A Washington lawmaker is raising concerns about Seattle’s plan for housing at least 200,000 new residents over the next 20 years, suggesting it might not comply with a law passed by the Legislature last year.
In the 2023 legislative session, Rep. Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia, ushered through new rules (House Bill 1110) mandating more density in residential neighborhoods across the state. Larger cities like Seattle are now required to allow between four and six homes, depending on proximity to transit, on lots that had previously hosted mostly single-family residences.
Amid a statewide housing shortage, the law is an attempt to spur new development and increase supply.
Seattle released its plan for allowing more density Tuesday as part of a required update to its Comprehensive Plan. The plan follows the letter of the law by proposing an increase from the three homes currently allowed in residential neighborhoods to four homes on most lots and six on those near transit. Developers could build six homes anywhere if two of them are considered affordable.
However, those homes would be allotted the same total square footage — 4,500 square feet on most lots — as what’s currently allowed, meaning each individual home would need to be smaller. For Bateman, that could run afoul of language in state law barring burdensome language for smaller scale housing.
“I don’t think it goes far enough to enable the actual construction of housing,” Bateman said.
Bateman’s concerns are among the first in what’s likely to be a heated next 10 months as the Seattle City Council barrels toward a Dec. 31 deadline to pass the plan. Longtime residents of the city’s residential neighborhoods have in the past pushed back on added density, while proponents of more concentrated growth have already criticized the plan as coming up short.
Seattle’s proposed plan would represent the most significant update to the city’s land use code in the past 30 years, expanding the boundaries of the city’s main business centers, identifying new “neighborhood centers” for increased growth and opening up neighborhoods historically reserved for stand-alone homes.
The framework, however, retains the city’s strategy of concentrating growth in specific “urban villages” while restricting development in most residential areas. City officials estimate the plan will spur the construction of at least 100,000 new homes, and likely more, compared to 80,000 if they made no changes.
Housing per lot
When it comes to development, the details could matter as much as the top-line numbers. Volume of housing allowed per lot is one of those details.
If building four homes, Washington’s Department of Commerce said cities should ideally permit each to be up to 1,500 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot, accomplished by building up instead of just out.
Seattle’s plan, however, would limit homes to just over 1,100 square feet when there are four on a lot. Restricting the volume of housing per lot is a way to “regulate the scale of development,” the city said in its draft plan.
“Seattle’s proposal is very similar to the model ordinance,” said Seferiana Day, spokesperson for the Office of Planning and Community Development. “Both standards vary floor area based on the number of units on the lot. … We developed the standards for the new [neighborhood residential] zones in a thoughtful way to allow and encourage a range of housing outcomes to provide needs that are not well met currently in Seattle.”
Architect Matt Hutchins, a proponent of added density citywide, questioned whether the city’s proposed rules in residential areas would attract new growth in those places.
“I don’t think this changes the game at all,” he said. “We weren’t going to be able to build our way out of the crisis with townhouses, and we’re certainly not going to be able to do it with smaller townhouses.”
Seattle would join a number of other municipalities that have sought to increase development in primarily single family neighborhoods, including Minneapolis, Portland and Sacramento. The cities have seen mixed interest from developers for building triplexes or fourplexes. Some have blamed limits on square footage for slowing the addition of these kinds of “middle housing.”
There is a way developers in Seattle could increase the size of their housing: add affordable housing. Under Harrell’s proposed plan, reserving some homes for people earning less than the area median income would allow developers to double the size of their development.
Bateman introduced a bill this session that would have given the Department of Commerce more oversight over individual cities’ growth plans, but it died. She intends to reintroduce it next year.
Meantime, she said she intends to speak with Seattle officials and the Department of Commerce about the city’s plan.
“I think it’s important for the largest city in the state to accommodate its fair share of housing,” she said.
