and maintain Seattle’s urban tree canopy,” she said. “I think we’re all looking for a way to be able to do both.”
Although technical sounding, the question of how far back a home should be from the street has become a microcosm of larger debates over priorities for new development.
Sen. Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia, the architect of the state’s housing policy, said larger setbacks would not protect trees, and would instead simply hurt the viability of new housing.
“I think that this just shows us that we’re going to have to keep going back every year and making adjustments to make sure cities are doing what we asked them to,” she said.
Moore’s setback proposal passed 8-0, with Councilmember Dan Strauss abstaining.
Compliance with state housing regulation is just one piece of the city’s larger plan for accommodating 120,000 new residents over the next 20 years.
