General - June 12, 2024

This **critical** Seattle City Council Select Committee meeting on the Comprehensive Plan addressed two major pieces of legislation that will fundamentally reshape Seattle's housing landscape. **Chair Joy Hollingsworth** led the session with seven councilmembers present, focusing on: - **Council Bill 120985**: Complete overhaul of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan with new growth strategy and future land use map - **Council Bill 120993**: Permanent implementation of Washington State House Bill 1110 middle housing requirements **Key participants** included Central Staff analysts Lish Whitson, H.B. Harper, and Ketil Freeman presenting detailed policy analysis. The meeting established **critical timelines**: - **June 23rd public hearing** (two sessions: 9:30 AM remote, 3:00 PM in-person) - **30-day amendment posting requirement** for public review - **Second public hearing** after amendments are posted **Major policy outcomes** discussed: - Seattle's capacity for **300,000 new housing units** (far exceeding 80,000 target) - **62 total centers** proposed (7 regional, 25 urban, 30 neighborhood) - **Significant parking requirement reductions** and new middle housing types - **Environmental Impact Statement constraints** on council modifications

### Comprehensive Plan Growth Strategy **Background Context**: Seattle must accommodate **80,000 new housing units** and **159,000 new jobs** by 2044 under county-wide planning policies. The city currently has zoned capacity for 172,000 units but the new plan contemplates **300,000 unit capacity**. **Current Status**: The growth strategy creates a **four-tier hierarchy**: - **Regional Centers (7)**: Highest density, tower development - **Urban Centers (25)**: 3-8 story development - **Neighborhood Centers (30)**: 3-6 story development - **Urban Neighborhoods**: Primarily 3-story with transit corridor exceptions **Technical Details**: - **Transit-oriented development** drives center placement using two definitions: - High-capacity transit (light rail, BRT with permanent infrastructure) - Frequent transit (15-minute headways, funded through city's Transportation Benefit District) - **Market factor approach**: Excess capacity prevents land cost spikes and maintains affordability - **Critical area considerations**: Some proposed centers overlap with noise zones, steep slopes, or industrial areas ### House Bill 1110 Implementation **Background Context**: State law requires cities to permit at least six of nine middle housing types in single-family zones. Seattle's approach uses **three flexible categories** rather than prescriptive types. **Current Status**: The legislation creates: - **Detached Dwelling Units**: Single-family homes, cottages - **Stacked Dwelling Units**: Apartments, condos (limited to lots 6,000+ sq ft or frequent transit areas) - **Attached Dwelling Units**: Townhouses, row houses **Technical Details**: - **Density measurement shift**: From unit caps to units per square foot plus floor area ratio - **ADU integration**: Accessory units count toward density and floor area calculations - **Lot splitting provision**: Administrative process for two-lot splits (state requirement by July 2027) - **Design standards**: Pedestrian access, weather protection, street-facing transparency required

### Coalition Patterns **Chair Hollingsworth's positioning** reveals a **pro-growth, equity-focused coalition** emphasizing: - Anti-displacement measures with concrete implementation plans - Family-friendly housing near schools (noting Seattle has more dogs than children) - Transit accessibility for non-car owners - Small business district support beyond downtown **Technical expertise alliance**: Central Staff's detailed presentation suggests **strong executive-legislative coordination** on implementation, with staff providing extensive policy options rather than rigid recommendations. **Regional compliance pressure**: Multiple references to county-wide planning policies and state requirements indicate **limited local discretion** on core growth targets, pushing debate toward **where and how** rather than **whether** to grow. ### Strategic Motivations **Environmental review constraints** create a **strategic bottleneck** - councilmembers can modify proposals but only within studied parameters. This **limits amendment scope** while providing political cover for difficult decisions. **Phased implementation approach** allows the council to **separate politically sensitive decisions**: - Phase 1: Center boundaries and middle housing rules (this summer) - Phase 2: Specific zoning within centers (early 2025) - Future: Regional center detailed planning (supplemental EIS approved) **Amendment timeline pressure** (30-day posting requirement) will **force early coalition building** and limit last-minute changes, advantaging prepared stakeholders.

### Immediate Opportunities **Public Hearing Registration** (June 23rd): - **Morning session (9:30 AM)**: Remote participation, register 8:30-10:00 AM - **Afternoon session (3:00 PM)**: In-person testimony, register 2:30-6:30 PM - **Strategic note**: Can only register for one session - choose based on your message and audience **Written comment submission**: - Drop off in council chambers or email council@seattle.gov - **Current window**: Only written comments accepted until after June 23rd hearing ### Key Decision Points **Amendment deadline**: Councilmembers must submit amendments **well before** the second public hearing to meet 30-day posting requirements. **Target early July** for maximum influence. **Center boundary modifications**: This is the **primary opportunity** for neighborhood-level changes. Zoning details come later in Phase 2. **Middle housing standards**: Setbacks, design requirements, and parking rules are **actively under consideration** - technical comments welcomed. ### Contact Strategies **District-specific engagement**: Councilmember Strauss's walking tours model suggests **neighborhood-level organizing** around specific center boundaries will be most effective. **Technical expertise valued**: Central Staff's detailed presentation indicates **data-driven arguments** with specific policy alternatives will carry more weight than general opposition. **Coalition building essential**: Chair's emphasis on "unity" and avoiding "pitting people against each other" suggests **multi-issue coalitions** (housing + trees + transit) will be more successful than single-issue advocacy.

### Related Policies **Transportation Benefit District renewal (2027)**: The 0.15% sales tax funding frequent transit expires in 2027, creating **critical dependency** between housing policy and transit funding. Growth strategy success requires transit investment continuation. **Family Education Levy**: Currently in committee, this connects to Chair's emphasis on **family-friendly housing** and school enrollment concerns. Housing and education policies are being **deliberately linked**. **Housing Levy implementation**: Previous housing levy provides **anti-displacement funding** that Chair wants to coordinate with new middle housing policies. ### Upcoming Milestones **July 2025**: Amendment submission deadline (estimated) **August 2025**: Second public hearing on amendments **September 2025**: Final council votes anticipated **January 2027**: State parking requirement changes take effect **July 2027**: Lot splitting administrative process required ### Cross-cutting Themes **Climate and equity integration**: Tree protection, transit access, and anti-displacement measures are being **packaged together** rather than treated as competing priorities. **Regional coordination**: King County buildable lands report and county-wide planning policies create **regional framework** that limits Seattle's autonomy while providing implementation flexibility. **State preemption trend**: Multiple references to state requirements (HB 1110, parking laws, lot splitting) indicate **declining local control** over housing policy, pushing debate toward implementation details rather than fundamental approaches.

### Budget Implications **Transportation Benefit District**: Current 0.15% sales tax generates frequent transit service. Maximum 0.3% available, suggesting **potential doubling** of transit investment to support growth strategy. **Development impact fees**: Sidewalk requirements for 10+ unit projects in neighborhood residential zones will **shift infrastructure costs** to private developers, reducing city capital needs while potentially increasing housing costs. **School district revenue**: Chair's emphasis on enrollment-based funding suggests **fiscal benefits** from family housing development, creating **cross-departmental incentives** for implementation success. ### Procedural Insights **Environmental review constraints**: EIS scope limits create **procedural barriers** to major amendments while allowing boundary adjustments and design standard modifications. Supplemental EIS already funded for regional center planning. **County-wide planning policy compliance**: Regional and urban center designations must meet **specific criteria** including transit access, employment density, and development capacity. This creates **objective standards** for evaluating proposed changes. **Phased implementation strategy**: Separating center boundaries (Phase 1) from zoning details (Phase 2) allows **political pressure release** while maintaining technical coordination between comprehensive plan and development regulations. ### Implementation Challenges **Frequent transit definition confusion**: Different definitions for parking exemptions vs. growth strategy create **administrative complexity** and potential public confusion about transit service levels. **Alley access concerns**: Councilmember Kettle's questions about emergency vehicle access highlight **infrastructure capacity** issues that could require **additional development standards** or public investment. **Tree protection integration**: New points-based system for tree retention must **balance middle housing incentives** with urban canopy goals, requiring careful calibration of requirements and exemptions.