Seattle City Council rejects more density for affordable housing

The Seattle City Council has rejected a proposal that would allow nonprofits to build taller and larger developments if those projects included affordable housing or certain community spaces, an attempt to fight displacement as housing costs continue to soar across Seattle.

The council voted 7-2 against the measure. Only the bill’s sponsor, Councilmember Tammy Morales, and Councilmember Dan Strauss voted in favor.

Tuesday’s vote reflected new political dynamics on the council, where Morales is now in the minority after a rightward shift in last year’s council elections. Some new council members say the city should address zoning questions as part of its larger growth planning effort underway now, rather than in a standalone bill.

The proposal would have allowed nonprofits and developers partnering with nonprofits to build larger buildings than zoning codes currently allow if those developments included affordable housing or space for “equitable development uses” such as social services. Developers could tap additional density allowances in areas of the city where residents face a high risk of displacement or where covenants once excluded people of color. 

The bill would also have allowed qualifying projects to avoid design review and parking requirements, two regulations developers say add time and costs. The new rules would expire in 2029 or once 35 projects qualified, whichever came sooner.

For housing developments qualifying under the new rules, the bill would have required at least 30% of new homes to be affordable. 

Morales’ original proposal defined affordable rentals as affordable for people making 80% of area median income, about $71,000 for a single person or $91,000 for a family of three. After other council members objected, Morales proposed lowering that to 60% of area median income, or $57,500 for a single person, for studio and one-bedroom apartments and 80% of area median income for other units.

Morales urged her colleagues to back the proposal as a way to encourage more housing development without the need for new city dollars. Allowing more apartments in a single development typically translates to more revenue to help offset construction costs.

“This is how we address displacement in the city … by giving residents more affordable housing options,” Morales said.

While council members frequently agree the city needs more affordable housing, “we can’t just say that these things are important. As policymakers, our actions speak louder than words,” Morales said. 

Other council members offered an array of reasons for voting no, arguing that the council should require lower rents in the affordable units, extend the program citywide or spend more time fine-tuning the proposal.

Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, who voted no, argued that by encouraging partially market-rate development in diverse neighborhoods, the city would effectively be “making existing diverse neighborhoods whiter and wealthier.”

Councilmember Tanya Woo said the council should lower the affordability levels and “roll this out to the entire city.”

Representatives for affordable housing developers Habitat for Humanity and Bellwether Housing spoke in favor of the proposal Tuesday. The density allowances in the bill would make one of the nonprofit’s developments “much more financially feasible and I know this is true for projects around the city,” CEO Susan Boyd told council members. 

One policy alone won’t solve the city’s affordable housing shortage, but “we have to take it one step at a time … and the Connected Communities legislation is one of those efforts,” said Slayman Appadolo, a project coordinator for the Cham Refugees Community who supported the bill. His group hopes to build a community center and affordable housing on several properties the group owns in South Seattle. 

Other public commenters argued greater density would threaten the city’s tree canopy.

“The developments envisioned by this bill have no room for trees,” Sandy Shettler with Tree Action Seattle told council members Tuesday. Supporters argue greater density allows more people to live in smaller areas, preserving trees elsewhere and reducing the need for cars.

Before the council’s vote Tuesday, Strauss proposed an amendment to reduce the amount of additional density the bill would allow. Strauss said the amendment would better align Morales’ proposal with city rules already in place for religious institutions that want to build affordable housing. The majority of the council rejected that proposal.